What does KB think i should do to this prick?

[scracha]

Question for you Drew...

Why do training/trackday organisers stipulate no undertaking on corners?

What's your point Katmahn?

[Katman]

It was a question - not a point.

[Virago]

One thing to be wary of is that we're only hearing one version of events. I'd bet the other party's version would be quite different. "There I was, following this guy around the track. He was fast on the straights and slow round the corners, so I had the wait for a clear chance to overtake. He was riding different lines to me which didn't make it easy. Anyway, approaching this corner, he brakes way early and cuts across in front of me. I had nowhere to go..."

Just sayin'...:innocent:

[flyingcrocodile46]

One thing to be wary of is that we're only hearing one version of events. I'd bet the other party's version would be quite different. "There I was, following this guy around the track. He was fast on the straights and slow round the corners, so I had the wait for a clear chance to overtake. He was riding different lines to me which didn't make it easy. Anyway, approaching this corner, he brakes way early and cuts across in front of me. I had nowhere to go..."

Just sayin'...:innocent:

Nobody is listening


Unfuckingbelieveable.:facepalm:

You roll the dice you take your chances. It ain't cool to blame the others at the table if you luck out. :no:

Nobody seems to be considering that maybe the other guy had no malicious or mischievous intent. That he didn't set out to undertake on purpose and that he simply misjudged things :shit: (as CFWB said).



So what are we talking about then? persecuting the other victim because he didn't come off as bad. Maybe the other victim was braking in reasonable time to overtake the OP on the inside before the corner and the OP is a nonce and braked way too early then fucked up by turning in early and cutting across the other victims line?

We shouldn't be too quick to pass judgement based on only one side of the OP's :violin: story.

[Road kill]

From the point of view of somebody that's never been on a race track.
I front up for a training day "because I know very little about track riding,,and I sign the form.
I know there's going to be other know nothings out there,so I have the insurance.
Some other rider makes a mistake an takes me out.
I approach the other rider in the hope he will meet me half way on my insurance excess,,because in the same situation "I would for him".
What ever the result of my talk to the other rider was and no matter how pissed I might be at the end of the day I'd still be aware that I took my chances by riding on a track with others that were just as likely to mess up as I was.


Something about personal responsibility for ones own decisions,,,but <_<meh, fuck that huh.

[flyingcrocodile46]

From the point of view of somebody that's never been on a race track.
I front up for a training day "because I know very little about track riding,,and I sign the form.
I know there's going to be other know nothings out there,so I have the insurance.
Some other rider makes a mistake an takes me out.
I approach the other rider in the hope he will meet me half way on my insurance excess,,because in the same situation "I would for him".
What ever the result of my talk to the other rider was and no matter how pissed I might be at the end of the day I'd still be aware that I took my chances by riding on a track with others that were just as likely to mess up as I was.


Something about personal responsibility for ones own decisions,,,but <_<meh, fuck that huh.

Fucking spot on.

[TOTO]

Question for you Drew...

Why do training/trackday organisers stipulate no undertaking on corners?

Actually all of the ART days I've attended, there has always been overtaking on the corners. Normal practice and not forbidden at all. The one that it not advised to is the hairpin, on the inside of the rider and the incident did not occur on that corner. It is the responsibility of the overtaking rider to make sure the maneuver is safe, however there is always risk factors that are not under the overtaking rider control sometimes. Hence the waver you sign before getting on track to say you understand and accept that something unfortunate might happen and you are prepared for the consequences.

[TOTO]

From the point of view of somebody that's never been on a race track.
I front up for a training day "because I know very little about track riding,,and I sign the form.
I know there's going to be other know nothings out there,so I have the insurance.
Some other rider makes a mistake an takes me out.
I approach the other rider in the hope he will meet me half way on my insurance excess,,because in the same situation "I would for him".
What ever the result of my talk to the other rider was and no matter how pissed I might be at the end of the day I'd still be aware that I took my chances by riding on a track with others that were just as likely to mess up as I was.


Something about personal responsibility for ones own decisions,,,but <_<meh, fuck that huh.

yes, but if you were there to learn, you will go into the novice group and see how the day is run and what you are supposed to do. if you go out there in the fast group and try to get your knee down by going faster than you should, tough titty.

[Katman]

Sounds like a guilty conscience Toto.

[TOTO]

Sounds like a guilty conscience Toto.

Sadly, I missed that one. :angry:

[Bassmatt]

On a positive note, now that I know the unwritten rules of the track, I can throw all the caution out the window and go fucken hard out on my next track day, everyone else can just get the fuck outta my way.

[TOTO]

On a positive note, now that I know the unwritten rules of the track, I can throw all the caution out the window and go fucken hard out on my next track day, everyone else can just get the fuck outta my way.

make sure you are wearing 1tonne leathers. Oh actually are they as safe as Quasi leathers with triple stitching ?

[NinjaNanna]

Actually all of the ART days I've attended, there has always been overtaking on the corners. Normal practice and not forbidden at all. The one that it not advised to is the hairpin, on the inside of the rider and the incident did not occur on that corner. It is the responsibility of the overtaking rider to make sure the maneuver is safe, however there is always risk factors that are not under the overtaking rider control sometimes. Hence the waver you sign before getting on track to say you understand and accept that something unfortunate might happen and you are prepared for the consequences.

Why are you ignoring the difference between overtaking and undertaking - I'm certain you know the difference. Katman's question was in relation to undertaking.

[TOTO]

Why are you ignoring the difference between overtaking and undertaking - I'm certain you know the difference. Katman's question was in relation to undertaking.

If we had to be all PC about it, then lets call it a "passing maneuver". Potato, Potato.

[Subike]

Why are you ignoring the difference between overtaking and undertaking - I'm certain you know the difference. Katman's question was in relation to undertaking.

me thinking,
answer this
In NZ we overtake on the right, undertake on the left, ...road rules.
In USA they over take on the left, and undertake on the right......road rules.
So
On a race track which applies?
the same can be asked as to which side is the "inside" of a corner
turning left, you take the inside line to the left....but that involves undertaking other riders?
turning right you take the inside line to the right....is that over taking other riders?
on the legal road there is no question, the rules are set , or so it seems...
but on the track?

[NinjaNanna]

me thinking,
answer this
In NZ we overtake on the right, undertake on the left, ...road rules.
In USA they over take on the left, and undertake on the right......road rules.
So
On a race track which applies?
the same can be asked as to which side is the "inside" of a corner
turning left, you take the inside line to the left....but that involves undertaking other riders?
turning right you take the inside line to the right....is that over taking other riders?
on the legal road there is no question, the rules are set , or so it seems...
but on the track?

hmmm I see your point, I hadn't actually thought it all the way through. My bad.

SO what is the etiquete at a training/track day - are you meant to go round the outside or is coming up the inside fine?

[FJRider]

me thinking,
answer this
In NZ we overtake on the right, undertake on the left, ...road rules.
In USA they over take on the left, and undertake on the right......road rules.
So
On a race track which applies?
the same can be asked as to which side is the "inside" of a corner
turning left, you take the inside line to the left....but that involves undertaking other riders?
turning right you take the inside line to the right....is that over taking other riders?
on the legal road there is no question, the rules are set , or so it seems...
but on the track?

In the photo's provided by the OP ... it was (as described in the original post) an "undertaking manouvere" on a right hand corner.

My understanding of an overtaking manouvere on a race track ... (to the left or right hand side) it is up to the person overtaking to do it in a safe and responsible manner.

[Kickaha]

My understanding of an overtaking manouvere on a race track ... (to the left or right hand side) it is up to the person overtaking to do it in a safe and responsible manner.

That is correct if you're actually racing, this wasn't a race meeting and the OP said passing on the inside wasn't allowed

[Subike]

Agree FJ
Somewhere in this thread, the statement was made that track rules were no passing on the inside, or words to that effect

The pic shows the bike passing on the inside, yet he was technically overtaking the bike on the right, if normal road rules apply,

was the "offending"" rider thinking he was "correct" to ""overtake"" in this situation,

A reflex thought from road riding?

and did the downed rider, taking a finer line into the corner , not expect a bike to be "overtaking" him , thus turn in to the crn tighter.

So many if, buts and maybes here.

Which, as we have seen, opened the door to a good discussion,
Even if there has been copious amounts of mud slung in several directions

[FJRider]

That is correct if you're actually racing, this wasn't a race meeting and the OP said passing on the inside wasn't allowed

The small point to which I was referring ... was that regardless of if it was either overtaking, or undertaking ... responsibility was on the one attempting to pass to do it safely. Regardless of any "rule" that may have applied.

If the OP was half a metre to his left ... it may well have been safe. (but still against the "rule")

[Drew]

Question for you Drew...

Why do training/trackday organisers stipulate no undertaking on corners?Because they don't want squids trying to make a move they can't pull off.

That said, if something goes wrong and the options are; ride straight into someone, or ;try and go by them. There is an obvious choice. Go where there seems to be room!

[Road kill]

yes, but if you were there to learn, you will go into the novice group and see how the day is run and what you are supposed to do. if you go out there in the fast group and try to get your knee down by going faster than you should, tough titty.


Fuck sake:facepalm:

[Gremlin]

Why do training/trackday organisers stipulate no undertaking on corners?


Actually all of the ART days I've attended, there has always been overtaking on the corners.
Big difference between undertaking and overtaking. Fast group is pretty much left to their own devices, but people stuffing it up the inside of others in other groups can be expect to be reported to control.

[jrandom]

Why do training/trackday organisers stipulate no undertaking on corners?

Can't speak for the other trackday organisers, but I know that the rule at MotoTT is no overtaking up the inside under brakes. You can sit on the inside line and come through once you're on the gas, or you can outbrake someone around the outside.

Reason being that having someone else come up the inside while you're braking tends to make n00bs shit themselves and fail to hold their line. Once they're on the gas they'll be drifting out wide anyhow so it shouldn't make any difference.

[BoristheBiter]

Actually all of the ART days I've attended, there has always been overtaking on the corners. Normal practice and not forbidden at all. The one that it not advised to is the hairpin, on the inside of the rider and the incident did not occur on that corner. It is the responsibility of the overtaking rider to make sure the maneuver is safe, however there is always risk factors that are not under the overtaking rider control sometimes. Hence the waver you sign before getting on track to say you understand and accept that something unfortunate might happen and you are prepared for the consequences.

Actually the rules for ART say you are not allowed to overtake on the inside of a corner.
You are not allowed to pass at all after the cones at the hairpin.
You are allowed to overtake on corners on the outside only.
It is up to the rider passing to make sure it is safe to do so.
If you can't remember that after all your ART days.:facepalm:

I would like to know why the guy undertaking him thought it was a good idea? did you not see the gap closing? or was the red mist that bad? not likes its a race.

I think the OP should just suck it up, but on that I would be pissed as if I had two broken arms I couldn't work due so someone that can't follow rules and thinks they are rossi.

I would have used stronger language but I guess it would fall on deaf ears as group 3 is full of try-hards that think they are better than they actually are.

[Katman]

Because they don't want squids trying to make a move they can't pull off.



I rest my case.

[jrandom]

Then again, sometimes the inside is safer. It's generally the correct place to pass someone, all other things being equal...

wvQmhzc5dT4

[jrandom]

I rest my case.

See my earlier post - I don't think Drew's quite on the money here. It's not actually about the person making the pass - it's about what having someone come up the inside will do to the n00b who's not expecting it.

This thread is pretty much a case in point.

Without knowing more than what's been posted here, I'd be inclined to say that the OP's probably a bit of a muppet and squared the corner off in front of the guy coming through.

The fact that n00bs will do that is why people get told at MotoTT days not to try getting up the inside under brakes. Once everyone's on the gas you can usually rely on lines not changing much.

[Katman]

See my earlier post - I don't think Drew's quite on the money here. It's not actually about the person making the pass - it's about what having someone come up the inside will do to the n00b who's not expecting it.



I think it's a combination of both.

Hence why organisers say "no undertaking".

I fail to see why the OP should be expected to just 'suck it up'.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I fail to see why the OP should be expected to just 'suck it up'.

Nobody would go anywhere near a track if they had to pay for a fuck up. Bad as it is...they do happen. And no...I've never made a mistake that's taken anyone else out.

[Katman]

Nobody would go anywhere near a track if they had to pay for a fuck up. Bad as it is...they do happen. And no...I've never made a mistake that's taken anyone else out.

That's why rules are put in place though Pete.

If I took the 1100 out on the track for a rider training day under the impression that undertaking was not allowed and some prick pulled a similar manoeuvre as shown in the photos I would happily inflicted grievious bodily harm on the prick.

Let's not forget, this was not a racing incident.

[Subike]

That's why rules are put in place though Pete.

If I took the 1100 out on the track for a rider training day under the impression that undertaking was not allowed and some prick pulled a similar manoeuvre as shown in the photos I would happily inflicted grievious bodily harm on the prick.

Let's not forget, this was not a racing incident.


so what would you call undertaking, left side /right side/ depending upon corner turning left or right?

[Katman]

so what would you call undertaking, left side /right side/ depending upon corner turning left or right?

Stop being fucking retarded.

We all know what constitutes 'undertaking'.

[Subike]

Don't be fucking retarded.

We all know what constitutes 'undertaking'.

so seeing we drive on the left hand side of the road, undertaking is when you go past a person on the left side , as per the road rules,
and passing on the right side is over taking, as per the road rules.
Not daft question for riders who do NOT do track days
and also I object to you calling me a retard, not that It will stop you doing so
Pity,

[flyingcrocodile46]

That's why rules are put in place though Pete.

If I took the 1100 out on the track for a rider training day under the impression that undertaking was not allowed and some prick pulled a similar manoeuvre as shown in the photos I would happily inflicted grievious bodily harm on the prick.

Let's not forget, this was not a racing incident.

Right! He broke the rules which you appear to regard as sacrosanct but you would knowingly break the law to deliberately and maliciously inflict injury on someone because they made a mistake in breaking a rule which ended up in an accident in which you and your bike were damaged. Not a good idea. You would end up in jail for breaking the law and have to pay him victims compensation, While he wouldn't have broken any laws so wouldn't have to compensate you.

[Kickaha]

so seeing we drive on the left hand side of the road, undertaking is when you go past a person on the left side , as per the road rules,


Passing on the inside of the corner regardless of what way you are turning

[Subike]

Passing on the inside of the corner regardless of what way you are turning


Thank you for that clarification, such a nice simple answer
Pity Mr Know it all was not as knowledgeable or polite.

Now some readers who have not ridden on a track, may understand better

[Crasherfromwayback]

That's why rules are put in place though Pete.

If I took the 1100 out on the track for a rider training day under the impression that undertaking was not allowed and some prick pulled a similar manoeuvre as shown in the photos I would happily inflicted grievious bodily harm on the prick.

Let's not forget, this was not a racing incident.

I hear ya. You'd be allowed to get upset. It's an 1100 Katana after all! But a clip round the ear for the other cunt sure...but bloody hard to make him pay up for ya smashed bike etc.

[PrincessBandit]

Thank you for that clarification, such a nice simple answer
Pity Mr Know it all was not as knowledgeable or polite.

Now some readers who have not ridden on a track, may understand better

I have never ridden on a track but would have assumed that "undertaking" was what Kickaha said - didn't think it took much to figure out. But hey, what would I know.

[Subike]

I have never ridden on a track but would have assumed that "undertaking" was what Kickaha said - didn't think it took much to figure out. But hey, what would I know.

some of us do have the common sense to work this out yes,

But others may not, hence on group rides I have seen muppets undertake on the inside.

Quite a few of them not so young of age, or small of bike, if you know what I mean.

[The Singing Chef]

Personally I think that the other rider should pay up, or at the very least fess up and do his best to help sort out the bike etc...
I'm in group 3 as well and there are often some pretty close passes, some were within touching distance turning into corners and some were under braking into the hairpin and pretty much everywhere else, but at none of those points was I tightening my line or coming up to the apex and when I had the opportunity to pass people (not often :laugh:) I would give them plenty of space as the apex was coming up soonish but I knew that I could get through.

With the OP's pictures, the muppet was clearly trying to fit into a gap that didn't really exist, and even if there was one it would be stupid to try and pass there. At the start of the day we are told no undertaking, and not to do any dodgy passing as it is only a training day and it doesn't matter if you lose a couple of seconds off your lap time (not that anyone is timing) and to pass in a safe place, which can be easy to do if you know how to get a stronger drive out of corners.

Even if the rider had over cooked it, it is still his responsibility as he should at this stage, know what speed, gear, position etc... that he needs to be in for the corner and therefore it is his stupidity either way that caused the accident, case and point.

I would be damn pissed off as well if the same happened to me, and it doesn't matter that it is on the track at a training day. It isn't a place for stupid shit and the offending rider should instead 'suck it up' and come forward and sort this charade out.

[Madness]

So, 20 pages in and counting. Has the OP managed to contact the other rider yet?

[Katman]

Right! He broke the rules which you appear to regard as sacrosanct

So on one hand we have someone who (according to you) sees a "sacrosanct" rule broken and on the other we have someone who's opinion is "fuck the rules".

Which do you think has more validity?

[tigertim20]

That's why rules are put in place though Pete.

If I took the 1100 out on the track for a rider training day under the impression that undertaking was not allowed and some prick pulled a similar manoeuvre as shown in the photos I would happily inflicted grievious bodily harm on the prick.

Let's not forget, this was not a racing incident.
If you were stupid enough to take your bike onto the track without first making sure that your insurer covered you for a trackday (and many will and do provide this cover) then yeah, tough shit. Its a race track, at speed things happen, if its a track day and not a race, theres an argument that people are likely to be learning to go fast, rather than be experienced race-pace riders, making incidents more likely to occur.
If you didnt sort your insurance out, dont bitch that your bike's fucked and you're out of pocket. - thats what insurance is for.

[flyingcrocodile46]

So on one hand we have someone who (according to you) sees a "sacrosanct" rule broken and on the other we have someone who's opinion is "fuck the rules".

Which do you think has more validity?

How can you not see the point I was making was that of the irony in your approach to the situation. That you should think it's ok to break the law (as in mandatory compliance or jail/fine) in order to inflict a beating on someone because they broke a rule (like in sports games).

Isn't it more likely that your real motivation would be a need for revenge because you feel like he just assaulted you rather than because of a sense of fair play?

[FJRider]

So on one hand we have someone who (according to you) sees a "sacrosanct" rule broken and on the other we have someone who's opinion is "fuck the rules".

Which do you think has more validity?

Rules ... that are difficult to enforce. Rules ... that are difficult to punish those that break them. Rules ... that contain little weight in any court of law.

[Asher]

Next track day im going to covertly take out as many people as i can can try to do as much damage as possible.
When they bitch and moan at me i will just say "whoops, sorry mate hope you get your bike fixed soon".
Would you guys have a problem with that? Its there fault if they have no insurance right?

[Katman]

if its a race and not a track day,

You really are stupid, aren't you?

[D3ADLYTuna]

I have since spoken to him. He does not reside on KB.
He has offered to pay HALF my insurance excess being half of $1500.
He told me he was performing a safe pass based on his judgement prior
to the incident, It appears that Me following my line as opposed to running wide pre-apex
was not a good thing to do.

For those who have ridden puke, where is your apex on Ford Corner/rise.
Mine was at the end of the rumble strip where there is a patch of concrete.
I followed the instruction given to me being: Come into the corner from the middle of
the track, apex at the end of the rumble strip and on the gas hard puts you basically
out wide down the straight without too much lean or potential loss of traction.
This was to allow smooth cornering and to get on the gas hard once you line up your apex.

I'm no racer, but I did try to save it by tipping back in. Obviously did not work.

I'm not trying to take him to court, its in the hands of insurance (Swann maxi rider)

He is a nice bloke who thought he was going to be OK undertaking pre apex, regardless of the stipulated
no undertaking rule. Which I would not normally have had a problem with, had he tried to do it post apex.

I would like to hear where people put the fast line apex at, through that corner, and is it not reasonable to
expect a rider, particularly with experience on the track to know the lines and be able to perceive a defensive/ fast line which
would not enable others to pass mid corner.

Not that I was trying to stop anybody passing me, just following the line I was told to, and it was working well for me.

What works for you?

[FJRider]

Would you guys have a problem with that? Its there fault if they have no insurance right?

Now having stated your intention ... organisers have now a reason to take legal action against you if you did ...

And ... a valid reason for those you came into contact with you (intentially or otherwise) on a trackday ... to take legal action against you.

[D3ADLYTuna]

Now having stated your intention ... organisers have now a reason to take legal action against you if you did ...

And ... a valid reason for those you came into contact with you (intentially or otherwise) on a trackday ... to take legal action against you.

no no no...
have you not read this whole thread.

you sign a disclaimer that stops people taking action against you right?:shifty:

[Asher]

Now having stated your intention ... organisers have now a reason to take legal action against you if you did ...

And ... a valid reason for those you came into contact with you (intentially or otherwise) on a trackday ... to take legal action against you.

Of course i wasnt being serious. I was trying to make a point.
When do people become responsible for their actions, wither morally or legally?

[FJRider]

no no no...
have you not read this whole thread.

you sign a disclaimer that stops people taking action against you right?:shifty:

No ... YOU are incorrect ... The waiver states YOU wont take action against THEM ... NOTHING there to state THEY can not/will not ... take action against YOU. :bleh:

[unstuck]

I have since spoken to him. He does not reside on KB.
He has offered to pay HALF my insurance excess being half of $1500.
He told me he was performing a safe pass based on his judgement prior
to the incident, It appears that Me following my line as opposed to running wide pre-apex
was not a good thing to do.

Are you happy with him paying half of your excess?

[FJRider]

Of course i wasnt being serious. I was trying to make a point.
When do people become responsible for their actions, wither morally or legally?

Of course everybody knew that ... :shifty:

When the judge says "I find you guilty" ... up untill then ... the general course of action is shout loudly ... It wasn't my fault. :corn:

[D3ADLYTuna]

Are you happy with him paying half of your excess?

I do not know to be honest. It is better than nothing thats for sure.

Also. What you sign indemnify's them to accidental damage, but on what grounds would they look at you. And you just agreed that
it does not stop others taking action against you. which really embodies this thread. At what point and for what reason does one person have a claim
against another as two participants?

Theoretically, If Asher crashed into me but had stated he was planning on hitting people does that suddenly give me rights even though its on a track, and could have been accidental?
This is where the wording of the disclaimer needs to be very explicit and where the law is open to interpretation.

Its an interesting thing to consider.
I believe any case would be a precedent in this regard.

[sil3nt]

I do not know to be honest. It is better than nothing thats for sure.

Also. What you sign indemnify's them to accidental damage, but on what grounds would they look at you. And you just agreed that
it does not stop others taking action against you. which really embodies this thread. At what point and for what reason does one person have a claim
against another as two participants?

Theoretically, If Asher crashed into me but had stated he was planning on hitting people does that suddenly give me rights even though its on a track, and could have been accidental?
This is where the wording of the disclaimer needs to be very explicit and where the law is open to interpretation.

Its an interesting thing to consider.
I believe any case would be a precedent in this regard.Surely you now have his details and it is up to the insurance company?

[D3ADLYTuna]

I do have his details. and so does my insurance company.
I will be following them up tomorrow.

[unstuck]

Well I hope you can come to a place where you feel that you have some closure, seems like you have learnt some valuable lessons from this whole thing, and not just on the track either.:msn-wink: Good luck dude.



P.S. Still reckon you should of stabbed the cunt with a pencil.:Punk:

[Madness]

I do have his details. and so does my insurance company.
I will be following them up tomorrow.

Yay! Still a sucky situation but the offer for 50% is probably as good as you can expect out of the situation, unless the Insurers decide to puruse it, unlikely considering the situation. It's also good to see your posts reflect a calmer state of mind than earlier in this thread. It'll all sort itself out eventually dude, like sands in the hourglass... You might even end up with a Kawasaki :niceone:

[flyingcrocodile46]

I do have his details. and so does my insurance company.
I will be following them up tomorrow. if possible, wait till you get the $750.... No don't accept it until you check with your insurer to make sure that you are
A. Allowed to under the policy terms and
B. That in accepting any payment, it may be considered as full compensation and therefore deny the insurer a right to compensation through the courts.. if that was remotely possible in this instance. Fuck knows.

[D3ADLYTuna]

thats a very good point,
i have not accepted any compensation as of yet.
i told him i would get back to him regarding that.
it may have been a sneaky ploy advised by his lawyer or it could be genuine.
either way it stands in limbo at this point.

[scracha]

thats a very good point,
i have not accepted any compensation as of yet.
i told him i would get back to him regarding that.
it may have been a sneaky ploy advised by his lawyer or it could be genuine.
either way it stands in limbo at this point.

It's $750 more than I'd have given you had I been in similar circumstances.

[Katman]

It's $750 more than I'd have given you had I been in similar circumstances.

A sad indictment on your sense of morality perhaps.

[Madness]

He's Scottish.

[Zedder]

thats a very good point,
i have not accepted any compensation as of yet.
i told him i would get back to him regarding that.
it may have been a sneaky ploy advised by his lawyer or it could be genuine.
either way it stands in limbo at this point.

Yep, check with your insurer before doing anything like accepting an offer.

However, if an offer did come from his lawyer it would most probably be a cheque with the words "Full and final payment" on it plus an accompanying letter stating that by you accepting the cheque (banking it) you were agreeing that it was the end of the matter.

[NinjaNanna]

I suspect the insurer is more entitled to that $750 - they'll be out of pocket a crap load more than you will be ... thread carefully.

[nodrog]

This thread is awesome.

[sidecar bob]

Trackdays, A place where people who cant ride, go to race.

[Drew]

Trackdays, A place where people who cant ride, go to race.Voice of experience Steve?

[sidecar bob]

Voice of experience Steve?
Err, no. I currently have two spare gaps left at the back of my MNZ licence from one year of racing, not including overseas meetings.

I have watched a couple of track days from the stands & the antics scared me shitless.
This bloke should just accept that he entered a trackday with a bunch of other muppets that were too inept to enter a proper race meeting, with predictable results.

[D3ADLYTuna]

I should note that he extended the offer to me personally not legally and offered the cash to help me get my bike sorted anyway.
I over looked that in previous post.

[Drew]

Err, no. I currently have two spare gaps left at the back of my MNZ licence from one year of racing, not including overseas meetings.

I have watched a couple of track days from the stands & the antics scared me shitless.
This bloke should just accept that he entered a trackday with a bunch of other muppets that were too inept to enter a proper race meeting, with predictable results.Just giving you shit fella. I've seen antics at race meetings that boggle the mind too, but certainly more at track days and rider training days.

[nodrog]

I'm going to sue KFC, I just wanted to get fat, I didnt want diabetes.

[Usarka]

You bush lawyers need to read this http://www.sportnz.org.nz/Documents/faq/Full_Legal_Liability_Document.pdf

And before the OP gets too excited he needs to read the last two sentences.

There is also a duty of care owed by one sportsperson to another. In these circumstances it
has generally been held in that reckless disregard must be shown to have occurred before
liability will be confirmed. In other words , there must be more than a mere lapse of skill or
error (with the level of skill differentiated depending on the level of the game). This means a
higher degree of care is required of a player in a first division rugby match than a player in a
local social club match. At the very least, there will need to have been a breach of the rules
of the game, although that will not in itself be enough. The injured sports person needs to
prove that the other player acted unreasonably in the particular circumstances.

[scracha]

A sad indictment on your sense of morality perhaps.

Considering your often ill timed and condascending posts, I think you've got a bloody cheek questioning my morals mate.

My reasoning has been thoroughly explained in my previous posts in this thread. Someone else's stupidity in not having loss of earnings/medical insurance combined with them not being able to grasp that shit happens and their toys may get broken through an accident is not my problem.

Suppose the OP had no insurance at all and was riding an NR750? If you'd clipped him at the track would you be prepared to pay him 90K + leathers, helmet etc? Would you subsidise his loss of earnings? Would you subsidise any shortfall in his medical care? Would you do manage all of teh above if you took out 3 bikes at the track (I've seen it happen). Unless you answer "yes" to all of the above then you're full of shit.

Morality has fuck all to do with it mate. It's simple economics. We start paying out for woopsies incurred then the only "Kiwi's" able to trackdaying in this country will be Kim Dotcom and James Cameron.

[Katman]

Suppose the OP had no insurance at all and was riding an NR750? If you'd clipped him at the track would you be prepared to pay him 90K + leathers, helmet etc? Would you subsidise his loss of earnings? Would you subsidise any shortfall in his medical care? Would you do manage all of teh above if you took out 3 bikes at the track (I've seen it happen). Unless you answer "yes" to all of the above then you're full of shit.


It might come as a surprise to you but we're talking about an actual incident - not a hypothetical NR750. (Is that condescending enough?)

The fact is that the undertaking rider rode in a manner contrary to the rules in place on the day and has a moral obligation to accept responsibility for the crash.

[flyingcrocodile46]

It might come as a surprise to you but we're talking about an actual incident - not a hypothetical NR750. (Is that condescending enough?)

The fact is that the undertaking rider rode in a manner contrary to the rules in place on the day and has a moral obligation to accept responsibility for the crash.


scracha's point was valid and your failure to acknowledge it doesn't lend any credibility to your pretty weak counter view.

[Katman]

scracha's point was valid

No it wasn't. I haven't crashed into any NR750.

[flyingcrocodile46]

No it wasn't. I haven't crashed into any NR750.

Did I say you were a moron? No I didn't. Sorry for the oversight.

[Usarka]

My reasoning has been thoroughly explained in my previous posts in this thread. Someone else's stupidity in not having loss of earnings/medical insurance combined with them not being able to grasp that shit happens and their toys may get broken through an accident is not my problem.


If you are talking about reasonable accidents where the other person is playing fairly, within the rules, and not being reckless, then you're correct. Otherwise they may be liable. Using medical and earnings as an example in NZ is flawed though because ACC prevents us from claiming these damages anyway.

I'll use an extreme example. If you turned around and rode the wrong way and crashed into me then I'd fully expect you to pay for any damages. I'd take you to court because I'm so confident that I'd win.

I suspect it would be a hard fight in a court for the OP unless there is some clear evidence the guy was riding like a cock, and we've only heard one side of the story.


There are legal precedents here. From the article i posted earlier:

Cordon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866 (England)
In this case Mr Basi, an amateur soccer player, was held liable for breaking his opponent’s leg in a tackle during a local league match. The sliding tackle was adjudged to constitute “serious foul play” and to have made in a reckless and dangerous manner and to have been worthy of a sending off.

[Zedder]

You bush lawyers need to read this http://www.sportnz.org.nz/Documents/faq/Full_Legal_Liability_Document.pdf

And before the OP gets too excited he needs to read the last two sentences.

There is also a duty of care owed by one sportsperson to another. In these circumstances it
has generally been held in that reckless disregard must be shown to have occurred before
liability will be confirmed. In other words , there must be more than a mere lapse of skill or
error (with the level of skill differentiated depending on the level of the game). This means a
higher degree of care is required of a player in a first division rugby match than a player in a
local social club match. At the very least, there will need to have been a breach of the rules
of the game, although that will not in itself be enough. The injured sports person needs to
prove that the other player acted unreasonably in the particular circumstances.

The OP stated that he had an offer of payment from the other rider.

From this it appears there is no need for carrying on with the duty of care issue, the level of which (and compensation for) is only decided in court.

[scracha]

It might come as a surprise to you but we're talking about an actual incident - not a hypothetical NR750. (Is that condescending enough?)

So basically your "morals" would only cover a grand or two of damage you'd caused. So glad we clarified that someone in this forum is actually crock full of shit.



If you are talking about reasonable accidents where the other person is playing fairly, within the rules, and not being reckless, then you're correct. Otherwise they may be liable. Using medical and earnings as an example in NZ is flawed though because ACC prevents us from claiming these damages anyway.

Yeah but Katman was talking about morallity, and as ACC doesn't fully cover accidents, loss of earnings and other consequential losses then it would obviously be immoral for the "guilty" party to not pay the difference.

[Katman]

So basically your "morals" would only cover a grand or two of damage you'd caused. So glad we clarified that someone in this forum is actually crock full of shit.


Clearly you're still trapped in Lahlahland.

I haven't caused any damage.

[D3ADLYTuna]

For anyone who is interested, my insurance company is currently assessing whether they will take the other party to court. (which i firmly believe they will)
He had the option of paying the money he said he would, he did not.
He shall now have to suffer any and all consequences for his lack of sound judgement.
I dont care whether i get anything out of it. He had no insurance and if it takes 3+ months in court
then im sure the process will make him realise he could have avoided it if he had just manned up and paid the money he said he would.
And im sure that any legal fees will far outweigh the money he could have chosen to pay me, that being if he does not have to reimburse
the insurance company the $15K+ that they have lost as well as their legal fees.

I will post again here with a result.

Discuss....

[curly]

:eek5: Are you taking Chuck Norris (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/149421-What-does-KB-think-i-should-do-to-this-prick?p=1130315405#post1130315405) to court?

[FJRider]

For anyone who is interested, my insurance company is currently assessing whether they will take the other party to court. (which i firmly believe they will)
He had the option of paying the money he said he would, he did not.
He shall now have to suffer any and all consequences for his lack of sound judgement.
I dont care whether i get anything out of it. He had no insurance and if it takes 3+ months in court
then im sure the process will make him realise he could have avoided it if he had just manned up and paid the money he said he would.
And im sure that any legal fees will far outweigh the money he could have chosen to pay me, that being if he does not have to reimburse
the insurance company the $15K+ that they have lost as well as their legal fees.

I will post again here with a result.

Discuss....

Unless your insurance company is SURE they will win the case, and sure they will get the money from the guy. They wont pursue the matter. $15,000 is maybe all they want to lose. The fact that the guy said he would pay you (and hasn't) ... wont have altered your insurance companys view on the matter ... nor it's intention to pursue it.
If court action was to take place ... any payment by him ... to you, could be seen as a prior admission of guilt.
And you will probably get an increase in your own premiums too ... (if you haven't already)

And if court action happens (and I doubt it will) ... you wont get anything. It's just between him and your insurance company. (the only pockets they want money put in ... is their own)

[Virago]

For anyone who is interested, my insurance company is currently assessing whether they will take the other party to court. (which i firmly believe they will)
He had the option of paying the money he said he would, he did not.
He shall now have to suffer any and all consequences for his lack of sound judgement.
I dont care whether i get anything out of it. He had no insurance and if it takes 3+ months in court
then im sure the process will make him realise he could have avoided it if he had just manned up and paid the money he said he would.
And im sure that any legal fees will far outweigh the money he could have chosen to pay me, that being if he does not have to reimburse
the insurance company the $15K+ that they have lost as well as their legal fees.

I will post again here with a result.

Discuss....

Discuss what? You edited the thread into nonsense. Most people won't know what the fuck you're talking about.

For what it's worth, my money is on Chuck Norris.

[Oakie]

Defenestration

You'd break his windows? Shameful!
(What do I win for knowing what that meant?)

[fuknK1W1]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/393391_220852304651850_919595327_n.jpg

[Geeen]

You'd break his windows? Shameful!
(What do I win for knowing what that meant?)

I thunked it was offing someone by throwing them out a very high window, coz a ground floor one would just piss them off.

[Oakie]

I thunked it was offing someone by throwing them out a very high window, coz a ground floor one would just piss them off.
Well that makes more sense.

[watlaw]

:brick: hay i dont no either of u but really havent u worked it out yet theres no teachers to cry to ur just makin urself look like a little girl, why dont u look on you tube theres heaps of tutorials on furthering ur riding skills learn to ride then go get even with him on the track, after taking someone out i love the look on there face wen u say sorry thats racing lol, its good 4 everyone it atracts spectators ill come watch it will be like revenge of the nerds live:yes:
Fairly certain that you would have signed a waiver before you took part :yes: And why dont you have insurance? Most insurance companies extend cover for advanced training at track days.

[BoristheBiter]

:brick: hay i dont no either of u but really havent u worked it out yet theres no teachers to cry to ur just makin urself look like a little girl, why dont u look on you tube theres heaps of tutorials on furthering ur riding skills learn to ride then go get even with him on the track, after taking someone out i love the look on there face wen u say sorry thats racing lol, its good 4 everyone it atracts spectators ill come watch it will be like revenge of the nerds live:yes:

But that's the thing, it wasn't a race.

But what you are saying is next time on the track the OP should take out the rider as revenge?:tugger:

[avgas]

I think it's a combination of both.

Hence why organisers say "no undertaking".

I fail to see why the OP should be expected to just 'suck it up'.
Go read your book on personal responsibility again. You seemed to have missed the point.
His hands on handle bars.
His bum on the seat.
His responsibly.

Perhaps big crying girls shouldn't ride/crash bikes if they can't afford to.
Only a dumbass would assume that incidents won't happen on the track.

[avgas]

But that's the thing, it wasn't a race.

But what you are saying is next time on the track the OP should take out the rider as revenge?:tugger:
Or not ride near lunatics.
If you can't swim with the sharks - stay out of the fucking ocean.

[BoristheBiter]

Or not ride near lunatics.
If you can't swim with the sharks - stay out of the fucking ocean.

what sort of dumb analogy is that?
It should say if you don't want to be bitten by sharks.

Watlaw is condoning taking someone out on the track for revenge so people will come and watch.

[avgas]

what sort of dumb analogy is that?
It should say if you don't want to be bitten by sharks.

Watlaw is condoning taking someone out on the track for revenge so people will come and watch.
Nope. Y'see no one likes being bitten by sharks. But only a stupid idiot would put themselves "IN HARMS WAY" thinking that the shark is never going to bite.

Riding on a track with a whole lot of other muppets, all going in the same direction is a damn site easier than doing the same on a bi-directional road.........but if you can't handle the fact that may be your bike might be hurt there.....then perhaps riding one isn't such a wise idea.

I mean if he lowsided would he have sued the ground, the tarseal, the contractor.............the fact another bike hit him, while he rode with them, by his own choice......
Lets just keep it polite and state he could have left that track, and pulled over to the side at any point in time.
He failed to do so, and shit happened.

What was he in control of? Could he have changed the situation?

[DEATH_INC.]

I'm gonna agree with avgas . Riding on the track is a risk. The other guy can't have been being that dangerous or he'd have been pulled for it. I've crashed on the track because of others, as have plenty of others on here. Shit happens.
It'll be a sad day for trackdays if this guy wins in court.

[SVboy]

FFS-YOU chose to go on track-what did you think-that the organisors would create a risk profile on each participant or that marshals would throw cotton wool under your bike in the case that something went wrong. If your insurance pays out for you-great-lucky you, but for them to persue a grevience thru the courts sucks. The other guy may have made a mistake in your opinion-sad for him and you, but YOU had the responsibility to think thru the possible consequences of being on a RACE track. It is part of life that people fall off more on track because they push their personal boundaries more-RACE track-not security blanket. So fuck off-take your insurance check-thank your god you are ok, sell any remaining M/C gear you have and get into chess or soduku or watching americas got talent, but stay away from dangerous places if you cant handle the consequences...

[BoristheBiter]

Nope. Y'see no one likes being bitten by sharks. But only a stupid idiot would put themselves "IN HARMS WAY" thinking that the shark is never going to bite.

Riding on a track with a whole lot of other muppets, all going in the same direction is a damn site easier than doing the same on a bi-directional road.........but if you can't handle the fact that may be your bike might be hurt there.....then perhaps riding one isn't such a wise idea.

I mean if he lowsided would he have sued the ground, the tarseal, the contractor.............the fact another bike hit him, while he rode with them, by his own choice......
Lets just keep it polite and state he could have left that track, and pulled over to the side at any point in time.
He failed to do so, and shit happened.

What was he in control of? Could he have changed the situation?

You are misinterpreting what I was meaning.

I was replying to a post by watlaw in which he seems to think that it is all fine and dandy to take someone out and that is why people come to watch.

yes riding on a track can be dangerous.
Yes you can have accidents.
Yes there are riders that think they have more skill than they do.

This was a rider training day, not a race and in such you expect a little more courtesy.

Me personally, I would have given the other rider a piece of my mind then left it in the hands of the insurance company.
And posting it up on KB "total fail".

[BoristheBiter]

I'm gonna agree with avgas . Riding on the track is a risk. The other guy can't have been being that dangerous or he'd have been pulled for it. I've crashed on the track because of others, as have plenty of others on here. Shit happens.
It'll be a sad day for trackdays if this guy wins in court.

The marshals are just normal people doing a volunteer job so most just gets missed or because most don't have numbers it's hard to be sure who's who.

yep it will be.

[Katman]

FFS-YOU chose to go on track-what did you think-that the organisors would create a risk profile on each participant or that marshals would throw cotton wool under your bike in the case that something went wrong.

Why do they stipulate no undertaking then?

[ellipsis]

...I only get knocked off by my mates and as there are so few of them, I just buy them a beer and thank them for being 'close friends'...

[Bassmatt]

FFS-YOU chose to go on track

And most people choose to drive on the road, and know the risks inherent in doing that. Whats the difference?

[avgas]

And most people choose to drive on the road, and know the risks inherent in doing that. Whats the difference?
Usually the speed limit and the road rules.

I suspect the OP wasn't "driving miss daisy" or going to the said track day to do a fuel map.
He was there to play with fire and the dumb bastard got burned.

[avgas]

yes riding on a track can be dangerous.
IS not CAN BE.
The fact that it was a bunch of people getting trained only increases said risks.

[SVboy]

Why do they stipulate no undertaking then?

I would imagine you may have been on a track before and are therefore familiar with the stresses and narrow focus riders sometimes display, particularly if they are new to the track. Perhaps the senario was that the "undertaker" had entered the corner a little to fast and was out of his comfort zone. If so, his thought process was probably in survival mode: "how am I going to make it around here without crashing" rather than on a rule in the briefing/indemity form. Of course that is a guess and the perp may have had ambitions greater than his talent, but to judge his liability based on the obviously biased recollections and perceptions of the OP[who isnt even man or woman enough to leave his/her original post up] is fraught.

[Katman]

I would imagine you may have been on a track before and are therefore familiar with the stresses and narrow focus riders sometimes display, particularly if they are new to the track. Perhaps the senario was that the "undertaker" had entered the corner a little to fast and was out of his comfort zone. If so, his thought process was probably in survival mode: "how am I going to make it around here without crashing" rather than on a rule in the briefing/indemity form. Of course that is a guess and the perp may have had ambitions greater than his talent, but to judge his liability based on the obviously biased recollections and perceptions of the OP[who isnt even man or woman enough to leave his/her original post up] is fraught.

Well that certainly didn't answer the question.

[BoristheBiter]

Usually the speed limit and the road rules.

I suspect the OP wasn't "driving miss daisy" or going to the said track day to do a fuel map.
He was there to play with fire and the dumb bastard got burned.


IS not CAN BE.
The fact that it was a bunch of people getting trained only increases said risks.

So then you are in the same thought pattern as watlaw.

You think that it is acceptable to push others off the track just because you are on one.

[SVboy]

And most people choose to drive on the road, and know the risks inherent in doing that. Whats the difference?

You are kidding right? When I ride on the road I am subject to rules and conditions that I should have knowledge of, given I have a licence. I have the safety factor that other drivers should by in large be driving using the same set of rules. Usually, we have licences to indicate our levels of knowledge and experience if not competence .
The track is a whole other world: obviously there are rules, but the speeds and different levels of experience on track make this a much more dangerous and risky environment. Obviouly organisers try to lower risk, but with speed comes a much greater chance of incidents.
Re-read your post-bit bizarre and trolly really wasnt it.

[Katman]

So in a nutshell.....

This was a rider training day, not a raceday or a trackday.

The organisers stipulate no undertaking.

Someone undertakes another rider and causes an accident.

Shouldn't take the insurance company too long to figure out who is liable.

[SVboy]

Well that certainly didn't answer the question.

Sorry, I will try and use short words for you. The rider who may or may not have made the crash happen may have had much more pressing things to deal with at that moment than to worry about a rule that they may or may not have been able to obey given what was happening at the time. What further explanation would you like Sir?

[Katman]

The rider who may or may not have made the crash happen may have had much more pressing things to deal with at that moment than to worry about a rule that they may or may not have been able to obay given what was happening at the time.

Certainly doesn't absolve them of responsibility for the accident though.


Sorry, I will try and use short words for you....What further explanation would you like Sir?

And I'll try using even shorter words for you. The question was - why do the orgainsers stipulate no undertaking?

(And there's no need to call me Sir. I haven't been knighted - yet).

[avgas]

You think that it is acceptable to push others off the track just because you are on one.
What I think is acceptable is irrelevant. I simple assume others are going to try to anyway and don't crash.
Crying over spilt milk afterwards does not change the fact that there were moves that could have been taken to avoid an accident.

Your anticipating what others are going to do, or you crash. Its pretty simple math. Strange thing is that is applies EVERYWHERE.
There are much safer things in the world if you can't anticipate what is going to hit you.

The world is full of arseholes, if you think I am one of the worst ones I highly suggest not riding motorbikes (there are worse than me out there).

[Katman]

What I think is acceptable is irrelevant. I simple assume others are going to try to anyway and don't crash.
Crying over spilt milk afterwards does not change the fact that there were moves that could have been taken to avoid an accident.

Your anticipating what others are going to do, or you crash. Its pretty simple math. Strange thing is that is applies EVERYWHERE.
There are much safer things in the world if you can't anticipate what is going to hit you.

The world is full of arseholes, if you think I am one of the worst ones I highly suggest not riding motorbikes (there are worse than me out there).

Someone hitting you from behind is a little hard to anticipate if you've removed your mirrors.

[Bassmatt]

You are kidding right? When I ride on the road I am subject to rules and conditions that I should have knowledge of, given I have a licence. I have the safety factor that other drivers should by in large be driving using the same set of rules. Why shouldn't you expect this same safety factor on the track? There are rules after all
Usually, we have licences to indicate our levels of knowledge and experience if not competence . On the road? You pass a couple of piss weak tests and get your licence its got fuck all to do with competence.
The track is a whole other world: obviously there are rules, but the speeds and different levels of experience on track, make this a much more dangerous and risky environment.
Isn't that why they have different groups when on track? for the differing levels of experience and speed? So a bit of a fail on that one mate, I think you would have a larger spread of experience levels on the road. How many bikers of 25 years experience (for example) are gonna go in the noob group on track? As soon as I go out my drive I'm going to be mixing with inexperienced drivers.
Obviouly organisers try to lower risk, but with speed comes a much greater chance of incidents.
Re-read your post-bit bizarre and trolly really wasnt it. No

The rules were broken, so the breaker of the rule is in the wrong, why is that so difficult for you to accept?
If there were no rules on the track then I would agree with your argument.

[SVboy]

So in a nutshell.....

This was a rider training day, not a raceday or a trackday.

The organisers stipulate no undertaking.

Someone undertakes another rider and causes an accident.

Shouldn't take the insurance company too long to figure out who is liable.

In another nutshell

Rider goes to trackday
Is involved in an unfortunate incident
Cannot move on without finding someone else to blame

As to the undertaking-we only have Dead tunas Perception of events....who is to say dead tuna had not just completed a[legal] overtake
on the straight just prior to the corner and enters with a lot more speed than they are comfortable with. They leap on the trusty back brake, slowing them[causing the rider they overtook to now undertake them] and tightening their line, into the other rider......

[Katman]

In another nutshell

Rider goes to trackday
Is involved in an unfortunate incident
Cannot move on without finding someone else to blame

As to the undertaking-we only have Dead tunas Perception of events....who is to say dead tuna had not just completed a[legal] overtake
on the straight just prior to the corner and enters with a lot more speed than they are comfortable with. They leap on the trusty back brake, slowing them[causing the rider they overtook to now undertake them] and tightening their line, into the other rider......

You're not very good at answering questions, are you?

[SVboy]

The rules were broken, so the breaker of the rule is in the wrong, why is that so difficult for you to accept?
If there were no rules on the track then I would agree with your argument.

The KB jury has been very quick to accept dead tunas side of the story without seeing the fabled photos or video "evidence". Yes there must be rules and guidelines on a track for obvious safety reasons but I think its wrong to castigate a rider based on the biased perception of events.

[Katman]

The KB jury has been very quick to accept dead tunas side of the story without seeing the fabled photos or video "evidence". Yes there must be rules and guidelines on a track for obvious safety reasons but I think its wrong to castigate a rider based on the biased perception of events.

Go back and check out post #109.

[D3ADLYTuna]

Ok, this is fun to read now.
Let me point out a few things... Just to clarify.
There are photos in the thread showing the guy at fault. The photographer will confirm my version of events along with the 10+ other people on that corner at the time.
The other rider admitted fault to me directly after the crash while I was being tended by ambulance staff.
I had not overtaken anybody, It happened on ford crest. I was following the racing line shown to me, and I have checked it against top superbike racers in NZ and it is the same/ correct line for
my position on the track and corner entry/speed.
I was not going slow, in fact I was passing several people in the group.

I was accelerating through the corner and was about to apex when hit by the other rider.
I don't know why he was out of position, He admitted to me via email that he thought he could undertake me safely in the gap because he falsely misinterpreted the situation and thought I was running out wide when I had not even apex'd yet. He also told me that I was clearly a capable rider as he was behind me for multiple laps.(I can prove this in court if needed)

Of course you have not heard his version, nor his reason for being out of position on the track, nor his reason for trying to undertake me when he knew it was not allowed.

I made the mistake of putting this thread up here, I edited my angry posts, I'm happy to comment now.

Anything else you want to ask or say, go ahead.
I would delete the thread but I cant...

Stop trolling, any one of you would be pissed if the same happened to you. I got insurance. I gave the guy a chance to be decent and pay me what he said he would. Its his problem now, not mine. No hard feelings from me. That's life.
Make a stupid decision, live with the consequences. He can live with his,
This thread is clearly mine :sweatdrop

[SVboy]

You're not very good at answering questions, are you?

If the question is "should the undertaking rider take reponsibility for causing the crash" personally IF he accepts he is to blame then an apology is needed. BUT IMHO-NOT a legal battle with the courts.I personally believe the track is a very different environment to the road and to choose to blanket the track with rules would soon see track days and racing legislated out of existence. However this thread is yet to see any compelling evidence that this was indeed the situation and not the misguided perceptions of the "victim"

[Katman]

If the question is "should the undertaking rider take reponsibility for causing the crash" personally IF he accepts he is to blame then an apology is needed. BUT IMHO-NOT a legal battle with the courts.I personally believe the track is a very different environment to the road and to choose to blanket the track with rules would soon see track days and racing legislated out of existence. However this thread is yet to see any compelling evidence that this was indeed the situation and not the misguided perceptions of the "victim"

That still wasn't the question.

[SVboy]

Better spell it out for me.

[BoristheBiter]

What I think is acceptable is irrelevant. I simple assume others are going to try to anyway and don't crash.
Crying over spilt milk afterwards does not change the fact that there were moves that could have been taken to avoid an accident.

Your anticipating what others are going to do, or you crash. Its pretty simple math. Strange thing is that is applies EVERYWHERE.
There are much safer things in the world if you can't anticipate what is going to hit you.

The world is full of arseholes, if you think I am one of the worst ones I highly suggest not riding motorbikes (there are worse than me out there).

I will take that as a yes then.

You must be a fucking top rider if you can anticipate someone running into the back of you.
And saying that mister fucking expert, what could have the OP done to avoid being run into?

[Crasherfromwayback]

, what could have the OP done to avoid being run into?

I can answer that one. Go a shitload faster.

[BoristheBiter]

I can answer that one. Go a shitload faster.

Thought that after I posted it:facepalm:

[Drew]

Ok, this is fun to read now.
Let me point out a few things... Just to clarify.
There are photos in the thread showing the guy at fault. The photographer will confirm my version of events along with the 10+ other people on that corner at the time.
The other rider admitted fault to me directly after the crash while I was being tended by ambulance staff.
I had not overtaken anybody, It happened on ford crest. I was following the racing line shown to me, and I have checked it against top superbike racers in NZ and it is the same/ correct line for
my position on the track and corner entry/speed. You run through there at the same pace as Stroud, Bugden, Sherriffs, Frost, and Cole do ya? On a bike set up the same? Because if not, the line might be different.
I was not going slow, in fact I was passing several people in the group.

I was accelerating through the corner and was about to apex when hit by the other rider.
I don't know why he was out of position, He admitted to me via email that he thought he could undertake me safely in the gap because he falsely misinterpreted the situation and thought I was running out wide when I had not even apex'd yet. He also told me that I was clearly a capable rider as he was behind me for multiple laps.(I can prove this in court if needed) What is "out of position"? Was he on the track? Because there are many ways around every corner, with very similar times and speeds.

Of course you have not heard his version, nor his reason for being out of position on the track, nor his reason for trying to undertake me when he knew it was not allowed.

I made the mistake of putting this thread up here, I edited my angry posts, I'm happy to comment now.

Anything else you want to ask or say, go ahead.
I would delete the thread but I cant...

Stop trolling, any one of you would be pissed if the same happened to you. I got insurance. I gave the guy a chance to be decent and pay me what he said he would. Its his problem now, not mine. No hard feelings from me. That's life.
Make a stupid decision, live with the consequences. He can live with his,
This thread is clearly mine :sweatdropYeah, we'd be pissed, and we'd suck it up because we're not girls and we signed a waiver.

You cannot hold anyone else responsible for damages, for what happens on the track.

He thought he could do it safely, he was wrong. It is for exactly that reason that you sign the form.

You are the weakest link, goodby.

[Katman]

Better spell it out for me.

W.h.y. d.o. t.h.e. A.R.T. o.r.g.a.n.i.s.e.r.s. s.t.i.p.u.l.a.t.e. n.o. u.n.d.e.r.t.a.k.i.n.g?

[D3ADLYTuna]

If the question is "should the undertaking rider take reponsibility for causing the crash" personally IF he accepts he is to blame then an apology is needed. BUT IMHO-NOT a legal battle with the courts.I personally believe the track is a very different environment to the road and to choose to blanket the track with rules would soon see track days and racing legislated out of existence. However this thread is yet to see any compelling evidence that this was indeed the situation and not the misguided perceptions of the "victim"

So you think an apology is needed, would it not be reasonable to ask the guy to pay your insurance excess as he was at fault and admitted it. he offered to pay me half my excess which was $1500, He didnt pay, his problem.

[Drew]

W.h.y. d.o. t.h.e. A.R.T. o.r.g.a.n.i.s.e.r.s s.t.i.p.u.l.a.t.e n.o. u.n.d.e.r.t.a.k.i.n.g?Because it causes the other bike to go down, if you fuck it up. We all get it. That is the only argument for the side you're on, you've said it so shut up till you think of another argument.

[Drew]

So you think an apology is needed, would it not be reasonable to ask the guy to pay your insurance excess as he was at fault and admitted it. he offered to pay me half my excess which was $1500, He didnt pay, his problem.

I feel really sorry for anyone who spends any time around you.

[D3ADLYTuna]

Yeah, we'd be pissed, and we'd suck it up because we're not girls and we signed a waiver.

You cannot hold anyone else responsible for damages, for what happens on the track.

He thought he could do it safely, he was wrong. It is for exactly that reason that you sign the form.

You are the weakest link, goodby.




Have you read the form, are you a little bit slow. The only remaining question is whether the guy has legal liability for damages incurred (as he admitted fault), There is no precedent that I can find, and the insurance company will let me know what happens, I gave him a choice, not that I told him about it.
The choice being:
- Pay the $750 he said he would pay me and I forget about my broken bones and written off bike and let live. OR
- Don't pay and get served, Whether he wins or loses my insurance company does it all for me and he will have at least a legal scare, or at most have to pay 'Everything'

[D3ADLYTuna]

I feel really sorry for anyone who spends any time around you.
Doesn't answer the question. You think he should apologise granted.

I'll spell it out:

If it was you, would you ask the party at fault to pay your excess?

[Bassmatt]

Yeah, we'd be pissed, and we'd suck it up because we're not girls and we signed a waiver.

You cannot hold anyone else responsible for damages, for what happens on the track.

He thought he could do it safely, he was wrong. It is for exactly that reason that you sign the form.

You are the weakest link, goodby.




Happy to admit I'm not the track expert that others are(or appear to be) but any waiver I have seen/signed is to absolve the organisers from any responsibility not the other participants.

[Katman]

Because it causes the other bike to go down, if you fuck it up. We all get it. That is the only argument for the side you're on, you've said it so shut up till you think of another argument.

Thank-you Drew.

Case closed.

[Drew]

Happy to admit I'm not the track expert that others are(or appear to be) but any waiver I have seen/signed is to absolve the organisers from any responsibility not the other participants.

Never signed one that didn't absolve everyone there.

I have not seen the one this squid signed though... Sorry, this Tuna.

[Drew]

Doesn't answer the question. You think he should apologise granted.

I'll spell it out:

If it was you, would you ask the party at fault to pay your excess?

No, I would not ask for any money.
I might be angry and call him a cunt, but that's prolly where it'd end.

[Bassmatt]

Never signed one that didn't absolve everyone there.

I have not seen the one this squid signed though... Sorry, this Tuna.

Ok. If thats the case he's fucked and I withdraw my support. It will never get to court either - time will tell I guess.

[D3ADLYTuna]

Oh, my bad, forgot everything you read on the internet is the truth... LOLOL

[Katman]

Never signed one that didn't absolve everyone there.


Really Drew?

I'd be surprised if any waiver you've signed absolved anyone other than the event organisers and associated helpers.

If you can show me a waiver that absolves everyone involved on the day (including participants) I'd be interested to see it.

[Drew]

Ok. If thats the case he's fucked and I withdraw my support. It will never get to court either - time will tell I guess.

I'm not certain that the one he signed is the same, I haven't seen it. But I have done a lot of track time in one form or another, and always had to say I don't get to go anyone for damages.

[Drew]

Really Drew?

I'd be surprised if any waiver you've signed absolved anyone other than the event organisers and associated helpers.

If you can show me a waiver that absolves everyone involved on the day I'd be interested to see it.

Starting to sound like I need to read the non race ones more closely. I'm sure it's the same as the race one, but these roosters seem sure of themselves too.

Two men say their Jesus, one of them must be wrong!

I still think it's fuckin rank to go for damages from the guy. You were going fast (by your definition), which is the point of going to the track. Going fast has a high risk, the circumstances of crashing were unfortunate, but it's still just a shit happens thing to me.

[Katman]

[/I]I still think it's fuckin rank to go for damages from the guy. You were going fast (by your definition), which is the point of going to the track. Going fast has a high risk, the circumstances of crashing were unfortunate, but it's still just a shit happens thing to me.

Drew, an accident occurred as a direct result of someone doing something they had strict instructions not to do.

Why shouldn't they be held accountable?

[Drew]

Drew, an accident occurred as a direct result of someone doing something they had strict instructions not to do.

Why shouldn't they be held accountable?

Because it is wetting an already slippery slope. Start this shit, and racing will eventually get some fuckwit with a bad attitude who shouldn't be on the track, blaming someone else for a crash and getting paid for it.

How I see it.

[Katman]

Because it is wetting an already slippery slope. Start this shit, and racing will eventually get some fuckwit with a bad attitude who shouldn't be on the track, blaming someone else for a crash and getting paid for it.

How I see it.

It wasn't a race.

It was a rider training day.

[short-circuit]

Because it is wetting an already slippery slope. Start this shit, and racing will eventually get some fuckwit with a bad attitude who shouldn't be on the track, blaming someone else for a crash and getting paid for it.

How I see it.

Ya fuct that one up for yourself

http://tinyurl.com/9ed4e

[DEATH_INC.]

are you a little bit slow

Yes he is. :p

[Drew]

It wasn't a race.

It was a rider training day.

I can read.

But it was on a racetrack, and if courts start getting lots of dicks making these claims, it's downhill pretty quick.

He went on a race track and increased his risk of crashing by his own choice, the crash might not have been his fault but it definately wouldn't have occured if he hadn't been there. He'll do whatever he wants, everyone does. I just don't like it.

By the way. Anyone who says something as stupid as, I've studied top racers going over there, so I was doing it right, or words to that effect, is going to crash of their own accord anyway.

[DEATH_INC.]

It wasn't a race.

It was a rider training day.
Correct, and one of 'em obviously needs more, probably what he was there for.
But it still doesn't count out the number 1 rule of being on the track, which is 'SHIT HAPPENS!'
Get the fuck over it and leave it the fuck alone before rider training and trackdays end up being 50kph bubble wrap parade days.

[Crasherfromwayback]

It wasn't a race.

It was a rider training day.


Get the fuck over it and leave it the fuck alone before rider training and trackdays end up being 50kph bubble wrap parade days.

I think as Drew has said...it's a slippery slope.

If everyone starts getting taken to court...it'll all be over before you know it.

[Virago]

Just out of interest, has there been any admission of attempted undertaking? Is it possible it was a failed attempt at avoiding a collision with someone who braked early and hard? Just sayin' like...

[BoristheBiter]

Two men say their Jesus, [I]one of them must be wrong!

[

There's a protest singer singing a protest song.

[Katman]

But it was on a racetrack, and if courts start getting lots of dicks making these claims, it's downhill pretty quick.


If we once start seeing race day organisers stipulating no undertaking then I'd agree we're on a slippery slope.

Until then, if a training day organiser stipulates no undertaking then that's just the way it is.

[D3ADLYTuna]

Just out of interest, has there been any admission of attempted undertaking? Is it possible it was a failed attempt at avoiding a collision with someone who braked early and hard? Just sayin' like...

Yes he admitted he was trying to undertake me as he thought there was sufficient room, judging by the photos posted, there was clearly not enough room, and I was clearly still heading in to the apex. It was he mis calculation and his failed attempt to undertake yet I'm the one who has to have broken bones and pay more on insurance because of his failure to judge the corner and rider properly. All this is admitted via email. Which I still have, not that I will post it here.
I was not braking, neither was he, he purposefully tried to undertake me and if you look closely he did not even try to brake....
If you read my earlier post you would have read the words; I was accelerating...

[D3ADLYTuna]

also like to say that I have no problem with race days, and i realise that a race waiver has completely different and very clean stipulations.
The organisers did nothing wrong and their rules and waiver form were in place for a reason. If the other party wants to pass then the onus is on them.
Race hard... Train well. The guy had the option of being a decent person and keeping his word. he didnt, i doubt this will happen often and there has been no updates
to the ART waiver, yet i'm rather sure they would have consulted a lawyer before re releasing it.

[Virago]

...If you read my earlier post you would have read the words; I was accelerating...

Yeah, sorry - I didn't get past Chuck Norris.

[Drew]

If we once start seeing race day organisers stipulating no undertaking then I'd agree we're on a slippery slope.

Until then, if a training day organiser stipulates no undertaking then that's just the way it is.

I have undertaken on track days where it was said not to. The thinking that if you can't so it on the outside, you can't do it safely is bulshit.

I don't believe this Deadfish rooster has experience to say unequivocally that he was taking the same line he had been for laps previous. Or that he'd man up and admit it if he knew he hadn't.

How can we tell from pictures that the other guy didn't try to stop by the way Deadlyguppy?

[Katman]

I have undertaken on track days where it was said not to. The thinking that if you can't so it on the outside, you can't do it safely is bulshit.



Maybe the guy doing the undertaking in this instance isn't the motorcycling god that you are Drew.

[Drew]

Maybe the guy doing the undertaking in this instance isn't the motorcycling god that you are Drew.

One of your redeeming traits Steve, (can I call you Steve? I hate calling someone by KB handles), is you don't usually feel the need for petty sarcasm the way that I do, to make your point.

Maybe the guy being undertaken is a spaz...Like the vaaaaaaast majority of people who attend these training days.

I accept that this guy probably got taken out when he shouldn't have been, while he was doing nothing wrong. I really do, honestly.

But can you accept, that you do not know all the facts, and there is as much chance this dude deserves the broken bones. If you can accept that chance, then why should the other guy have to pay?

[FJRider]

also like to say that I have no problem with race days, and i realise that a race waiver has completely different and very clean stipulations.
The organisers did nothing wrong and their rules and waiver form were in place for a reason. If the other party wants to pass then the onus is on them.
Race hard... Train well. The guy had the option of being a decent person and keeping his word. he didnt, i doubt this will happen often and there has been no updates
to the ART waiver, yet i'm rather sure they would have consulted a lawyer before re releasing it.

At least you were covered by insurance. With a reasonable excess ...

Waivers are usually written for the safety of the organisers ... not those participating in the event. Usually ... they are not worth the paper they're printed on. The keyword is negligence ... You have the right to sue the guy that hit you (or even the organisers). He ... no doubt ... wont have much money, after effecting repairs to his own bike. You (or your insurance company) may win in court ... and be paid back at $5 a week. Or ... if he declares bankrupcy ... nobody gets anything. But you may stil have that court win to cherish ..

And the guy will have few options ... being a decent person, will be unlikely to be one of them.

[avgas]

Someone hitting you from behind is a little hard to anticipate if you've removed your mirrors.
Not really. Not when you have to travel 100kph to a destination to have someone do it to you.

Or did he go for a ride one day and happen to end up halfway around a race track? If so he should really lay off the drugs.

[avgas]

I have just reviewed the evidence and have concluded.....

Hi-Viz is the only way to survive a training day.

[Katman]

One of your redeeming traits Steve, (can I call you Steve? I hate calling someone by KB handles), is you don't usually feel the need for petty sarcasm the way that I do, to make your point.



Drew, I don't know whether to be offended or flattered.

I thought I wrote the handbook on petty sarcasm.

[FJRider]

I have just reviewed the evidence and have concluded.....

Hi-Viz is the only way to survive a training day.

I have survived every training day I never attended. And hope to continue doing so.

[Drew]

Drew, I don't know whether to be offended or flattered.

I thought I wrote the handbook on petty sarcasm.

No no no. Normally, you are funny in your sarcasm. The petty stuff is the way I operate.

Maybe I just got it wrong because it's directed at me.:crybaby:

[Madness]

Why shouldn't they be held accountable?

The way I see it after reading all the posts since the OP dreged this up again is this.

The training day goes by a different name to the track day but when you look at exactly what the riders were doing at the time and where they were doing it there's little difference to a track day. Then there's the disclaimier and however it is written it still creates an environment different to the more usual environment for motorcycling, the road. People go to a race track (that is what they're called, unfortunate maybe in this case) to either ride at their limits or discover new limits - of control. The only thing that can be argued in my mind is the no undertaking rule, if in fact a rule or maybe a verbal request made by the organisers. Did people agree in writing to adhere to this rule? I bet not.

The other rider has apparently offered to pay some coin. He should honour this, if for no other reason than he agreed to.

The insurance company will not likely pursue a legal case. They will probably threaten action but why would you want to pursue this bitch of a situation for the value of the bike. What the fuck was it anyway, an MV Senna? More like a $5,000 GSXR innit?

OP is a bit of a cock. I didn't post this earlier but why the fuck dredge this up again? Was the horse not truly flogged?

[Katman]

OP is a bit of a cock. I didn't post this earlier but why the fuck dredge this up again? Was the horse not truly flogged?

I'm prepared to ride this horse all the way to PD.

[Madness]

http://img5.visualizeus.com/thumbs/fa/b0/couple,kissing,lesbian,sexy,b,w,kiss-fab05eb66d79a6d41c364b2a00d1fd4f_h.jpg

[SVboy]

I'm prepared to ride this horse all the way to PD.

Why? What is your agenda with thisone? I think Drew has more eloquently summed up what I think. Katman, you are right, the organisers stated the condition. So this should be used as a legal lever against someone who no doubt has a different perception of events with the possible concequence that track days become mired in legislation? As I have stated "Man up OP and move on"

[BoristheBiter]

nice pic

Good god man now we will never stop this thread.

[FJRider]

The way I see it after reading all the posts since the OP dreged this up again is this ...

The OP is a bit of a cock. I didn't post this earlier but why the fuck dredge this up again? Was the horse not truly flogged?

Shortened it to all that needs being said ...

[Crasherfromwayback]

I have survived every training day I never attended. And hope to continue doing so.

Because you're a flag marshall?

[Madness]

Shortened it to all that needs being said ...

Thanks. Now if Boris could please get an infraction for quoting an embedded image this thread will have been worth it.

[FJRider]

Thanks. Now if Boris could please get an infraction for quoting an embedded image this thread will have been worth it.

PM a mod and complain ... but infractions are a secret punishment. I want infractions made public ...

[FJRider]

Because you're a flag marshall?

Barman. It's safer doing it sober ...

[Drew]

PM a mod and complain ... but infractions are a secret punishment. I want infractions made public ...

No no no young buckey. My rep would be ruined if anyone knew how few infractions I've had.

[Usarka]

nice pic


Good god man now we will never stop this thread.


Thanks. Now if Boris could please get an infraction for quoting an embedded image this thread will have been worth it.

But it was worth quoting.

[BoristheBiter]

Thanks. Now if Boris could please get an infraction for quoting an embedded image this thread will have been worth it.

thats not very nice, I was only repeating what you said.

And anyway i have enough infractions from talking with akzle.

[FJRider]

And anyway i have enough infractions from talking with akzle.

I haven't as yet ... but I feel a few coming on ... ;)

[Katman]

Pffft.

Armatures.

[BoristheBiter]

Thanks. Now if Boris could please get an infraction for quoting an embedded image this thread will have been worth it.

There you go this thread is complete.
Thanks for the infraction Germlin.

Now go give some to akzle for use green.

[Madness]

There you go this thread is complete.
Thanks for the infraction Germlin.

Now go give some to akzle for use green.

Bwuahahahahahaaaarghhhhg!

[avgas]

Pffft.

Armatures.
Sit and Rotate Stator.