Legal help needed from lane splitting accident

[Eng_dave]

So about a week ago had a bit of a ding whilest lane splitting on great Nrth rd, cars were stationary, lights turned green ahead of me and traffic started to move when a car cuts infront to move into a driveway. I slam on the breaks endo and end up putting my new helmet through her back door window. All said and done im okay, cops on the scene said they are going to play dumb and say they don't know who was to blame. Now I get a fine through saying it was my fault and "been found at fault for driving in an unavailable lane" :shit: Good news a charge of careless driving was considered but not deemed appropriate. Now whats my legal stand point on lane spliting /filtering is it ilegal? Casue i was riding well under the speed limit with due care and attention (the view of the car was blocked by a bus in the right hand lane.)


Anyone know?

[R6_kid]

draw a picture.

[Eng_dave]

draw a picture.


207948

Completely rubish paint skills but i'm on a latop.

[davereid]

Looks like she turned across your path. At the very least its murky, if you are in the left lane you are legal. Deny the charge, she turned across your path.

[Squiggles]

your bad. </10chars>

[Eng_dave]

Looks like she turned across your path. At the very least its murky, if you are in the left lane you are legal. Deny the charge, she turned across your path.

You know this for sure just its only $150, Its just more the injustice of it thats really pissing me off.

[Eng_dave]

your bad. </10chars>

OKay see now im getting confused! whats what?

[Eng_dave]

Is lane filtering legal!!!!! because thats kinda what they have done me for.

[Squiggles]

Is lane filtering legal!!!!! because thats kinda what they have done me for.

No, be more aware next time...

[sinned]

Is lane filtering legal!!!!! because thats kinda what they have done me for.
My guess is that lane filtering is only just barely legal and in your instance the cop is probably right in deciding that you were "driving in an unavailable lane". From a defensive riding perceptive you rode forward across a gap when your view was blocked by the bus. The question is if the view was not blocked by a bus and you saw the car entering the gap would you have continued? - the answer is obvious - no you would have stopped or not moved forward. The lane was not available as there were vehicles standing in the lane while a vehicle crossed it.

Put this one down to experience and filter more carefully.

[Eng_dave]

Cheers guys guess i cough up and put this whole thing down to experience.

[quickbuck]

Cheers guys guess i cough up and put this whole thing down to experience.

Yup,
A hard lesson, but at least you walked away from this one.....

Not totally sure, as in your words the drawing is rubbish, but I'm guessing the car drivers had a communication thing going on with the car turning right.
Then you come along and stuff up their little act of kindness....
OR, they realised it would be a little arrogant to block a drive way somebody might want to use.... like that car with it's indicator on.

Yes, be careful when splitting. You have to ride for BOTH lanes you are splitting, not just ride the while line.....

Ride safe.

[phill-k]

Trouble is if you cough you are then admitting you were at fault - you will be up for both your and her insurance excess, write in and say she attempted to cross your path as you were moving off through the traffic lights, send your diagram and see what happens.

[kave]

If the two cars you were passing between were stationary then you were behaving in a completely legal manner. You got caught out by something you should have seen coming and you in my opinion are at fault, but if those two cars were stationary then legally she should be considered in the wrong. You are allowed to pass stationary vehicles on both the left and the right, lanesplitting stationary traffic is generally referred to as filtering and is legal.

[Max Preload]

The lane wasn't unavailable and what you were doing is technically lawful as the other vehicles were stopped. As a turning vehicle she failed to give way to a vehicle going straight through [Land Transport (Road User) Rule 4.2(2)] (http://tinyurl.com/2cgos5h). It was up to her to see you and give way, not up to you to see her. She proceeded to turn across oncoming traffic without clear visibility.

I'd fight it.


I'm guessing the car drivers had a communication thing going on with the car turning right.

The technical onus remains on her regardless. But as someone else mentioned this is a scenario to be aware of.

[PeeJay]

So about a week ago had a bit of a ding whilest lane splitting on great Nrth rd, cars were stationary, lights turned green ahead of me and traffic started to move when a car cuts infront to move into a driveway. I slam on the breaks endo and end up putting my new helmet through her back door window. All said and done im okay, cops on the scene said they are going to play dumb and say they don't know who was to blame. Now I get a fine through saying it was my fault and "been found at fault for driving in an unavailable lane" :shit: Good news a charge of careless driving was considered but not deemed appropriate. Now whats my legal stand point on lane spliting /filtering is it ilegal? Casue i was riding well under the speed limit with due care and attention (the view of the car was blocked by a bus in the right hand lane.)


Anyone know?



I would be wary about admitting anything. Next thing her insurance company will be all over you for the full cost of repairs.
And whats this driving in an unavailable lane bs?
It must have been available, you were in it and so was a car.
From a motorcycling perspective I would say its your fault for not keeping your eyes open and wondering why the cars around you werent moving when the ones in front had moved. But this is about the law. She has obviously turned across the lanes without ensuring the way is clear. Saying she didnt see you because her view was blocked by the car to your right is no defence.
I would ask a lawyer.
Maybe she could blame the cars that stopped for allowing her to turn?

[dangerous]

you fucked up, wana split... then pay the price. How was it possable for the turning cage to have knowen you were there? the last thing they would have expected was a 3rd vehical in two lanes.

Now splitting is ONLY legal if A) riding on the left of a deviding line
B) if right indercator is on.

Im a southern red neck ok, so down here there is no need to split, but I have done many a km up north and do relise why you do split.
IMO is not a good thing to do, but if you do you shuld be crewling at the fastest, which means no chance of going over the bars.
It wont be long before it is made ilegal due to those abusing the splitting rule.

flame away...

[bogan]

seems to be her fault, cos you are allowed to split through the middle if traffic is stopped, gets a bit more hazy if they are moving though. Failure to give way. But for gods sake whatever you do, don't take advice soley from the bush lawyers on here :bleh:

[Clivoris]

This might be a little picky but if you hit her "back" window, it sounds like you hit her. It would seem to place the onus on you to avoid a vehicle that would have assumed right of way as the 2 vehicles she could see were giving way.

[Mully]

I think it comes down to whether the cars were moving. Obviously they weren't (they were waiting for her to cross) so filtering is legal (if a little unwise if you knew the lane was about to move off)

I think it's a grey area.

What are your options for appealing? Court??

EDIT: On second thought, they might ping you for "failure to stop in the length of road visable" too if you argue it.

Maybe go have a chat to a lawyer at CAB to see what they think. God knows you'll get 50 answers on here.

[Owl]

207948

Completely rubish paint skills but i'm on a latop.

I don't know the legalities of this situation, but I'm pretty much that car every day.

Often right lane traffic stop to let me cross, but you usually can't see left lane traffic (or splitters), therefore unsafe to turn. I usually opt for a different route, or do a U-turn further up the road with less traffic. It's only another 60 seconds from my day.

I think you should be more careful and she should've taken safer measures! Glad you're ok though!

[PeeJay]

This might be a little picky but if you hit her "back" window, it sounds like you hit her. It would seem to place the onus on you to avoid a vehicle that would have assumed right of way as the 2 vehicles she could see were giving way.

This is it, she didnt have the right of way, the fact that the 2 vehicles she can see have stopped and "invited" her to cross doesnt change the fact that she doesnt have the right of way. The onus is still on her to ensure the way is clear and she can turn safely.
Of course the mitigating circumstance is a motorcycle suddenly appearing from between the cars.
The motorcyclist may have displayed poor roadcraft but if he wasnt breaking the law with his overtaking manouver, then it should be on the turning car.
If the car on the left had got sick of waiting and decided to drive off and the lady then turned her car across the lanes and they collided who do you think would get the ticket? same difference

[quickbuck]

From a motorcycling perspective I would say its your fault for not keeping your eyes open and wondering why the cars around you werent moving when the ones in front had moved.

So true....
I learnt a long time ago that it doesn't matter who's in the wrong, a 44 tonne Scannia will still stuff you over!

[Clivoris]

This is it, she didnt have the right of way, the fact that the 2 vehicles she can see have stopped and "invited" her to cross doesnt change the fact that she doesnt have the right of way. The onus is still on her to ensure the way is clear.

One of the points I'm trying to make is that when she entered the area, the way was clear. The rider hit the rear of the car.

[The Pastor]

i'd fight it myself, but not for $150

[p.dath]

The legal section of the Wiki will contain almost everything you want to know.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/Category:Motorcycle_Laws

If your only being given a ticket for "driving in an unavailable lane" I wouldn't put much effort into it. That's pretty minor. You may find the other party has also been given a ticket. It's quite possible for both or neither party to be found at fault.

[neels]

i'd fight it myself, but not for $150
Yes, but it may not be just for $150, if you have to pay your insurance excess and lose no claims bonus.

It's a bit murky because basic driving laws state that turning traffic gives way to straight through traffic, and it is legal to pass on the right if you can stay in your lane. The fact that the car drivers were being charitable and letting her turn right does not mean she has right of way.

[Katman]

Car drivers do not expect motorcyclists to appear out of nowhere, from a position within a lane that they've identified another vehicle legally occupying.

If you're going to lane split, wear the consequences if things turn to shit.

And, as has already been said, since the motorcyclist hit the car in the rear side window the turn was well under way before the motorcyclist happened along.

[dangerous]

It's a bit murky because basic driving laws state that turning traffic gives way to straight through traffic, and it is legal to pass on the right if you can stay in your lane. The fact that the car drivers were being charitable and letting her turn right does not mean she has right of way.While technically correct... 90% of cagers would not consider a bike splitting, hence it is most likely to end in tears, so if ya have to do it, expect the worse, and pay the price.

[oldrider]

This might be a little picky but if you hit her "back" window, it sounds like you hit her. It would seem to place the onus on you to avoid a vehicle that would have assumed right of way as the 2 vehicles she could see were giving way.

In my humble opinion.

I reckon Clivoris is pretty close there!

Then if you consider the old travelling at a speed where you can stop in half the clear distance ahead, you are probably the errant party!

Shit happens sometimes! :shit: Good luck!

[The Pastor]

Car drivers do not expect motorcyclists to appear out of nowhere, from a position within a lane that they've identified another vehicle legally occupying.

If you're going to lane split, wear the consequences if things turn to shit.

And, as has already been said, since the motorcyclist hit the car in the rear side window the turn was well under way before the motorcyclist happened along.

naaa i'd agree its an accepted risk for lane splitting, but its legally the car drivers fault.

[scumdog]

Yup,
A hard lesson, but at least you walked away from this one.....

Not totally sure, as in your words the drawing is rubbish, but I'm guessing the car drivers had a communication thing going on with the car turning right.
Then you come along and stuff up their little act of kindness....
OR, they realised it would be a little arrogant to block a drive way somebody might want to use.... like that car with it's indicator on.

Yes, be careful when splitting. You have to ride for BOTH lanes you are splitting, not just ride the while line.....

Ride safe.

This guy summed it up perfectly --- just be alert.

The world need more lerts..

[marty]

it's not 'riding in an unavailable lane', but imho, you're screwed. I doubt whether you'd get sympathy from a JP, you should have been eyes up and looking for ANYTHING moving or possibly a threat (a car sitting in the cross-hatched centre lane would be a clue they are going to turn across). I think you're lucky to get away without Careless Driving. I doubt the car driver would wear fault - all she needs to say is 'there was 2 lanes of traffic, stopped, they both waved me through - I looked and could not see anything coming so I crossed. I did not expect to see a bike coming through undertaking (no pun intended) a marginally legal manouvre'



Contents (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM302188.html?search=ts_regulation_transport_rese l&p=1)
› Part 2 Roads (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303039.html?search=ts_regulation_transport_rese l&p=1)

2.6 General requirements about passing other vehicles

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction unless—


(a) the movement can be made with safety; and



(b) the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; and



(c) sufficient clear road is visible to the driver for the passing movement to be completed without impeding or being likely to impede any possible opposing traffic; and

(d) until the passing movement is completed, the driver has a clear view of the road and any traffic on the road for at least 100 m in the direction in which the driver is travelling





.8 Passing on left



(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the left of another vehicle moving in the same direction except in accordance with this clause.

(2) In any case in which the movement referred to subclause (1) may be made,—

(a) the 2 vehicles must be in different lanes; or



(b) the overtaken vehicle must be stationary or its driver must have given or be giving the prescribed signal of that driver's intention to turn right; or



(c) if the overtaken vehicle is a light rail vehicle moving in the same direction, the light rail vehicle must not be—

(i) signalling an intention to turn left or to stop; or



(ii) stationary for the purposes of allowing passengers to alight or board.




(3) If the roadway is marked in lanes, the driver may make the movement referred in subclause (1) only if the driver's vehicle does not encroach on a lane that is unavailable to a driver.






Contents (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM302188.html?search=ts_regulation_transport_rese l&p=1)
› Part 5 Limits (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303082.html?search=ts_regulation_transport_rese l&p=1)

5.9 Stopping and following distances

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.

[Max Preload]

EDIT: On second thought, they might ping you for "failure to stop in the length of road visable" too if you argue it.

No, that doesn't apply when the vehicle you hit should have given way.


This might be a little picky but if you hit her "back" window, it sounds like you hit her. It would seem to place the onus on you to avoid a vehicle that would have assumed right of way as the 2 vehicles she could see were giving way.

The other vehicles were not giving way - they were just doing what they're obligated to do - not entering an intersection when their path across it or exit from it is blocked by stationary vehicles.


How was it possable for the turning cage to have knowen you were there? the last thing they would have expected was a 3rd vehical in two lanes.

It wasn't possible - and that's the point. She couldn't see, she shouldn't have gone.


One of the points I'm trying to make is that when she entered the area, the way was clear. The rider hit the rear of the car.

No, she ASSUMED there were no vehicles coming. She should not have gone if she could not see.


While technically correct... 90% of cagers would not consider a bike splitting, hence it is most likely to end in tears, so if ya have to do it, expect the worse, and pay the price.

The only person that need pay any price is the person who went despite not being able to see if there were any vehicles coming. Maybe then they'll learn to consider more possibilities and become better drivers.

[scumdog]

you fucked up, wana split... then pay the price. How was it possable for the turning cage to have knowen you were there?..

True.

"I couldn't see a bike comeing - so there couldn't have been one eh??"

SOMEBODY is going to end up in tears if they follow that line of thought.

[Max Preload]

2.6 General requirements about passing other vehicles

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction unless—


(a) the movement can be made with safety; and



(b) the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; and



(c) sufficient clear road is visible to the driver for the passing movement to be completed without impeding or being likely to impede any possible opposing traffic; and

(d) until the passing movement is completed, the driver has a clear view of the road and any traffic on the road for at least 100 m in the direction in which the driver is travelling

The vehicles being passed were not moving.

[Eng_dave]

I would be wary about admitting anything. Next thing her insurance company will be all over you for the full cost of repairs.
And whats this driving in an unavailable lane bs?
It must have been available, you were in it and so was a car.
From a motorcycling perspective I would say its your fault for not keeping your eyes open and wondering why the cars around you werent moving when the ones in front had moved. But this is about the law. She has obviously turned across the lanes without ensuring the way is clear. Saying she didnt see you because her view was blocked by the car to your right is no defence.
I would ask a lawyer.
Maybe she could blame the cars that stopped for allowing her to turn?

All right so i haven't done anything yet but i know she has no insurance and im fully comp so if i do pay up do i still get charged.

[dangerous]

naaa i'd agree its an accepted risk for lane splitting, but its legally the car drivers fault. only if they were NOT indercating and ONLY if Eng_dave WAS on the left of the line AND indercating.




The only person that need pay any price is the person who went despite not being able to see if there were any vehicles coming. Maybe then they'll learn to consider more possibilities and become better drivers. correct... you are talking about Eng_dave... right.

[marty]

The vehicles being passed were not moving.


actually, he said lights turned green ahead of me and traffic started to move . that was a clue for me

i was cut and pasting the legislation so others could be properly informed (a concept many on here are unfamiliar with)

there's always this if the cars were stopped at a pedestrian crossing >>>

Passing at school crossing point or pedestrian crossings



A driver must not pass or attempt to pass a vehicle that has stopped or slowed down at a school crossing point or pedestrian crossing in order to comply with clause 3.9 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/link.aspx?search=ts_regulation_transport_resel&p=1&id=DLM303069#DLM303069) or subclause 10.1(1).

Compare: SR 1976/227 r 12(2) (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/link.aspx?search=ts_regulation_transport_resel&p=1&id=DLM50859#DLM50859)

[MarkH]

207948

I don't believe it is illegal to filter passed stationary traffic but from reading this thread all the way through it is my opinion that both drivers were at fault. Lane splitting without taking enough care, especially when going passed a bus which restricts your visibility - that would be the mistake you made. Turning without being able to see passed the bus to be sure that there were no other vehicles to give way to would be here mistake.

So yeah, both at fault.

[Eng_dave]

nope no pedestrian crossing in sight or intersection, was private driveway.

[marty]

yeah your picture indicated that. was there a crossing at the front of the cars? how far was the front of the que? how fast were the cars that you were overtaking going? which lane were you actually in? overtaking on the left or overtaking on the right? what would you have done if, while you were overtaking, a dog or child ran through a gap in the traffic, and you were going too fast to stop in time? who's fault would that have been?

[Eng_dave]

yeah your picture indicated that. was there a crossing at the front of the cars? how far was the front of the que? how fast were the cars that you were overtaking going? which lane were you actually in? overtaking on the left or overtaking on the right? what would you have done if, while you were overtaking, a dog or child ran through a gap in the traffic, and you were going too fast to stop in time? who's fault would that have been?

I was only going 20k max, about 10 meters to the lights. I'm not saying moraly I'm not at fault and everything. But the police on the scene and both my self and the other driver realised we were both to blame. But I find it harsh that its been one week after the fat with no other consultation or forward i recieve a fine and notice. So im wondering what my legal stand point is.

[Mom]

Pay the fine and be grateful you were not more badly injured and or charged for your behaviour. In your opening post you say...

"So about a week ago had a bit of a ding whilest lane splitting on great Nrth rd, cars were stationary, lights turned green ahead of me and traffic started to move..."

Sure, filter to the head of the queue when the traffic is stopped, but once it starts moving you should be joining back into the flow, not cruising up the middle.

[Eng_dave]

yes, but not the veichles i was next to usually i use the flow of traffic to mearge back into a lane which is hard to do with stationary vehicles. I have no problem paying the fine and of cause am very aware of how lucky i'am to get out of that with hardly any injury.

[Katman]

I was only going 20k max, about 10 meters to the lights. I'm not saying moraly I'm not at fault and everything. But the police on the scene and both my self and the other driver realised we were both to blame. But I find it harsh that its been one week after the fat with no other consultation or forward i recieve a fine and notice. So im wondering what my legal stand point is.

20kph max?

And yet the vehicle got across in front of you sufficiently that you hit the rear of the car with enough force to throw you over the bars?

Do you remember where your brakes are?

[TOTO]

Bike is at fault. both other vehicles have given way to the car crossing your path. Its hard to accept, but it is your responsibility to be safe if you are doing "grey area" maneuvres.

[Motig]

Regardless of the rights or wrongs in this case if I was the car driver I certainly wouldn't be expecting a 3rd vehicle to appear between 2 lanes of traffic stopped and indicating I could cross in front of them.

[Eng_dave]

20kph max?

And yet the vehicle got across in front of you sufficiently that you hit the rear of the car with enough force to throw you over the bars?

Do you remember where your brakes are?

Yes didn't leave the bike endoed Up on front wheel the fact i hit her back window was more indicative of her speed cutting across than mine.

[bluebird]

I have seen this happen a lot especially in Dominion rd at rush hour with scooters using the bus lane. They are allowed to but..... you really have to go so slowly when doing this, it's so fu**n' dangerous. The outside lane is safer, or watch for the gaps between cars that can take a car moving through them, if they can they will. But yes get a lawyer and fight it, the cops are blunt instruments, they mostly mean well but are usually either thick, inexperienced or just lazy.

[CookMySock]

Don't fight the $150 ticket - it's not worth it. The cops will turn septic on you real quick and they'll start talking about the careless driving charge again.

Put the other driver in small claims court for your damages, especially if these costs are substantial.

Steve

[scumdog]

Yes didn't leave the bike endoed Up on front wheel the fact i hit her back window was more indicative of her speed cutting across than mine.

Or your slow reactions...

You were riding and 'assuming' too much and thought everybody would do as you would prefer/like to be

Keep riding like that and your riding career may be shorter than you planned.....

[Mully]

Skidmark would have stopped in time....

What does your insurance company say?

Reading more through the thread I'd just pay the fine and accept that you maybe got treated a bit harshly. There's probably been times when you deserved $150 worth of fine (running an orange light, or such) and got away with it.

Take the shot to the chin, learn from it, don't do it again and move on. Motorcycling 101.

[Eng_dave]

Or your slow reactions...

You were riding and 'assuming' too much and thought everybody would do as you would prefer/like to be

Keep riding like that and your riding career may be shorter than you planned.....


Like alot of riders I try to always keep my mind open and ready for the unexpected but seriously from the moment of seeing the front of the car to impact there was about 3meters of road. I also find the above comment to be nothing more than insulting. Cheers too and for the helpfull lot.

[Squiggles]

from the moment of seeing the front of the car to impact there was about 3meters of road.

Should be able to stop from 90k in that!

[Ixion]

Lane splitting is dangerous .stick to the footpath its much safer

[yachtie10]

To me there is no argument
The car failed to give way
For those who say they wouldn't expect a motorbike to be there. you would be in the wrong.
think of it this way if a cyclist was going down the left hand side and this happened do you think the car driver would get any sympathy?

Im not saying the motorcyclist couldn't have done better but the car shouldn't have gone if they couldn't see clearly

I have been in a similar case (the exception is I wasn't splitting I was overtaking) and the car driver was charged with failure to give way and I was told I had no fault

my guess is they are charging you with a technicality based on a witness or you own statement. In which case you may have to pay it.
Talk to a lawyer

[Ragingrob]

To me there is no argument
The car failed to give way
For those who say they wouldn't expect a motorbike to be there. you would be in the wrong.
think of it this way if a cyclist was going down the left hand side and this happened do you think the car driver would get any sympathy?

Im not saying the motorcyclist couldn't have done better but the car shouldn't have gone if they couldn't see clearly

I have been in a similar case (the exception is I wasn't splitting I was overtaking) and the car driver was charged with failure to give way and I was told I had no fault

my guess is they are charging you with a technicality based on a witness or you own statement. In which case you may have to pay it.
Talk to a lawyer

After pretty much reading none of this thread I think this comment has merit...

It's like the argument where a car turns in front of a speeding bike. The bike's breaking the law speeding, however the car's breaking the law by not giving way... Who's to blame?

[CookMySock]

It's like the argument where a car turns in front of a speeding bike. The bike's breaking the law speeding, however the car's breaking the law by not giving way... Who's to blame?Obviously the car driver was very surprised to see the bike there, and doubly so for the biker, but the car was on the wrong side of the road and did fail to give way. It's pretty clear.

Steve

[Ragingrob]

Obviously the car driver was very surprised to see the bike there, and doubly so for the biker, but the car was on the wrong side of the road and did fail to give way. It's pretty clear.

Steve

Case solved then?

[Max Preload]

correct... you are talking about Eng_dave... right.

Nope. Eng_dave had right of way regardless of whether he was visible to the other vehicle or not. If you're meant to give way, as the car was, and can't see, and cut someone off as a result, you're in the wrong.


actually, he said lights turned green ahead of me and traffic started to move . that was a clue for me

Except that if the cars he was passing moved then they'd have hit the car that was supposed to give way too... or the car would have stopped.


what would you have done if, while you were overtaking, a dog or child ran through a gap in the traffic, and you were going too fast to stop in time? who's fault would that have been?

It still wouldn't have been eng_dave's fault. Dogs and children don't have right of way over him either.


Bike is at fault. both other vehicles have given way to the car crossing your path. Its hard to accept, but it is your responsibility to be safe if you are doing "grey area" maneuvres.

Absolutely wrong. The other vehicles weren't giving way. They were leaving a gap to permit the car to proceed if it was safe to do so. It wasn't safe - the car driver couldn't see if there were vehicles they must give way to approaching.


Obviously the car driver was very surprised to see the bike there, and doubly so for the biker, but the car was on the wrong side of the road and did fail to give way. It's pretty clear.

Exactly. Like I said, I'd fight it. What eng_dave did was silly, but not strictly illegal. The only person that should be issued a ION or TON is the car driver that failed to give way.

[dangerous]

Nope. Eng_dave had right of way regardless of whether he was visible to the other vehicle or not. If you're meant to give way, as the car was, and can't see, and cut someone off as a result, you're in the wrong. I KNOW... i was taking the piss from your post, you left it wide open.
My point being...
how awesome would it be to end up dead but knowing you were in the right... why take the risk?

[marty]

I KNOW... i was taking the piss from your post, you left it wide open.
My point being...
how awesome would it be to end up dead but knowing you were in the right... why take the risk?

and that's it in a nutshell folks. it's like a pedestrian stepping out onto a crossing - he has right of way - but fuck trying to prove it.

[CookMySock]

Case solved then?What is your opinion?

Steve

[Katman]

It's like the argument where a car turns in front of a speeding bike. The bike's breaking the law speeding, however the car's breaking the law by not giving way... Who's to blame?

What if a vehicle pulls out of a driveway a certain distance down the road from a blind corner that, if taken at 100kph would allow sufficient time to slow or stop safely but instead, the corner is taken at 160kph?

[CookMySock]

What if a vehicle pulls out of a driveway a certain distance down the road from a blind corner that, if taken at 100kph would allow sufficient time to slow or stop safely but instead, the corner is taken at 160kph?The nature of NZ roads is that it's nearly impossible to 100% be able to stop everywhere. NZ road users seem to have this unwritten understanding that they should not put anything on the road at the critical exit of a corner, as eventually (if not very quickly) some unsuspecting motorist will pop around the corner at or around the legal speed limit and collect said obstacle on the full.

Yeah yeah, the law says you must be able to stop, but I suggest the reality is actually quite different, where the habit of out-driving our stopping distance is now part of our road culture.

I agree that at 160km/hr all bets are off, and so they should be. That is just asking for trouble. But at the legal speedlimit the risks are still there. I do not see a tenable solution for it - not everyone is going to slow down so they are 100% safe on every blind corner - they just wont do that. Some already do, and that's what they do. Others insist on outriding their corners and providing another safety net should they have an issue - and that is being able to take massive evasive action.

Horses for courses. Do as you like. It's a free country.


Steve

[meteor]

I reckon that she's at fault. Road code says she has to give way to all oncoming traffic if she wishes to turn across it. You are legally allowed to overtake stationary traffic so long as you don't exceed the speed limit or go over the centreline without 100 mtrs clear visability throughout the movement. I'd write into the Police Infringement Bureau and refer them to the relevant sections of the road code and Road User Rule in relation to turning. Also have a look at some case law online at brookers and you might find that the lane you were using was in fact available.

Next step is the insurance issue... she'll be asking you to pay... fight it! Did she get a ticket too for failing to Give way when turning (other vehicle not turning)

[Max Preload]

I KNOW... i was taking the piss from your post, you left it wide open.
My point being...
how awesome would it be to end up dead but knowing you were in the right... why take the risk?

I've already conceded eng_dave could have done things differently from a self-preservation aspect, but that doesn't negate the car driver's responsibility, in law, for the crash.

[Jonno.]

The police found no one at fault and gave you a fine.

Don't make this poor lady pay for your lack of awareness.

[RUSS]

Ha, they used the wrong offence becuase they couldn'r be bothered doing a prosecution file for careless driving.

[Pixie]

My understanding of "lane not available for use" is it applies to painted medians, emergency lanes and shoulders.
You were in a lane that was in use and were passing on the right of stopped vehicles which is allowed,you did nothing wrong.Fight the infringement notice.
Write a letter stating what I have written in this post.

[Pixie]

you fucked up, wana split... then pay the price. How was it possable for the turning cage to have knowen you were there? the last thing they would have expected was a 3rd vehical in two lanes.

Now splitting is ONLY legal if A) riding on the left of a deviding line
B) if right indercator is on.

Im a southern red neck ok, so down here there is no need to split, but I have done many a km up north and do relise why you do split.
IMO is not a good thing to do, but if you do you shuld be crewling at the fastest, which means no chance of going over the bars.
It wont be long before it is made ilegal due to those abusing the splitting rule.

flame away...

I don't flame illiterates

[Maha]

You failed to stop...end of story.
Unless you want to write in and explain exactly (in your own words) what you were doing/why you beleive you should not pay a cent and the cop got it wrong.
Worked for me.

[scumdog]

I don't flame illiterates

He's not illiterate, it's Dangerese, learn to use it and get with the times..

[marty]

My understanding of "lane not available for use" is it applies to painted medians, emergency lanes and shoulders.
You were in a lane that was in use and were passing on the right of stopped vehicles which is allowed,you did nothing wrong.Fight the infringement notice.
Write a letter stating what I have written in this post.

as i said 32 pages ago.

he has not however, confirmed if the traffic was moving (i suspect it was) - except for the the cars stopping to let the lady across the road - and whether he was undertaking on the left, or overtaking on the right (i suspect undertaking on the left)

i believe she was entitled to move across the lane, given the room given by the other drivers. she could hardly give way to someone/something that she could not see, nor should expect to see.

the OP is not guilty of 'driving in an unavailable lane' there is no doubt of that. possibly of careless driving, or overtaking without 100m clear viz, or overtaking on the left (same lane) though.

[Max Preload]

as i said 32 pages ago.

he has not however, confirmed if the traffic was moving (i suspect it was) - except for the the cars stopping to let the lady across the road - and whether he was undertaking on the left, or overtaking on the right (i suspect undertaking on the left)

In which case it's a passing when prohibited (but only if the vehicle he was overtaking was moving AND he was in the same lane but to it's left - if it was stopped it's not an offence).


i believe she was entitled to move across the lane, given the room given by the other drivers. she could hardly give way to someone/something that she could not see, nor should expect to see.

No way. Under no circumstances is she is entitled to cross opposing lanes of traffic if she cannot see to make sure the way is clear. Ever.


the OP is not guilty of 'driving in an unavailable lane' there is no doubt of that. possibly of careless driving, or overtaking without 100m clear viz, or overtaking on the left (same lane) though.

Careless would be a stretch. 100m doesn't apply - he never crossed the centreline. But she did... although not in the process of overtaking.

I'd still like to know if she was issued an offence notice. If not, that's completely fucked up.

[marty]

funny thing is, i don't really give a fuck who was at fault. it's not my problem.

[Max Preload]

funny thing is, i don't really give a fuck who was at fault. it's not my problem.

You're doing a lot of posting on it for someone who doesn't give a fuck about it. :scratch:

I do give a fuck about it because she should be taught it's not ok to turn across opposing lanes if you can't fucking well see. What she did should be a 28-day roadside license suspension and mandatory resitting of her license (theory and practical). Just as with anyone who causes a crash between vehicles.

[dangerous]

He's not illiterate, it's Dangerese, learn to use it and get with the times.. yeah well my reading/spelling ability or there part lack of... really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so I moved on past that wasted post.




You're doing a lot of posting on it for someone who doesn't give a fuck about it. :scratch:

I do give a fuck about it because she should be taught it's not ok to turn across opposing lanes if you can't fucking well see. you might find Marty has wiped a few messes up of the road in the past messes that were in the right and wrong, you miss his point.

your second statment is floored aswell... NO one other than 'some' bikers would have considered a 3rd vechical, after all its a TWO lane road. Most accos happen cos drivers AND riders THOUGHT they could see and the way was clear, blind spots and all that.

Seems to me those wanting to hang the cage driver all filter/split and you are defending your actions. those suporting the cage driver like myself DONT split, Im lucky down here we dont have to, other wise I proberly would and even tho legal (if rules are followd) Id expect the worse and consider it my bad, you do have to think for every bastard out there.

[onearmedbandit]

Right or wrong, left or right, illegal or legal, it all doesn't matter at the end of the day. There are lessons to be learnt for both parties. For the driver of the car, never assume that the lane is clear, as there could be cyclists or motorcyclists lane splitting (it happens, deal with it). For the rider, never assume your way is clear when splitting. Spidey sense should be at max when splitting, you should not be thinking of anything else other than environment awareness.

[Max Preload]

yeah well my reading/spelling ability or there part lack of... really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so I moved on past that wasted post..

No use ignoring the problem.


you might find Marty has wiped a few messes up of the road in the past messes that were in the right and wrong, you miss his point..

That's of very little relevance. Like I've said before, I've already conceded that eng_dave could have done more in terms of self-preservation. More importantly the car driver could have done more with regard obeying the road rules. If turning give way to all traffic not turning.


your second statment is floored aswell... NO one other than 'some' bikers would have considered a 3rd vechical, after all its a TWO lane road. Most accos happen cos drivers AND riders THOUGHT they could see and the way was clear, blind spots and all that..

I think you mean flawed. But I digress. Anyone with a license should have considered that there could be something coming where they couldn't see that they're obliged to give way to. Therein lies the real source of our road toll - poor driving due to non-training and ignorance - not speeding. And I don't give a fuck if they THOUGHT the way was clear of vehicles they're obliged to give way to - that is absolutely no defense.

Just imagine a scenario on the open road at a cross road where she's turning right and an opposing lane logging truck is turning right. She can't see the bike passing the logging truck, on the left, as he is entitled to do, because the truck has indicated a right turn, and she goes and collects the bike in the L/F guard. Would you try to justify that too?


Seems to me those wanting to hang the cage driver all filter/split and you are defending your actions. those suporting the cage driver like myself DONT split, Im lucky down here we dont have to, other wise I proberly would and even tho legal (if rules are followd) Id expect the worse and consider it my bad, you do have to think for every bastard out there.

There's nothing to defend - it's not illegal. I simply believe shes not competent enough to be on the road because she goes even if she can't see. I don't like 'roll of the dice' driving.

[marty]

Just like anyone with a licence (and a lot more to lose than a rear window) should have thought - 'the lights are green - all the traffic's moving, except for these cars stopped here - I wonder what they have stopped for? Being courteous maybe? Nah - I'm in Auckland - that doesn't happen here - I'll just sail right through....'

[Brooke]

Stink, thing is if you were a cyclist on the far left, you probably wouldn't have seen her either being blocked by a car and a bus, what would happen then?

[Ixion]

Just like anyone with a licence (and a lot more to lose than a rear window) should have thought - 'the lights are green - all the traffic's moving, except for these cars stopped here - I wonder what they have stopped for? Being courteous maybe? Nah - I'm in Auckland - that doesn't happen here - I'll just sail right through....'

Very wise. And common sense. But the question was pertaining to the law, and since when ahs the law had anything to do with common sense, or wisdom. And the rider is under no legal obligation to do so

A wise and sensible rider would have thought as you indicate. So, if the question be, who is the greater pratt, or driver or rider, the answer must be 'the rider'. But if the question be (as it was in the OP), who is legally in the right (or wrong), then the answer must be that the rider is (probably- assuming all is as narrated) in the right, and the driver in the wrong.

[marty]

someone's already said it - it's all well and good being in the right - til you try and prove it. personally, i think it's shared responsibility, and as i have already said, it's NOT using an unavailable lane. it's not my place to advise on a course of action - that's what lawyers are for.

[Eng_dave]

Right or wrong, left or right, illegal or legal, it all doesn't matter at the end of the day. There are lessons to be learnt for both parties. For the driver of the car, never assume that the lane is clear, as there could be cyclists or motorcyclists lane splitting (it happens, deal with it). For the rider, never assume your way is clear when splitting. Spidey sense should be at max when splitting, you should not be thinking of anything else other than environment awareness.


I absolutley agree and always try do so, (this is one of those times were even riding with 100% concentrarion didn't help) I honestly believe we are both to blame on both parts, and have no objections to that. I'm not looking to apease my part in this only i find it unfair to be told sitting in the back of an ambulance that the police find neither of us at fault at the time. Only to be sitting at home a week later having been found guilty with no contact or conversation and a fine thrown in. I'm actually now more mad at the police than at my self or the other driver for having written of my baby.
:bye:

[Max Preload]

I absolutley agree and always try do so, (this is one of those times were even riding with 100% concentrarion didn't help) I honestly believe we are both to blame on both parts, and have no objections to that. I'm not looking to apease my part in this only i find it unfair to be told sitting in the back of an ambulance that the police find neither of us at fault at the time. Only to be sitting at home a week later having been found guilty with no contact or conversation and a fine thrown in. I'm actually now more mad at the police than at my self or the other driver for having written of my baby.
:bye:

You're not guilty until you pay the fine or lose in a defended hearing. To just pay the fine would be an injustice, especially if she wasn't issued one because she's the only one that actually did something she was not entitled to do.

Up to you if you want to roll over. I wouldn't.

[R-Soul]

Yes didn't leave the bike endoed Up on front wheel the fact i hit her back window was more indicative of her speed cutting across than mine.

No its not- her speed was transverse to yours, and would not have an effect on your forward momentum, nor the speed with which you hit her ewindow. I undertand that you hit her left rear side window, and not her rear window? (for Clivoris's sake?)

I think you are being less than honest about your speed. Having said that, she turned across your path and should have given way. She should not have gone without due caution. She clearly did not use due caution.

The only aspect is whether what you were doing was legal. If it was not, and she was being waved through, then you should never have right of way by breaking the law.

If your filtering was legal, then you have the right of way, and she should have given way.

I have seen explanation on this site that filtering is legal if
a) you were passing to teh right of a car in their lane
b) your indicator was on

I dont know how true these are. Does anybody have any actual refernces to the law here re passing in the same lane? The ones below were not relevant.

[Grubber]

You're doing a lot of posting on it for someone who doesn't give a fuck about it. :scratch:

I do give a fuck about it because she should be taught it's not ok to turn across opposing lanes if you can't fucking well see. What she did should be a 28-day roadside license suspension and mandatory resitting of her license (theory and practical). Just as with anyone who causes a crash between vehicles.

Think your way off the mark....She turned across a 2 lane road where there was 2 cars allowing her room. That in theory is all she should have to watch for as there is no third lane. If you lane split you need to be aware of these things and take your chances at the time. Me thinks bike is in the wrong as he was in fact not in a lane and between cars where he would not have been easily seen. Simple really!

[R-Soul]

If you pay the fine, you admit you were breaking the law, and leaves a gap for her lawyers to nail you for the costs of the accident. While breaking the law, you have no rights. Your insurance should pay for it (unless they refute the claim on the basis that you were insured on the basis that you road legally). But if they pay for it, you will have to pay the excess (ass its then your fault), and your premium may (read will) go up.

It all hinges on whether what you were doing was legal. Again, I have not seen any actual rules that state it is.

[R-Soul]

Think your way off the mark....She turned across a 2 lane road where there was 2 cars allowing her room. That in theory is all she should have to watch for as there is no third lane. If you lane split you need to be aware of these things and take your chances at the time. Me thinks bike is in the wrong as he was in fact not in a lane and between cars where he would not have been easily seen. Simple really!

Again, if the law ALLOWS for a bike to pass a car in the same lane, then she should, as a driver deemed to be aware of the road rules, have accounted for this possibility. And its commonsense that you dont just go, but look before you go.

But does the law allow it? if so, what clauses?

[GOONR]

Again, if the law ALLOWS for a bike to pass a car in the same lane, then she should, as a driver deemed to be aware of the road rules, have accounted for this possibility. And its commonsense that you dont just go, but look before you go.

But does the law allow it? if so, what clauses?

It depends on the lane he was in and / or if the traffic was stationary. Passing on the left (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303050.html#DLM303050) is legal if you are in a different lane or if the traffic is stationary.


Passing on left
(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the left of another vehicle moving in the same direction except in accordance with this clause.
(2) In any case in which the movement referred to subclause (1) may be made,—
(a) the 2 vehicles must be in different lanes; or
(b) the overtaken vehicle must be stationary or its driver must have given or be giving the prescribed signal of that driver's intention to turn right; or
(c) if the overtaken vehicle is a light rail vehicle moving in the same direction, the light rail vehicle must not be—
(i) signalling an intention to turn left or to stop; or
(ii) stationary for the purposes of allowing passengers to alight or board.
(3) If the roadway is marked in lanes, the driver may make the movement referred in subclause (1) only if the driver's vehicle does not encroach on a lane that is unavailable to a driver.
Compare: SR 1976/227 r 8(1)

[R-Soul]

General passing:

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction unless—
(a) the movement can be made with safety; and
(b) the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; and
(c) sufficient clear road is visible to the driver for the passing movement to be completed without impeding or being
likely to impede any possible opposing traffic; and
(d) until the passing movement is completed, the driver has a clear view of the road and any traffic on the road for at
least 100 m in the direction in which the driver is travelling.
(2) Subclause (1)(c) and (d) does not apply if the passing vehicle and the vehicle being passed are in different lanes and
are, throughout the passing movement, either on a one-way road or on the same side of the centre line.
(3) A driver must not, when passing another vehicle moving in the same direction, move into the line of passage of that
vehicle until the manoeuvre can be made safely and without impeding the movement of that other vehicle.

To my mind, clause 2 clearly envisages the idea that there can be passing where "the passing vehicle and the vehicle being passed" are NOT in "different lanes". But then sub clauses c) and d) apply. to my mind, this is fine, since you were not impeding opposing traffic - in THEIR LANE. They could argue that you did not have a "clear view of the road and any traffic on the road for at least 100 m in the direction" in which you were travelling. You can argue that you did, but were not expecting the car to pull out ayway.

2.7 Passing on right
A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the right of another vehicle moving in the same direction when—

(a) approaching or crossing an intersection unless—

(i) the roadway is marked in lanes and the driver can make the movement without the driver's vehicle encroaching on a lane available for opposing traffic; or

(ii) in any other case, the driver can make the movement with safety and with due consideration for users of the intersecting road; or

(b) approaching or passing a flush median, unless the driver—

(i) intends to turn right from the road marked with the flush median into another road or vehicle entrance; or

(ii) has turned right onto the road marked with the flush median; or

(iii) can make the entire movement without encroaching on the flush median.

You were not approaching an intersection, nor approaching a flush median. So you were entitkled to pass on the right.


Passing on the left

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the left of another vehicle moving in the same direction except in accordance with this clause.
(2) In any case in which the movement referred to subclause (1) may be made,—
(a) the 2 vehicles must be in different lanes; or
(b) the overtaken vehicle must be stationary or its driver must have given or be giving the prescribed signal of
that driver's intention to turn right; or
(c) if the overtaken vehicle is a light rail vehicle moving in the same direction, the light rail vehicle must not be—
(i) signalling an intention to turn left or to stop; or
(ii) stationary for the purposes of allowing passengers to alight or board.
(3) If the roadway is marked in lanes, the driver may make the movement referred in subclause (1) only if the driver's vehicle
does not encroach on a lane that is unavailable to a driver.


There is a question whther the vehicles were "moving". You can argue that you were in a different lane from the vehicle being opassed on the left (if you were), so 2b) and 2c) dont apply.
The roadway was marked in lanes, so there is aquestion as to whether your vehicle encroached on a lane that was "unavailable" to you.
Going on the general passing rule that apparently passing in the same lane is allowable, you could argue that the labne was not unavailable, and so 3) does not apply.
PS I have not seen any thing about indicators?

[GOONR]

.....PS I have not seen any thing about indicators?....

I guess that would be covered under Drivers Signals (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303071.html#DLM303071). It is vague with regards to splitting, as a motorbike doesn't necessarily need to move to the right to overtake.


A driver who intends to turn or move to the right or to draw out from a kerb on the left side of the vehicle must signal for at least 3 seconds either—
(a) by means of an approved signalling device; or

[MarkH]

The way I see it is the rider should have seen the gap ahead of the bus and the car to its left and slowed right down realising that the gap could be there for a reason and also that the bus represented an obvious vision hazard. The car driver failed to give way to the bike, but that is understandable considering she couldn't see it and with 2 out of 2 lanes giving way to her she could be forgiven for thinking the way was clear to safely turn.

The best result would be for all readers of this thread to learn a lesson from this and use a lot of caution in this sort of situation - looking for and being wary of gaps like the one that the car turned through in the OP. I am guessing that Eng_dave will be very wary of gaps in future, I hope others will also learn from his unfortunate lesson.

[GOONR]

The way I see it is the rider should have seen the gap ahead of the bus and the car to its left and slowed right down realising that the gap could be there for a reason and also that the bus represented an obvious vision hazard. The car driver failed to give way to the bike, but that is understandable considering she couldn't see it and with 2 out of 2 lanes giving way to her she could be forgiven for thinking the way was clear to safely turn.

The best result would be for all readers of this thread to learn a lesson from this and use a lot of caution in this sort of situation - looking for and being wary of gaps like the one that the car turned through in the OP. I am guessing that Eng_dave will be very wary of gaps in future, I hope others will also learn from his unfortunate lesson.

I agree with that, if I'm filtering/splitting alarm bells ring if I see a gap that a car might be able to get through. I used to use the transit lane down Onewa Rd every day, lots of side roads. I would always approach these with caution as sometimes you couldn't tell (cause there was a truck or whatever in the right hand lane) if a car was going to cut across your path heading into one of the side roads.

[MarkH]

I agree with that, if I'm filtering/splitting alarm bells ring if I see a gap that a car might be able to get through. I used to use the transit lane down Onewa Rd every day, lots of side roads. I would always approach these with caution as sometimes you couldn't tell (cause there was a truck or whatever in the right hand lane) if a car was going to cut across your path heading into one of the side roads.

Gaps on the motorway are also potential hazards - sometimes the car in the next lane decides to move over into the gap. They should indicate for at least 3 seconds first, so it shouldn't be a problem, but . .

[GOONR]

Gaps on the motorway are also potential hazards - sometimes the car in the next lane decides to move over into the gap. They should indicate for at least 3 seconds first, so it shouldn't be a problem, but . .

Yeah I watch out for those too, also when moving in to a gap in another lane and a car decides to go for it at the same time.

Anyway this is moving :Offtopic: I reckon that Eng_dave would have a hard time proving he was filtering / splitting within the legal definitions of overtaking.

I don't know how the law works on this, if he decided not to pay the fine, take it to court and IF he won could plod then decide to charge him for something else?

[Ixion]

Not normally. In this case the police have made a poor choice of what to charge him with. They always struggle with this, because none of the Road Rules really cover it. They are all based around cars, and we sneak through the little loop holes and interstices. The only thing that really covers it is careless driving (failure to give way is an obvious for her): but careless is rather harsh for the circumstances.

[MarkH]

Anyway this is moving :Offtopic:

Hey, if everyone reading this can't use it as an example to learn from so they don't end up in the same situation then what is the point of having this forum? This thread isn't just for the OPs benefit, it is for the benefit of all forum members reading it. Personally I'd rather learn from other peoples experiences than have to go through every misfortune myself!

As far as Eng_dave's current decision - If it were me I would pay the fine and shrug it off, it seems too much work to challenge it just for the sake of $150. Though maybe sending in a well worded letter could be worth trying - I wouldn't want to waste the time fighting this in court so if they replied with "tough titties, pay up" then I probably would just pay the fine.

[Tunahunter]

Good comment - the learning from this incident is that if you are proceeding adjacent to a line of stationery cars (legally or otherwise) and a gap appears - the gap is more likely for someone esle - why would it be for you? - be very watchful.

[MarkH]

Good comment - the learning from this incident is that if you are proceeding adjacent to a line of stationery cars (legally or otherwise) and a gap appears - the gap is more likely for someone esle - why would it be for you? - be very watchful.

That and also be very careful around buses, they are big and tend to obstruct the view of other hazards.

[GOONR]

Hey, if everyone reading this can't use it as an example to learn from so they don't end up in the same situation then what is the point of having this forum? This thread isn't just for the OPs benefit, it is for the benefit of all forum members reading it. Personally I'd rather learn from other peoples experiences than have to go through every misfortune myself!

As far as Eng_dave's current decision - If it were me I would pay the fine and shrug it off, it seems too much work to challenge it just for the sake of $150. Though maybe sending in a well worded letter could be worth trying - I wouldn't want to waste the time fighting this in court so if they replied with "tough titties, pay up" then I probably would just pay the fine.

The only reason that I mentioned it was going off topic is because "off topic" post's can be (not sure if they would be though) removed by the mods, that's all.

[Ducky848]

This is easy.

Fight it.

I got pinged a while back doing EXACTLY the same thing as the car driver in this situation.

I drove my cage in front of a car hurtling up the INSIDE of the stationary traffic in a single lane situation.

I got pinged careless cos I turned right and I did not give way. Made no difference that the straight ahead car should not have been there. Fair cop, I should have looked properly before hitting the gas.

[qwertydog]

Bikers are forced to ride to expect any situation and react accordingly because they dont have as much protection, why should it be any different just because cage drivers most likely won't get injured if they have a minor accident? Bikers have to ride cautiously, the driver should have been cautious and expected the worst

[sinned]

Bikers are forced to ride to expect any situation and react accordingly because they dont have as much protection, why should it be any different just because cage drivers most likely won't get injured if they have a minor accident? Bikers have to ride cautiously, the driver should have been cautious and expected the worst
How do you know the cage driver wasn't being cautious? Picture this - the cage driver can see the bus in the nearest lane and a car in the next, both drivers have left a gap and have probably indicated (wave, nod, look, etc) that they will wait for you the driver to cross in front, you move into the gap and as you pass the bus a motorcyclists helmet appears in the rear window. As the bus would have been obstructing your view of the gap between bus and car you would not have seen a bike filtering through and even if your speed was just 5km/hr you would have entered the path of the bike prior to viewing it. It seems to me the cops made the right decision.

[breakaway]

I think this is worth fighting - might be able to get a positive outcome still. Write into the police infringements beaureau and tell them you think they're full of shit yada yada. Their first response will be "na, we're right fool". After that, request every piece of information they have that led them to make this ruling under the privacy act. This will show them you're serious. Pays to have a well worded letter.

Worked for me.

[R-Soul]

How do you know the cage driver wasn't being cautious? Picture this - the cage driver can see the bus in the nearest lane and a car in the next, both drivers have left a gap and have probably indicated (wave, nod, look, etc) that they will wait for you the driver to cross in front, you move into the gap and as you pass the bus a motorcyclists helmet appears in the rear window. As the bus would have been obstructing your view of the gap between bus and car you would not have seen a bike filtering through and even if your speed was just 5km/hr you would have entered the path of the bike prior to viewing it. It seems to me the cops made the right decision.

Maybe based on stupidity, but not on law.