Legal advice - parking?

[j.c]

Hi guys, I need some advices here please.
I parked my bike on the side of road against road curb as usual, left at least 1.5 meter to the front car. The font car reversed back into my bike and pushed it over while I was in a shop. Both of us don't have insurance :sick:, so I took him to tribunal. The referee said I broked the road codes as the bike should be parked parallel to the road. Now he sent me back to do some more research on if there is examption for motorbike. I thought it is clearly the driver's fault not looking carefully, and my bike was in stationary.
Anyone can help and any thought about this case? thanks

[Ixion]

Land Transport Act Road User Rule 2004 S 6.13




(2) An all terrain
vehicle, a motorcycle, a moped, or a cycle may be parked otherwise
than parallel with the roadway if during the hours of darkness it
is sufficiently illuminated so as to be visible from at least 50 m.



Should be what you need

[Scuba_Steve]

I aint no lawyer but I would say the fact that it was his vehicle moving puts him in the wrong, but if you wanna find out about the parallel parking thing might be worth trying legislation.govt.nz

[j.c]

Thank you both, that was really helpful. I had a look on the legislation.govt.nz, found the clause. I guess city councils are encouraging motorbikes parked in an angle so it saves space for cars.

[Max Preload]

Thank you both, that was really helpful. I had a look on the legislation.govt.nz, found the clause. I guess city councils are encouraging motorbikes parked in an angle so it saves space for cars.

Councils don't have any direct say. Road User Rules are decided by the NZTA.

People that can't drive without hitting inanimate objects should have their licences sharpened and jammed up their fucking arses. Fuck they piss me off.

[j.c]

Councils don't have any direct say. Road User Rules are decided by the NZTA.

People that can't drive without hitting inanimate objects should have their licences sharpened and jammed up their fucking arses. Fuck they piss me off.

totally agree! i would be really pissed off i lose on this case.

[PirateJafa]

Also, motobikes are not always able to park parallel due to camber and angle of sidestands.

[Katman]

People that can't drive without hitting inanimate objects should have their licences sharpened and jammed up their fucking arses. Fuck they piss me off.

Another thing that fucks me off is the fact that JPs can disregard the letter of the law and instead make a ruling based on their warped idea of common sense.

[CookMySock]

Another thing that fucks me off is the fact that JPs can disregard the letter of the law and instead make a ruling based on their warped idea of common sense.They don't like their ruling turned over in the district court though.. egg on face etc etc, not a good look.

Steve

[SMOKEU]

Also, motobikes are not always able to park parallel due to camber and angle of sidestands.

That's exactly what I was going to say.

[EJT]

They don't like their ruling turned over in the district court though.. egg on face etc etc, not a good look.

Steve

Problem is they don't have to apply the law and you can't appeal unless you bring the law to their attention and they disregard it or they did something procedurally wrong - in other words forget it.

[Shadows]

Problem is they don't have to apply the law and you can't appeal unless you bring the law to their attention and they disregard it or they did something procedurally wrong - in other words forget it.

Correct. Should have got some insurance.

[CookMySock]

Problem is they don't have to apply the law and you can't appeal unless you bring the law to their attention and they disregard it or they did something procedurally wrong...I am surprised to hear that ignorance is a defense on their part. It'd be nice of that worked for me as I have heaps of it. :lol:

Steve

[Eyegasm]

I am surprised to hear that ignorance is a defense on their part. It'd be nice of that worked for me as I have heaps of it. :lol:

Steve

And it's not the only thing your full of either...

[breakaway]

j.c., any update on the situation?

[davereid]

Both of us don't have insurance :sick:

Get yourself insurance, even if only third party with a reputable company. Many NZ insurance companies will pay out on damage to your vehicle even on a third party policy if you can identify the at-fault driver.

In this case, your third party insurer would have repaired your vehicle for you.

[j.c]

j.c., any update on the situation?
thank you all. I am still putting everything together at this stage, will dig in the library in the weekend see if i can find some legal cases about this situation. will post the result up once i have this sorted out, may take a while though as the tribunal is alway busy.

[Usarka]

Im actually surprised that we're supposed to park parrarrallellel. I've always parked on an angel.

[rustyrobot]

I've always parked on an angel.

I bet that makes god REALLY mad.

[j.c]

Im actually surprised that we're supposed to park parrarrallellel. I've always parked on an angel.
however, clause 6.13 record motorcycle MAY park at angle, that leaves everything in mud water.

[Ragingrob]

however, clause 6.13 record motorcycle MAY park at angle, that leaves everything in mud water.

Seems pretty clear to me, bikes can park at an angle, done.

[j.c]

finally, after 7 months, my dispute tribunal claim has been declind!! :angry::angry:
The referee thinks it favours to the car driver because the height of the my motor bike is lower than the bottom of car rear window, therefore the driver can't see my bike.
He has no liability over this at all.
Motorbike is legal to park at angle with due care!

[cowboyz]

finally, after 7 months, my dispute tribunal claim has been declind!! :angry::angry:
The referee thinks it favours to the car driver because the height of the my motor bike is lower than the bottom of car rear window, therefore the driver can't see my bike.
He has no liability over this at all.
Motorbike is legal to park at angle with due care!

what an absoute load of shite!

[PirateJafa]

finally, after 7 months, my dispute tribunal claim has been declind!! :angry::angry:
The referee thinks it favours to the car driver because the height of the my motor bike is lower than the bottom of car rear window, therefore the driver can't see my bike.
He has no liability over this at all.
Motorbike is legal to park at angle with due care!

Awesome! Now it's legal for me to drive over babies and toddlers!

[Slyer]

I'm pretty sure the road code states that if you can't see what is behind you, you are required to get out and look.
I can't see anyone hitting ANY stationary object and not having it be their fault...

[PirateJafa]

Jafa says (2:52 p.m.):
Logical thing for him now to do.
Jafa says (2:53 p.m.):
Is to buy a truck and weld big-ass bullbars to the rear.
And then back into the dude's car and sandwich it into a wall at speed.
Slyer says (2:54 p.m.):
I would have backed over his children, but that works too.

[Hopeful Bastard]

Park your bike on the side of the road outside your house, Or a mates house where its quiet and you have available space.

Now jump into a car and reverse up until you are unable to see your bike anymore (this is why i say do it at a mates place incase you can see your bike or it dissapears and you accidentally hit it)
If bike does dissappear, jump out and take a measurement of how far away it is from the rear of the car.

But if bike doesnt dissappear, Take your findings back to court. Show him. Photo's are really helpful.

Request a different judge. One that doesnt seem to be against motorbikes.

[Mom]

finally, after 7 months, my dispute tribunal claim has been declind!! :angry::angry:
The referee thinks it favours to the car driver because the height of the my motor bike is lower than the bottom of car rear window, therefore the driver can't see my bike.
He has no liability over this at all.
Motorbike is legal to park at angle with due care!

I can not believe I read this. Since when is it ok to say that because the bike was lower than the window the driver could not see it therefore not his fault for the damage? Wonder if the same would be said if the driver backed over a child. Totally outrageous.

This was in the disputes tribunal so there is no comeback if you agree the outcome. Did you agree it or is there another hearing? Hopefully you did not agree the outcome.

[j.c]

I have just received the letter from the court, absolutely shocked. No way I accept that, load of bullsh*t. I just can see why the driver doesn't take any liability of this.
The referee also said he parked there first, then I came, it because of my neglengence which caused the accident. I have witness backs me up I have parked 1.5 meter from him, but the referee thinks the witness isn't creditable. I cann't believe this!
This has just proved that bikers have to be careful with these things, nothing would guarantee anything! There are people out there don't like us, even the judges.
I am going to apply for rehearing for sure.

[cowboyz]

why does it matter who was there firsT?? Seems irrelevant really? Why does it matter if you were or werent 1.5m away? Also seems irrelevant? You parked your bike.. left it.. he run it over.. Why did this even get past a 2 sec hearing where the judge smack his hand and goes.. dont run over shit? there has to be more to it!!!

[GOONR]

why does it matter who was there firsT?? Seems irrelevant really? Why does it matter if you were or werent 1.5m away? Also seems irrelevant? You parked your bike.. left it.. he run it over.. Why did this even get past a 2 sec hearing where the judge smack his hand and goes.. dont run over shit? there has to be more to it!!!
I'd guess that the court has looked at this (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303097.html#DLM303097)



6.1 Vehicles must be parked with due care and consideration

A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle on a road, whether attended or unattended, without due care or without reasonable consideration for other road users.

(http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM51084#DLM51084)

Don't mean it's right though. I'd fight it.

[j.c]

the referee also mentioned the bike is parked with front wheel against the curb and it was an old car, doesn't have left door miror (apparently legal), the bike is in the blind spot of the driver, so the driver didn't see it.

[Owl]

There are people out there don't like us, even the judges.

Disputes Tribunal referees aren't judges, they're morons.:angry:

What a sucky outcome:brick:

[Rogue Rider]

Your bike was stationary, the cager simply didn't look. It is the cagers fault regardless. You were in your park spot, there is no debate. Car driver must pay reparations.
Your adjudicator needs some education on road rules.

[Katman]

Justice of the Peace strikes again.

[mattian]

the referee also mentioned the bike is parked with front wheel against the curb and it was an old car, doesn't have left door miror (apparently legal), the bike is in the blind spot of the driver, so the driver didn't see it.

Bro. You really need to have another hearing with another tribunal. Common sense will prevail and he will be held liable for the damge done to your bike. You cant just run over somebody's property and say you didnt see it. Its fucking outrageous.
When you win your next hearing.... which you will. Make a formal complaint about the original JP to the appropriate authorities. he is obviously mad.... or corrupt.

[crystalball]

hmm, did you see that smell? no but i saw the bike.

[j.c]

Bro. You really need to have another hearing with another tribunal. Common sense will prevail and he will be held liable for the damge done to your bike. You cant just run over somebody's property and say you didnt see it. Its fucking outrageous.
When you win your next hearing.... which you will. Make a formal complaint about the original JP to the appropriate authorities. he is obviously mad.... or corrupt.

thanks for the advise bro, do i apply rehearing from a different tribunal or just same tribunal but different JP? the one i used in Auckland city. cheers

[Katman]

thanks for the advise bro, do i apply rehearing from a different tribunal or just same tribunal but different JP? the one i used in Auckland city. cheers

There are very specific rules regarding being granted a re-hearing.

"The JP got it wrong" won't do it, I'm afraid.

[Mom]

I'd guess that the court has looked at this (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303097.html#DLM303097)

Don't mean it's right though. I'd fight it.

Yeah I would fight it too. There must be a relevant bit of legislation that states a driver must use due care and attention and actually friggen LOOK behind themselves before backing up.

We need a organisation that can help us argue cases like this I reckon.

[j.c]

Yeah I would fight it too. There must be a relevant bit of legislation that states a driver must use due care and attention and actually friggen LOOK behind themselves before backing up.

We need a organisation that can help us argue cases like this I reckon.

that would be nice, we need someone like that here can give us legal advise.

[Mom]

There are very specific rules regarding being granted a re-hearing.

"The JP got it wrong" won't do it, I'm afraid.

If it is tribunal, they give you endless time to argue your case, they go on and on and on. Then they end with a finding. The finding is binding (check out my poetic skills) you can not get a rehearing.

Disputes tribunal is usually a place the each party leaves from feeling slightly vindicated, slightly pissed off and not happy. I am picking there is an English as second language issue here as well to complicate things. Friggen joke though! I would personally like a copy of the ruling, be handy to trot out if I back over your Granny on her mobility scooter.

[Bikemad]

definetly fight this...........im no lawyer but i seem to remember insurance/road code wise...... if you run into the back of someone you are liable...........the only exception being if they back into you............

[mattian]

that would be nice, we need someone like that here can give us legal advise.

Im afraid I am not very clued up on how these things work but, you can get free legal advice from your local citizens advice bureu www.cab.org.nz

[willytheekid]

Ya poor bugger!

This thread is CLEAR proof that the justice system in this country is a bloody joke!

Might borrow my mates 3 ton 4x4 and go out backing into cars for fun!....didn't see it ya honor!...illegally parked!...it was below my rear window!.....

Actually....whats the JP drive?....bloody volvo im guessing

[Virago]

...We need a organisation that can help us argue cases like this I reckon.
that would be nice, we need someone like that here can give us legal advise.

We do indeed have such organisations - they're called insurance companies.

Get insurance - don't free-load and then bleat for help when the shit hits the fan. Your insurance company will look after your interests - it's what you pay them for.

[cowboyz]

We do indeed have such organisations - they're called insurance companies.

Get insurance - don't free-load and then bleat for help when the shit hits the fan. Your insurance company will look after your interests - it's what you pay them for.

are you for real? Insurance is not compulsory. Its not 'freeloading' not to have insurance. It self insuring. and somebody else wrecking your stuff and then to claim your freeloading cause you want them to pay for it is just off the planet.

[scracha]

Yet another case of fuckin stupid busy bodies calling themselves JP's. You can appeal.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/d/disputes-tribunal-2013-general-information-english-jusdt0016

SECTION 3 After the Hearing

What happens after the hearing?

Appeal

If you feel the referee conducted your hearing in a way which was unfair and prejudiced your case, you can file an appeal against an order of the Tribunal. An appeal should be filed at the Disputes Tribunal in the District Court within 28 days of the Tribunal order being made. A judge in the District Court decides whether or not there are grounds for appeal.

[Usarka]

DO IT!


Get insurance - don't free-load and then bleat for help when the shit hits the fan.


are you for real? Insurance is not compulsory. Its not 'freeloading' not to have insurance. It self insuring.

Maybe Virago meant "pre-loading" :lol:

[Virago]

are you for real? Insurance is not compulsory. Its not 'freeloading' not to have insurance. It self insuring. and somebody else wrecking your stuff and then to claim your freeloading cause you want them to pay for it is just off the planet.

More real than you, it seems.

No, insurance isn't compulsary - but I personally believe that it should be.

Asking for free legal assistance when you have an uninsured accident and the system shafts you - is indeed free-loading.

[cowboyz]

More real than you, it seems.

No, insurance isn't compulsary - but I personally believe that it should be.

Asking for free legal assistance when you have an uninsured accident and the system shafts you - is indeed free-loading.

I just cant believe that you arent trolling but something tells me your serious???

Asking for advice is freeloading now?

[Usarka]

Are people who use public hospitals free-loaders too?

[cowboyz]

Are people who use public hospitals free-loaders too?

Oi!! are you trying to your question answered for free on the internet?????

Go pay someone to answer that question for you!!!

FFS!! what were you thinking..

(also.. for this advice.. pls send an address where I can send the bill.... thankyou)

[Usarka]

It was a rhetorical question, but it's ok I have hypothetial insurance :rofl:

[Racey Rider]

Isn't it true that Disputes Tribunal referees don't actually Have to stick to the law when coming to a ruling?

Still good grounds to Appeal it though, it would seem by what your saying.

Take it to Fair Go, or Campell Live.
Not from a 'poor motorcyclist' point of view. But from a This could happen to any of us point of view.

[p.dath]

finally, after 7 months, my dispute tribunal claim has been declind!! :angry::angry:
The referee thinks it favours to the car driver because the height of the my motor bike is lower than the bottom of car rear window, therefore the driver can't see my bike.
He has no liability over this at all.
Motorbike is legal to park at angle with due care!

This is absolutely incredible. I've said it before and I'll say it again, no one wins when you go to court. Unless a lot of money is involved it's better to walk away. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it's just not worth the grief.

You've had 7 months of grief. If you try for an appeal you might have another 7 months of grief. Then at the end of it you have to ask if it was really worth 14 months of grief.

For me - it has never been worth the grief.


On the flip side - did you file an accident report with the Police? If you did, and the Police found the other driver at fault and charged them, then it would have made your tribunal case even more straight forward.

[Owl]

No, insurance isn't compulsary - but I personally believe that it should be.

I agree, but that's about where we part company.

As you state, insurance isn't compulsory, so why should someone be punished for not having it? Shouldn't it be punishment enough, having to follow the drawn out process of court, in order to being rightfully indemnified?

While even Third Party would probably have covered this incident (Protection against an uninsured third party), insurance is no guarantee of no headaches:no:

[j.c]

This is absolutely incredible. I've said it before and I'll say it again, no one wins when you go to court. Unless a lot of money is involved it's better to walk away. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it's just not worth the grief.

You've had 7 months of grief. If you try for an appeal you might have another 7 months of grief. Then at the end of it you have to ask if it was really worth 14 months of grief.

For me - it has never been worth the grief.


On the flip side - did you file an accident report with the Police? If you did, and the Police found the other driver at fault and charged them, then it would have made your tribunal case even more straight forward.

The police obviously don't want to do anything, i have been chasing them up before tribunal, i have got nothing from them, just passing me around their call centres and location police staion. useless!

[p.dath]

The police obviously don't want to do anything, i have been chasing them up before tribunal, i have got nothing from them, just passing me around their call centres and location police staion. useless!

Did you go into a station and file an accident report?

[varminter]

Superglue, car door. Need I say more.:innocent:

[j.c]

Did you go into a station and file an accident report?

yes, 20 mins after the accident, i went in reported it. only thing received is a letter of acknowledgement and a case number. i have call many time to check update, nobody can tell me anything about the case. i have gave it up eventually. so i took the driver to dispute tribunal, still no luck so far! if the police came or helped at first place, i shouldn't have to go through the grief like this.

[PirateJafa]

Superglue, car door. Need I say more.:innocent:

Kneadit, exhaust pipe, doorhandles, window wipers.

Even let some/all the air out of the tyres, then kneadit into to air valves.

[Patrick]

finally, after 7 months, my dispute tribunal claim has been declind!! :angry::angry:
The referee thinks it favours to the car driver because the height of the my motor bike is lower than the bottom of car rear window, therefore the driver can't see my bike.
He has no liability over this at all.
Motorbike is legal to park at angle with due care!

Absolutely ridiculous. To say he didn't see it... what was he blind? Didn't he look at his surroundings as he approached his car, as he went to unlock his door etc etc..... and see a perfectly big enough motorbike parked there???????


I'm pretty sure the road code states that if you can't see what is behind you, you are required to get out and look.
I can't see anyone hitting ANY stationary object and not having it be their fault...

Reversing car hitting stationary object is ALWAYS at fault... even if the stationary object was parked on yellows.....


Park your bike on the side of the road outside your house, Or a mates house where its quiet and you have available space.

Now jump into a car and reverse up until you are unable to see your bike anymore (this is why i say do it at a mates place incase you can see your bike or it dissapears and you accidentally hit it)
If bike does dissappear, jump out and take a measurement of how far away it is from the rear of the car.

But if bike doesnt dissappear, Take your findings back to court. Show him. Photo's are really helpful.

Request a different judge. One that doesnt seem to be against motorbikes.

Photos do speak a thousand words. Good idea here.....


Im afraid I am not very clued up on how these things work but, you can get free legal advice from your local citizens advice bureu www.cab.org.nz

This is true....


Yet another case of fuckin stupid busy bodies calling themselves JP's. You can appeal.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/d/disputes-tribunal-2013-general-information-english-jusdt0016

SECTION 3 After the Hearing

What happens after the hearing?

Appeal

If you feel the referee conducted your hearing in a way which was unfair and prejudiced your case, you can file an appeal against an order of the Tribunal. An appeal should be filed at the Disputes Tribunal in the District Court within 28 days of the Tribunal order being made. A judge in the District Court decides whether or not there are grounds for appeal.


Appeal for sure. This is not just wrong, but the decision has absolutely no legal basis.


Isn't it true that Disputes Tribunal referees don't actually Have to stick to the law when coming to a ruling?

Still good grounds to Appeal it though, it would seem by what your saying.

Take it to Fair Go, or Campell Live.
Not from a 'poor motorcyclist' point of view. But from a This could happen to any of us point of view.

Good call. Next port of call.......... Ixion might be able to help BRONZ wise?


On the flip side - did you file an accident report with the Police? If you did, and the Police found the other driver at fault and charged them, then it would have made your tribunal case even more straight forward.

True....


The police obviously don't want to do anything, i have been chasing them up before tribunal, i have got nothing from them, just passing me around their call centres and location police staion. useless!

Quote the file number. They will be able to tell you exactly where that file is... or should be.... Geez, even I can find that in a second. PM me if you like.

Unfortunately, being in Auckland, a minor non injury crash that Police were not called to the scene to attend is extremely very low on priorities. Not an excuse, just a reality. Hence the need for insurance.....


yes, 20 mins after the accident, i went in reported it. only thing received is a letter of acknowledgement and a case number. i have call many time to check update, nobody can tell me anything about the case. i have gave it up eventually. so i took the driver to dispute tribunal, still no luck so far! if the police came or helped at first place, i shouldn't have to go through the grief like this.

True. But as above, a minor non injury fender bender is low on the list of priorities. PM me with the number. I will check for ya.

[breakaway]

I still can't wrap my head around how fucking silly this is.

What if it was a child? Is it okay to run it over because it is "too low" to the ground and couldn't be seen from the rear view?

This is fucking pathetic. It's really difficult for me to get worked up, but this has done it.

[cowboyz]

I still can't wrap my head around how fucking silly this is.

What if it was a child? Is it okay to run it over because it is "too low" to the ground and couldn't be seen from the rear view?

This is fucking pathetic. It's really difficult for me to get worked up, but this has done it.

me too actually. It just seems really crazy. there HAS to be more to the story.. This just isnt possible.. but then again.. NZ justice is an oxymoron!

[breakaway]

I think it's more likely that some old crusty JP is trying to railroad OP because he's probably young and a motorcyclist.

I've heard many times small claims court can have people walking away disillusioned, but this is beyond ridiculous.

[Swoop]

Patrick sums it up nicely in post #63.


the referee also mentioned the bike is parked with front wheel against the curb and it was an old car, doesn't have left door miror (apparently legal), the bike is in the blind spot of the driver, so the driver didn't see it.

What your "esteemed" adjudicator has ruled, now means that if I hop into a large truck and reverse (without checking clearances or obstacles) I am now innocent if I do any damage!
Totally wrong ruling.

[bogan]

+1 to the fair go idea.

It does seem a pretty clear cut case, makes me think too, I don't check my blindspot immediately behind the van on all occasions, if I'm angle parked for example you could probably hide a small scooter (illegally parked) behind hit so I would run it over, or a toddler etc. One would hope nobody is stupid enough to leave a scoot or toddler in such a position of course, but perhaps I should have a better look just to be safe.

[j.c]

the story is:
the car was parked there when i came, no other cars behind the driver, then i parked far enough from him (1.5 meter according to the witness. i have a letter from the witness). few minutes after i went in a shop close by, i heard the crash, i rushed out, saw the bike fell on the road. he just said i didn't see and you can do whatever you want to do, then jumped in the car trying to drive off, i quickly grabbed his car door and called police. we both waited about 30 minutes, no police turned up, i called police again, they said they are busy and i need to file a claim in the local station, so i did about 1 hour later.
in the first hearing, the referee asked me to measure the height of the bike and driver to measure the height of the bottom his rear window. in the second hearing, he went through these with us, didn't call the witness which was in the agenda from last hearing. a week later after the hearing, i received the letter from him and declind my claim, favour to the defendant.
his reasons are:
1. he believes i parked to close to the car, less than 1.5 meter. (i don't believe he has verified this with the witness.)
2. i did not park the motorbike with due care.
3. he believes the bike is too low for the driver to see, so no negligence to the driver.
4. i am inexperieced rider as an experience rider said he would not park behind the car. (he only heard this from the driver, no evidence)
so, after all, he made this ridiculous decision. i talked to a lawyer this morning, she said it is very hard to appeal as the rules around it. unless i can prove the referee made mistakes or being unfair in the hearing procedure. lawyer fee will cost $600, no garantee to win the case.
i so bloody regret didnt have full insurance now, that would make things much much easier.

[sleemanj]

You know the make/model of car involved right?

Find said make/model of car at a car yard and ask if you can do a little test.

Park bike behind at 1.5m in the same manner as it was on the fateful day, sit in drivers seat of the car, now, can you clearly see the bike? If yes, take a photo, if no, give up now, I don't see how you'd appeal it.

Assuming you can, move the bike closer until it is no longer plainly visible from the drivers seat.

For bonus points, draw a scale diagram of the vehicle, bike etc, then you can work out the sight-line from the driver and get an exact measurement of the minimum distance the bike would have to have been before it became too hard to reasonably see. I would suggest that the seat or at least tank should be clearly in view of the driver, to be reasonable to see the bike.

If it should turn out that the bike was plainly visible from the vehicle at, say, 1 m, I'd suggest that the adjudicator got their calculations wrong and this could be grounds for an appeal. If it's only just visible at 1.5m where you think you parked.... probably very difficult to get an appeal.

What you want to do is show that accepting the adjudicators position that you were parked closer than you say, that you would still have been clearly visible. I think realistically that's the only traction you'd get towards an appeal.

If the bike wasn't clearly visible (CLEARLY visible), I think you should just chalk it up to experience and remember that when parking a bike you need to take care that blind-as-a-bat car drivers will have no trouble seeing the bike.

If you were a parent, you wouldn't let your kids play behind a car in it's blind spot, and if you did, you'd probably not want to see the driver of that car get unduly punished for the inevitable accident - there but for the grace of god and all that.

[Okey Dokey]

The driver may even have walked right past the bike to get to his vehicle, and then backed into the bike.

It happened to my bike once, years ago.

[Patrick]

Referree made a mistake here. You have a witness.[/B]
2. i did not park the motorbike with due care. Another mistake..... how does he come to this conclusion?
3. he believes the bike is too low for the driver to see, so no negligence to the driver.The biggest mistake. Like trucks reversing into cars now... just plain daft
4. i am inexperieced rider as an experience rider said he would not park behind the car. (he only heard this from the driver, no evidence)


And another strange decision. You could park it parallel or angled - it was your parking space, as long as it is not blocking the roadway... He, the car driver, didn't look. THAT is the problem.

You don't always need a lawyer for court. Others on here have represented themselves. There must be an appeal process you can follow, and if not, FAIR GO....

[j.c]

And another strange decision. You could park it parallel or angled - it was your parking space, as long as it is not blocking the roadway... He, the car driver, didn't look. THAT is the problem.

You don't always need a lawyer for court. Others on here have represented themselves. There must be an appeal process you can follow, and if not, FAIR GO....

thanks Pat, will see if can get an appeal.

[Patrick]

See PM.

Appeal or Fair Go.

[breakaway]

Also you should post the name of the moderator / referee here in public domain so if anyone from here has an issue again and gets him/her, they may ask for another on the grounds that he/she doesn't actually know how to do their job.

[Max Preload]

the referee also mentioned the bike is parked with front wheel against the curb...So the car backed into the bike, against the support of the sidestand? Exactly how fucking hard did this cunt hit it that caused it to be knocked over the sidestand?

[j.c]

Also you should post the name of the moderator / referee here in public domain so if anyone from here has an issue again and gets him/her, they may ask for another on the grounds that he/she doesn't actually know how to do their job.

is that legal to disclose the referee's name on internet? i don't want to get into that trouble, already have enough to deal with now.

[j.c]

So the car backed into the bike, against the support of the sidestand? Exactly how fucking hard did this cunt hit it that caused it to be knocked over the sidestand?

he hit it pretty hard, i heard the crash inside the shop nearby. he is an ex taxi driver!

[Max Preload]

he hit it pretty hard, i heard the crash inside the shop nearby. he is an ex taxi driver!An ex-taxi driver. That figures. He must have really slammed into it. What a fucking retard - some people just shouldn't be driving, ever.

[cowboyz]

is that legal to disclose the referee's name on internet? i don't want to get into that trouble, already have enough to deal with now.

unless you have signed a notice of confidentiality and you state fact only (not saying... Mr john smith is a fucking muppet....) then yes.. its legal.

[Max Preload]

unless you have signed a notice of confidentiality and you state fact only (not saying... Mr john smith is a fucking muppet....) then yes.. its legal.Truth or honest opinion are both defences to libel and slander, under NZ defamation laws.

[breakaway]

Actually, on second thought, don't post any defamatory comments about any party involved, and don't provide any more information than is needed until a satsifactory outcome is reached.

[HenryDorsetCase]

[COLOR="deepskyblue"]Isn't it true that Disputes Tribunal referees don't actually Have to stick to the law when coming to a ruling?

Still good grounds to Appeal it though, it would seem by what your saying.


Yes that is true.

you have limited rights of appeal from a DT ruling: IIRC, question of Lor onlyl.