Ok so I had an accident over the weekend

[G4L4XY]

If you were going past the boat ramp on the coromandel north of tapu and you saw 2 cop cars an ambulance and a

firetruck that was me :(

I went to overtake a very slow moving car who decided it would be a marvelous idea to pull into the carpark on

the right at the exact time that I was going to pass. Now here's the thing if the car I was going to overtake had

their indicator on I wouldn't have passed (that would be stupid right?!)
And the first thing the guy says to me is "didn't you see the indicator"
So here's me thinking that they indicated (if at all) at the very last second and certainly not for 3 seconds.
Of course the cops like to dish out fines and they hand me over a fine for "overtaking without 100m clear

visibility" the thing is I had perfect visibility but it's the car thats cut me off and forced me off the road.

And on top of all of this the driver clearly didn't look in her mirrors before making the manouver.

I was thinking about trying to get off the fine but if it goes to court well the court costs will make it not even

worth it.

Now at the end of the day it probably is my fault I should've been more patient and waited and made sure of everything but meh.

Oh and another thing my rego was out by 3 days, what are the chances that my insurance company are going to be really mean and refuse cover?

[sil3nt]

They can't refuse cover because your rego is out.

[FJRider]

Very slow moving cars usually have a reason for going very slow. The very scenic aspect of the Coro' loop ... with the number of car-parks and look-outs ... means those in the area, are likely to be stopping at one of those places.
Just because you didn't notice an indicator ... does not mean it is/was not on. Cars have faulty indicators ... just as bikes do.
If your "visibility" was so good ... why were you not able to stop in half the clear distance ahead ... ?? "Visibility ahead" includes the area the vehicle you are passing is in.
Even if the car did see you in their mirrors ... it is not required to allow you to pass before they turn.
The responsibility to pass safely is on the overtaking vehicle.

The Coro' loop at Easter would not be the best place/time to tour with an expired rego.

In most cases Insurance companys do pay out ... just dont leave any bit out in your claim.

[G4L4XY]

Visibility was fine until the car turned and fully shoved me off the road I had no where to go

[ducatilover]

Bugger mate! Good to hear you are insured and okay :D

Wait for the "you should have, could have, would have seen it coming"
"I would have.."
"It is obvious..."


I shall drink a beer for you, because I am a top notch prick and did not see the situation and therefore cannot comment.

[sleemanj]

They can't refuse cover because your rego is out.

What he said. Lack of current vehicle licence ("rego") or WoF is not reason enough to deny cover, under the law (Insurance Law Reform Act 1977), your insurers won't even mention it for a rego, for a WoF they might have tried it on hoping you'd be a push over.

As for the ticket. Tough one. Very much your word against theirs without any witnesses. If they hit you in the side (side swiped you) you might have a better case.

[Bassmatt]

You're bloody brave posting an account of an accident on here.

[mrchips]

Sorry to hear.

That nearly happened to me a few years back.

Lucky i was counting to 10 & didn't follow thru with my usual ...... 'if in doubt get the fuck out' :sweatdrop

[baffa]

Man that sucks.

Rego being 3 days out shouldnt affect your insurance, just as well the cop didnt ping you for that I guess.
That is a slap to the face with the overtaking fine, all things considered.

[G4L4XY]

Oh...should I delete it :(

[willytheekid]

Bugger mate! Good to hear you are insured and okay :D

I shall drink a beer for you, because I am a top notch prick and did not see the situation and therefore cannot comment.
+1
:yes:...you are (you must spread more...;))


;)

Glad to hear your alright mate:yes:
Aint it fun being human :laugh:
...live an learn, shit happens :love:

[G4L4XY]

Man that sucks.

Rego being 3 days out shouldnt affect your insurance, just as well the cop didnt ping you for that I guess.
That is a slap to the face with the overtaking fine, all things considered.

He said that he will let me off the rego and that

[Laava]

So you were OK then? Maybe you need to change your user name, A&E for me is what I saw!

[baffa]

What he said. Lack of current vehicle licence ("rego") or WoF is not reason enough to deny cover, under the law (Insurance Law Reform Act 1977), your insurers won't even mention it for a rego, for a WoF they might have tried it on hoping you'd be a push over.

As for the ticket. Tough one. Very much your word against theirs without any witnesses. If they hit you in the side (side swiped you) you might have a better case.

Just to clarify, this doesnt mean you can run around with no wof and expect insurance to pay out. If your wof has expired recently, and your vehicle is still roadworthy, then typically insurance wont be an issue.

However if it can be shown that the accident could have been avoided had the vehicle been roadworthy (for instance it had bald tyres, so skidded when good tyres wouldnt have caused the accident), then potentially your claim can be declined.

[G4L4XY]

Yeah we were ok just bruising and swelling with sprained muscles here and there, had the mrs on the back too, she's hurting more than me :( I feel pretty bad ay I had to call her parents to ask for a lift! lol!

[GrayWolf]

Glad you are ok and no serious injury........as they say...... lesson learned.

[SMOKEU]

Just to clarify, this doesnt mean you can run around with no wof and expect insurance to pay out. If your wof has expired recently, and your vehicle is still roadworthy, then typically insurance wont be an issue.

However if it can be shown that the accident could have been avoided had the vehicle been roadworthy (for instance it had bald tyres, so skidded when good tyres wouldnt have caused the accident), then potentially your claim can be declined.

Even if the WOF is 30 minutes old, then you can still be declined an insurance payout if the vehicle does not meet WOF requirements as described in the VIRM. Plenty of people illegally modify their vehicle shortly after a WOF, such as lowering a vehicle, putting on a noisy exhaust, or putting on bald tires.

[caspernz]

Shame to hear about the incident, but at least you and the wife didn't get badly mangled. Hope you both recover quickly and get back on two wheels again.

BTW - We've all had incidents like the one you bravely described, sometimes we get away scottfree and other times it hurts. It's all part of becoming a more experienced rider.

[sleemanj]

Even if the WOF is 30 minutes old, then you can still be declined an insurance payout if the vehicle does not meet WOF requirements as described in the VIRM.

Only in so far as the non compliant item can be shown to be relevant to the reason for the claim.

"Your exhaust is too loud to get a WoF therefore we won't pay out on your accident" isn't legal because a loud exhaust just isn't going to be in any way relevant.

"Your tyres were bald causing you to lose traction and run into another vehicle, so we won't pay out" is legal.

[YellowDog]

I think we're missing the point here:

My experience on the roads tells me that a large percentage of drivers use their indicators as a signal as to what they are actually in the process of doing, rather than as an indicator to be applied at least 3 seconds prior to the manoeuvre.

I'd go to court and question the driver as to the driving standards they follow and the Police officer over his own experiences.

And the moral of the story is: Always get a witness (if you can).

Glad you are OK.

[awayatc]

And the moral of the story is: Always get a witness (if you can).

.


Never to late............

for a witness to come forward.....

[baffa]

Only in so far as the non compliant item can be shown to be relevant to the reason for the claim.

"Your exhaust is too loud to get a WoF therefore we won't pay out on your accident" isn't legal because a loud exhaust just isn't going to be in any way relevant.

"Your tyres were bald causing you to lose traction and run into another vehicle, so we won't pay out" is legal.

Not always. Claims can be declined due to nondisclosure. If the vehicle has mods that the client didnt tell his insurer about, they may decide to decline the claim, and/or cancel their insurance.

[sinfull]

Glad you and ya Mrs are ok


Fool !

[DODO``]

Yeah the most important thing is that you are OK, although your bike and gears would need to be replaced (or parts at least).
just out of curiosity,, would insurance replace your gears too??

[G4L4XY]

Yes I have gear replacement cover in my policy up to $1000.
My boots are a lil scratched but are ok, helmet is screwed as is the jacket and pants and the gloves have gone missing :(

I'm not sure if they will replace anything the mrs needs replacing, im sure it's just the helmet actually, all her gears are fine!

My WOF is current and nothing aftermarket has been added to fail a WOF, it's just the rego that was out by 3 days :(

[ac3_snow]

What he said. Lack of current vehicle licence ("rego") or WoF is not reason enough to deny cover, under the law (Insurance Law Reform Act 1977), your insurers won't even mention it for a rego, for a WoF they might have tried it on hoping you'd be a push over.


I read through the act...http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1977/0014/latest/whole.html

I can only see one section (11) that could potentially be applied to a wof/reg situation.


Certain exclusions forbidden
Where—
(a)by the provisions of a contract of insurance the circumstances in which the insurer is bound to indemnify the insured against loss are so defined as to exclude or limit the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured on the happening of certain events or on the existence of certain circumstances; and
(b)in the view of the court or arbitrator determining the claim of the insured the liability of the insurer has been so defined because the happening of such events or the existence of such circumstances was in the view of the insurer likely to increase the risk of such loss occurring,—
the insured shall not be disentitled to be indemnified by the insurer by reason only of such provisions of the contract of insurance if the insured proves on the balance of probability that the loss in respect of which the insured seeks to be indemnified was not caused or contributed to by the happening of such events or the existence of such circumstances.
12

curious as to other peoples experiences or interpretations..

[DODO``]

...and the gloves have gone missing :(



How??

and your hands ok?

[G4L4XY]

Think the ambulance stole them lol, I had them on before the crash. I took them off but dont remember what happened to them after that.
I was left at the scene after everyone left waiting for a ride to come with a trailor and I didn't see them laying around.
I've contacted the hospital and they're on the hunt for them.

[DODO``]

O I c I c.. I thought it flew off as you were hit! Sort of like a un fastened helmet in crash :)

[brumax]

wot pisses me off is, they dont charge the car driver, arsehole over here ran into the back o ma bike , i was just about stopped as traffic in front was all slowin down, when i was getting checked out in hospital, cop came and said ill just put it down as an accident coz of conditions, it was raining, FFS its scotland we are used to drivin in the rain, dont think they want the paperwork,

as i was talkin to the ambulance guys, i said i woz fn angry, one o the guys said, Yeh, but your alive and angry.
that kinda put it straight, bikes and us can be mended, your only dead once,

[haydes55]

wot pisses me off is, they dont charge the car driver, arsehole over here ran into the back o ma bike , i was just about stopped as traffic in front was all slowin down, when i was getting checked out in hospital, cop came and said ill just put it down as an accident coz of conditions, it was raining, FFS its scotland we are used to drivin in the rain, dont think they want the paperwork,

as i was talkin to the ambulance guys, i said i woz fn angry, one o the guys said, Yeh, but your alive and angry.
that kinda put it straight, bikes and us can be mended, your only dead once,

Best read in a heavy Scottish accent :yes:

That cop must of just been an arsehole. Remind the cop that you hold a grudge and he will regret not charging the car driver. Nothing scarier than an angry Scotsman trying to get revenge on you.

[brp]

Bugger ! #1

Remember walking town main street of hometown and this solo bikeie on a bonnie with apes did the real pronounced swerve out
to overtake the little old lady crawling along in her hilman hunter - she turned right and he flew over her bonnet .....

Thinking back now she was quite to the right so was probably an obvious clue she was not carrying on down the main road.


Found most cage's there is little warning how fast they are actually pulling up, yah see the brake lights but little movement in the actual body of the car, try and stay well back and the other bonus yah dont end up being in a blind spot for on coming cars or cars coming out of intersections etc ....

Up on the port hills - its like some townies think I'm in the country and can relax and so too can I with road rules ......

[longwayfromhome]

This is a good example of why the indicating rule should change from a time basis to a distance basis e.g. must indicate within 50 metres of turning spot, not 3 seconds. I know it won't make any individual person more liable to follow the rules (in the above case, they may well have indicated, but as they were turning), but if it was the general rule, then the average situation would be significantly helped.

One other place this would help, at traffic lights, where there is a line of cars in both directions, the lights turn green and the lead car stays stopped... then when the end of the opposing line is coming closer they put on their indicator before turning right. Unbelievable selfishness, cloaked as "I'm following the rulz". This problem is slowly diminishing with arrows controls, but it would give a lot of assistance in city driving/riding if we could see people's intentions indicated while we still had time to do something about it.

[G4L4XY]

I was hoping for a write off but I think they're going to fix it :cry:

[5150]

I was hoping for a write off but I think they're going to fix it :cry:

Is it at the shop or asessors? Mine was at the shop after the accident and the shop asked me if I wanted it repaired or written off. They made their recommendation to the assesor accordingly and it was written off. :shutup:

[G4L4XY]

It's at the shop but the assessor went in to assess it, he says it's boarderline but he is going to try and save it, the shop didn't ask me what I wanted.

[5150]

It's at the shop but the assessor went in to assess it, he says it's boarderline but he is going to try and save it, the shop didn't ask me what I wanted.

I guess you have to know the guys at the shop. I also told them that if the bike could be written off then I would buy my next one from them. Which i did. They didn't do anything dodgy to the bike, just explained to the assesor the dangers of trying to fix the frame and engine mounts. (My bike was rear ended and the impact shifted the motor forward by 20mm off the mounts) the insurance wanted to fix it but changed their mind after the shop explained that it was too risky to repair.

[G4L4XY]

Aww I see, mine was just a slide along the ground, not as serious as that, plus I wont buy another hyosung so I wont make that offer LOL