Lane splitting accident

[Ratez]

Hi all, I just need some help regarding an accident I faced last Thursday. Sorry for intruding into a biker forum, I'm not a biker but I hope I can get your views on what happened to me and what is my legal stand-point. Below is what I have posted in another forum but I thought it would be good to get the input here before the insurance companies start fighting it out.

So I just got into my first accident Thursday morning rush hour. I just need some input of the fine and also hope forumers won't get into the situation I was in as it could have turned out very very bad. It was a car vs bike and I was the driver. Thankfully he did not sustain major injuries, only sprained his hand.

Now I have no problems with liability on me if I am at fault by law. However the police is booking me for careless driving $150 + 1 warning? I have drawn up what happened below.

I was on the median waiting to turn into the driveway on a 60km/h road. It was rush hour and both lanes left a gap for me to go through. So I proceed with my turning at a reasonable speed making sure I was clear. Next moment a bike is coming from the left of the van and slams into my rear left passenger door. There was no way I could see him due to the van and school buses behind it except if I was directly 90 degrees to the bike. There were no skid marks as the bike did not see my car either.

Now my problem is, I'm getting a fine + warning when I'm getting hit hard enough by my insurance excess. I don't know what you guys think and I need some input. Should I just accept the fine? He said the motorcyclist is going at normal speed and I questioned him the fact if travelling at 'normal speed' is reasonable speed in a traffic jam. The witness in the van said to the ambulance crew that there was a bus behind him and the driver (me) wasn't able to see the bike. The ambulance crew member told me not to worry as he is fine and just verbally assured me that I did not do anything wrong. This was before the cops arrived.

Either way the cop told me this fine was the best outcome for me, even though he knows I would not have been able to see the bike that I still failed to give way. However I did some research and a motorcyclist got a fine for using a lane that is unavailable in a similar case while in my case I am the only one getting slapped with the fine.

Is it legal to lane-split on the left even though the lane is 'unavailable' as it is occupied by the van? I know neither of us wanted this to happen but it just wasn't our day, as I usually don't even wake up that early for work.


http://i.imgur.com/XkZjJPL.jpg

[DanielM8]

Don't want to be a dick to motorcyclists but overtaking on the left is illegal- pretty sure he should've been on the other side of the van unless he wasn't actually lane splitting and the van invaded his stopping space. Just my knowledge on it.. bring on the flaming

[EJK]

I don't know. I wonder what the motorcycle rider would say.

[Ratez]

I don't know. I wonder what the motorcycle rider would say.

I understand what you are saying as there are always two sides to a story. My confusion is when is it alright to overtake on the left? I read section 2.8 and see that you can overtake on the left but the third clause confuses me. I dont need people to take sides, just need to know more about the clause.

[cynna]

a guy in a car pulling into work did the same thing to a guy on a scooter. they were both in the wrong and both got a fine - scooter rider also got a broken nose and arm

[Juniper]

I don't know about that guy but I know I wouldn't split on the left. Also personally when I'm splitting and I see a gap big enough for a car I slow down because someone is bound to pull into it or the gaps there for a reason (like to let you through)

You were pulling into oncoming traffic (even though it was still) so I think you are automatically in fault. Just like reversing onto a street, it's the person reversing that's in fault.
If the gap was big enough for a motorbike then It could have also been a cyclist, who generally use the left.
I can see why he gave you the fine.

Though in the other hand personally I think he should have slowed down and been more aware, we may be in the right- but we're still the ones who get hurt.


More importantly was the bike ok????? :p

[nzspokes]

You turned into oncoming traffic. You didnt have the right of way. Feel lucky you didnt hurt the rider and have got hit with Careless causing injury. If so you would be up for six months walking, up to 4K fine and 3 months inside.

The rider may have been in the wrong also but 2 wrongs dont make you right.

[Maha]

Don't want to be a dick to motorcyclists but overtaking on the left is illegal- pretty sure he should've been on the other side of the van unless he wasn't actually lane splitting and the van invaded his stopping space. Just my knowledge on it.. bring on the flaming

No flaming, I agree with you. The bike was not ''splitting'' it was filtering (other vehicles around it were stationary) and in an illegal way. The bike rider was in the wrong also...idiotic road skills.
Unfortunately, you hit the bike, and in the eyes of the law you are in the wrong. But if I were you, I would be out to prove 'biker fault' because lets face it, if biker thought more of his/her own safety it wouldn't have happened.

[mossy1200]

Based on information given by one side only motorcyclist passing through a gap left by traffic at an intersection needs to use more caution. If the traffic was stationary then its not passing on the left. If it was moving it wasn't legal to pass on the left.

[Drew]

From what you have said, I would argue that all due care was taken on your part. How can you be charged with careless driving?

I am not fluent in the laws in question of course, but I've seen this exact scenario play out before my eyes, and blamed the biker in that instance.

[Ratez]

Oops I will edit and repost again. Didnt know I generated a discussion.

[bosslady]

​ooh man I missed what happened, coulda been helpful!

[strandedinnz]

​ooh man I missed what happened, coulda been helpful!

Same question was posted on Geekzone, with a pretty picture :

[URL="http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=124575"]

[Ratez]

Same question was posted on Geekzone, with a pretty picture :

[URL="http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=124575"]

There you go.

I have also updated my original post back to its contents so people can learn from my mistake too :).

Edit: Just would like to make clear, I'm not hoping he gets the fine. I'm hoping I don't get the fine! By law I failed to give way. My main question is, by law is it legal to lane-filter to left of stationary vehicle? I know you can filter left if vehicles are stationary, however does that include same lane or if there is another lane to your left?

[sinfull]

Rider was a clown ! I say argue it in a letter with the pretty picture !

Could save ya a bit in excess and no claims etc as well as the fine if you argue that you were not at fault

[Crasherfromwayback]

If that's how it really happened...I'd have to say the rider is a twat and is lucky they weren't badly hurt.

[Ratez]

I can see why he gave you the fine.

Though in the other hand personally I think he should have slowed down and been more aware, we may be in the right- but we're still the ones who get hurt.


More importantly was the bike ok????? :p


I agree, I felt really bad for him and I am sure the pain he feels is worst than the fine I am getting.

Funny you ask if his bike is fine because cosmetically only one side of the handle got scrapped which I presume is where his sprained hand was. Whereas my car door is slammed in. I hope him and the bike is fine! I got a fright when I saw him lying on the floor.

Third party insurance should be compulsory as demonstrated by me... no matter how careful you think you are, there are always chances for the wrong turn (pun).

[Katman]

It is the motorcyclist who should be getting the fine for careless riding.

I'd fight it.

[Juniper]

Hey just having a look at the google maps pic you put on geek zone. I can see why he would be "undertaking on the left" as right in front of the gap that was left the road turns into 3 lanes. I could see that in rush hour those 2 lanes would turn into 3 before the road actually turns into 3 lanes.


Yea as the other guy said on GZ, cudoes for posting in "enemy territory"

Now you will be more aware of bikes, and he will be more aware of cars.

[bosslady]

Copied and pasted from that other website.

http:///www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/40.0/DLM303050.html

(http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/40.0/DLM303050.html)2.8Passing on left

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the left of another vehicle moving in the same direction except in accordance with this clause.
(2) In any case in which the movement referred to subclause (1) may be made,—


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



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



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

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



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


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

.......

If it's legal to lane share so long as there is enough room for both vehicles and it's legal to pass on the left if the overtaken vehicle is stationary then apart from the fact the motorcyclist should have exercised more caution, then why is he in the wrong?

[Ratez]

Copied and pasted from that other website.

http:///www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/40.0/DLM303050.html

(http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/40.0/DLM303050.html)2.8Passing on left

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the left of another vehicle moving in the same direction except in accordance with this clause.
(2) In any case in which the movement referred to subclause (1) may be made,—


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



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



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

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



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


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

.......

If it's legal to lane share so long as there is enough room for both vehicles and it's legal to pass on the left if the overtaken vehicle is stationary then apart from the fact the motorcyclist should have exercised more caution, then why is he in the wrong?

I understand that part, but what does the third clause mean?


Hey just having a look at the google maps pic you put on geek zone. I can see why he would be "undertaking on the left" as right in front of the gap that was left the road turns into 3 lanes. I could see that in rush hour those 2 lanes would turn into 3 before the road actually turns into 3 lanes.


Yea as the other guy said on GZ, cudoes for posting in "enemy territory"

Now you will be more aware of bikes, and he will be more aware of cars.

Yeah I didn't remember about the lane splitting at the end. That could be the case. If I was him, I would probably have done it as well. But if I was myself, I would have done the turning as well. I am sure we both learnt something out of this.

[blue rider]

Don't want to be a dick to motorcyclists but overtaking on the left is illegal- pretty sure he should've been on the other side of the van unless he wasn't actually lane splitting and the van invaded his stopping space. Just my knowledge on it.. bring on the flaming

i was just told (in the reverse) by a judge that one can overtake on the left hand side of the road.
I kid you not.
However the party overtaking on the left has to take due care. ( in my case it was I that got hit and recevied a fine 'for not being enough to the left", cause being in the middle of the road in front of a car is not enough to the left. This was a residential road, one line both ways, with a foot path, bus stops and what nots - which means the road code saying you should position yourself safely in the middle of the road or to the right hand side of the car to be "seen" does not count either)

so really it does not matter where you (in your car or bike ) overtake, you just have to take good care - according to the judge in my case and I got that in writing. :laugh:

And no, i did not go to court over this.....the other party did to establish liability....but thats another story:devil2:

[bogan]

As far as I know its fine to overtake on left within a lane as long as the traffic is stopped. Pretty fucking stupid to do so without checking gaps, but unfortunately stupid is rarely against the law. I'm not sure how it relates to right of way, but one would assume straight still has right of way over turning. I guess from the cops comments the law doesn't make the distinction between van and say a low slung sports car in which you would have been able to see the rider coming.

[slofox]

Is stupidity against the law?

I thought stupidity was mandatory under the law...:whistle:

[iYRe]

He had the right to be there.. from the bus stop onwards is considered three lanes. So he wasnt "splitting" he was just getting in the left hand lane earlier than most cars could.

I've done it myself, and know it to be so. Also, I agree, he should have been a bit more careful getting in there.

Its amazing how many people do exactly what you did, on dominion rd. They dont appear to realise that the bus lane is a "lane" and think they only have to worry about the lane that has stationary vehicles in it. Nearly saw a buss collect an idiot in a beemer, and had to do a few emergency stops myself. I tend to slow and sit up for each one and go left a bit so there is more chance I can be seen (and I have had to emergency turn left to avoid a car before.. )

edit: also, it makes your picture very misleading.. he was in a "lane" not going up the shoulder of the road.

[Ratez]

He had the right to be there.. from the bus stop onwards is considered three lanes. So he wasnt "splitting" he was just getting in the left hand lane earlier than most cars could.

I've done it myself, and know it to be so. Also, I agree, he should have been a bit more careful getting in there.

Its amazing how many people do exactly what you did, on dominion rd. They dont appear to realise that the bus lane is a "lane" and think they only have to worry about the lane that has stationary vehicles in it. Nearly saw a buss collect an idiot in a beemer, and had to do a few emergency stops myself. I tend to slow and sit up for each one and go left a bit so there is more chance I can be seen (and I have had to emergency turn left to avoid a car before.. )


Haha maybe if I stopped driving a beemer I would be more attentive! There it is, its the beemers fault definitely. The bike and the car were both BMWs :laugh:.

Yeah I accept whatever the insurance throws at me, just didn't think the cops would slap me too.

[Gremlin]

A lot has been mentioned already, so I'll probably end up repeating bits.

From your point of view, you did not have right of way to make the turn. The drivers can leave a gap to help you get through, but the onus is still on you to give way. It's tricky on roads with 2+ lanes, ie, 2 lanes and a cycle way, or 3 lanes etc, but again, you have to give way.

From the motorcyclists point of view, he can only lane split on the left if traffic is stationary (applicable laws are in previous posts). While this is legal, I'd tell anyone they're asking for trouble by being there, ESPECIALLY if there is an intersection and cars are leaving a gap. Such a common way to get nailed, but the advice is more about keeping yourself safe. This would include 3 lane roads. The lane may be clear, while the other 2 are blocked, but don't barrel down it, as a car might try to go through a gap etc.

As for the charge of careless driving. The test (in layman's terms) is did you do what any other safe and prudent driver would do? Did you ease through the gap and kept looking for traffic? Who stopped first? Bike or you? Bear in mind, it could easily have been a cyclist in the same position. It can be a catch all charge where you didn't specifically break any other laws but an accident occurred. Police tend to always charge people over an incident, then it's up to you to defend. Careless driving will carry 35 demerits. If you have a clean history, look up diversion.

As I've mentioned, this a common intersection issue, where incidents can happen. Often people don't realise the risk until involved in something like this, or witness. Spread the experience to those you know, to try and prevent this happening to other drivers and riders.

[Katman]

I would suggest the fact that the motorcycle hit the rear door (as opposed to the front guard) indicates that they had more than enough time to safely react to the turning vehicle.

[Ratez]

A lot has been mentioned already, so I'll probably end up repeating bits.

From your point of view, you did not have right of way to make the turn. The drivers can leave a gap to help you get through, but the onus is still on you to give way. It's tricky on roads with 2+ lanes, ie, 2 lanes and a cycle way, or 3 lanes etc, but again, you have to give way.

From the motorcyclists point of view, he can only lane split on the left if traffic is stationary (applicable laws are in previous posts). While this is legal, I'd tell anyone they're asking for trouble by being there, ESPECIALLY if there is an intersection and cars are leaving a gap. Such a common way to get nailed, but the advice is more about keeping yourself safe. This would include 3 lane roads. The lane may be clear, while the other 2 are blocked, but don't barrel down it, as a car might try to go through a gap etc.

As for the charge of careless driving. The test (in layman's terms) is did you do what any other safe and prudent driver would do? Did you ease through the gap and kept looking for traffic? Who stopped first? Bike or you? Bear in mind, it could easily have been a cyclist in the same position. It can be a catch all charge where you didn't specifically break any other laws but an accident occurred. Police tend to always charge people over an incident, then it's up to you to defend. Careless driving will carry 35 demerits. If you have a clean history, look up diversion.

As I've mentioned, this a common intersection issue, where incidents can happen. Often people don't realise the risk until involved in something like this, or witness. Spread the experience to those you know, to try and prevent this happening to other drivers and riders.

Definitely. That is part of the reason why I posted here in addition to Geekzone. I am sure this is a common occurrence and I had to learn it the harsh way. I am thankful the biker is not injured seriously and I have no problem if the insurance points at me as I am already prepared for that. Just didn't think I would've gotten a fine but I guess that is their way of cautioning me.

On the other forum someone mentioned the cyclist analogy and I accept it. I am not one to admit fault unless I am at fault and I can see I could have been more attentive i.e. not crossing when I can't see the lane fully and I should've expected a cyclist or biker. I wasn't trying to argue who was at fault but merely if the fine is harsh or is it justified based on the scenario. I do feel terribly sorry for the biker and apologised.

I swear I saw the creepy old man spinning the wheel of misfortune!

http://imgur.com/5KuzK4r - My car damage. You can't really see it but the side fender is flopping around.

[Drew]

I would suggest the fact that the motorcycle hit the rear door (as opposed to the front guard) indicates that they had more than enough time to safely react to the turning vehicle.


Shit, there's a good point.

[Gremlin]

I would suggest the fact that the motorcycle hit the rear door (as opposed to the front guard) indicates that they had more than enough time to safely react to the turning vehicle.
Read the whole post (and thread) and missed that :facepalm:

Would depend on drivers speed I think. If you're slowly going through, then yes, you wouldn't have seen the motorcyclist as you drove across and had almost completed the turn before being hit. If hauling ass through the gap then it doesn't exactly meet the test of a prudent driver.

[imdying]

Regardless of the law, the motorcyclist got what he deserved. You don't get much more of danger area than that, and given he is soft and squishy, he should damn well be making sure there's not traffic turning across.

[Banditbandit]

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



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

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



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


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

.......

If it's legal to lane share so long as there is enough room for both vehicles and it's legal to pass on the left if the overtaken vehicle is stationary then apart from the fact the motorcyclist should have exercised more caution, then why is he in the wrong?

The car that was passed on the left was not signalling a right turn .. as above .. that's what puts the motorcyclist in the wrong .. as well s being a suicidal dickhead ...

I'm with the majority - a stupid move because the rider was blind from the cars ... it was an intersection .. any car on the insidelanes that he pased on the left may well have turned left and taken out the bike ...

FIght it mate .. the rider stuffed up - why should you pay ...

[bogan]

I would suggest the fact that the motorcycle hit the rear door (as opposed to the front guard) indicates that they had more than enough time to safely react to the turning vehicle.

They should have, had they been riding cautiously. Hitting the rear door in itself doesn't show much in terms of reaction time when his l.o.s. was blocked by a van, chances are even at 30kmhr he wouldn't have had time to stop.

[Voltaire]

Back in the 80's had exactly the same scenario as the diagram but instead of a motorcycle it was a cyclist.
I turned saw the cyclist and stopped, the cyclist got such a fright that they fell off.
I picked her up and made sure she was all right, the ACC cop arrived heard the story took a few notes, and that I thought was that.....
Well no it wasn't trip to court on Careless Use of Vehicle. I got off as the cop didn't turn up.
As soon as your cross the centre line you are in the wrong I was told.

[Ratez]

They should have, had they been riding cautiously. Hitting the rear door in itself doesn't show much in terms of reaction time when his l.o.s. was blocked by a van, chances are even at 30kmhr he wouldn't have had time to stop.

I guess if the road wasn't 60km/h limit, I could use that argument. I guess they weighed it out and ultimately 'failing to give way to oncoming traffic' sounds worse between me and him.

[bosslady]

The car that was passed on the left was not signalling a right turn .. as above .. that's what puts the motorcyclist in the wrong .. as well s being a suicidal dickhead ...

I'm with the majority - a stupid move because the rider was blind from the cars ... it was an intersection .. any car on the insidelanes that he pased on the left may well have turned left and taken out the bike ...

FIght it mate .. the rider stuffed up - why should you pay ...[/COLOR]

But you forget it also says even if the vehicle is stationary and not indicating, merely stationary, that it can be passed on the left. Sounds to me the motorcyclist did nothing illegal but did not take enough care when he pulled out in front of the van. He should have slowed down, approached the gap with caution and made sure it was clear before proceeding.

[Katman]

He had the right to be there.. from the bus stop onwards is considered three lanes. So he wasnt "splitting" he was just getting in the left hand lane earlier than most cars could.



Actually, no.

At the point of impact the road was still only marked as two lanes.

[Banditbandit]

But you forget it also says even if the vehicle is stationary and not indicating, merely stationary, that it can be passed on the left. Sounds to me the motorcyclist did nothing illegal but did not take enough care when he pulled out in front of the van. He should have slowed down, approached the gap with caution and made sure it was clear before proceeding.

Hmm ... you may be right ... but don't go looking for excuses to pass on the inside like that -it's a pretty suicidal move on a bike .. and if the car is NOT indicating right, if it is stationary it may move left .. then you're fucked ..

[Swoop]

Turning traffic always gives way to straight-through traffic.

[bosslady]

Hmm ... you may be right ... but don't go looking for excuses to pass on the inside like that -it's a pretty suicidal move on a bike .. and if the car is NOT indicating right, if it is stationary it may move left .. then you're fucked ..

Totally agree. Personally im incredibly wary even if the car IS indicating right. So many people change their minds at the last minute especially if they don't know where they are I.e. they're looking for an address.

[iYRe]

Haha maybe if I stopped driving a beemer I would be more attentive! There it is, its the beemers fault definitely. The bike and the car were both BMWs :laugh:.

Yeah I accept whatever the insurance throws at me, just didn't think the cops would slap me too.

I was hit by a beemer driver on dominion rd, because he was trying to turn right between me and a bicycle.. he clipped my exhaust. Luckily I stayed upright.

Katman,

Its not marked because its a driveway and they start the marking just after it (the driveway). Its still considered 3 lanes. I lived 1km up the road from it for 8 years..

[Katman]

Katman,

Its not marked because its a driveway and they start the marking just after it (the driveway). Its still considered 3 lanes. I lived 1km up the road from it for 8 years..

Doesn't really matter what you 'consider' it to be.

The road is marked at that point as two lanes.

The third lane starts just beyond the driveway entrance.

[iYRe]

Doesn't really matter what you 'consider' it to be.

The road is marked at that point as two lanes.

The third lane starts just beyond the driveway entrance.

its more important what the police consider it to be.. which pretty much makes your argument invalid.

[Katman]

its more important what the police consider it to be..

Why don't you ask them? There's a few on here.

I think you'll find an extra lane doesn't start until the road markings indicate it.

[Banditbandit]

its more important what the police consider it to be.. which pretty much makes your argument invalid.

Bwhahahaha .. when did the police sudddenly become the law of the land .... and when did what the police thought have any relation to reality on KBer ??? (See Bain/Watson/Lundy threads)

[Ratez]

Why don't you ask them? There's a few on here.

I think you'll find an extra lane doesn't start until the road markings indicate it.

Actually I don't mind getting what other police thinks of this if there are any on this forum.

As everyone at the scene was on the biker's side.. after all he was lying on the floor and had to be picked up. Other than the medical staff who gave me assurance after finding out where the bike was. Even the van driver who told the medical staff before leaving the scene that I couldn't see the bike because there were buses behind him, gave his card to the biker for insurance purposes.

If I was at the bus stop and see a guy lying on the floor with an asian driver causing it, I too would point finger at myself.

[Drew]

Actually I don't mind getting what other police thinks of this if there are any on this forum.

As everyone at the scene was on the biker's side.. after all he was lying on the floor and had to be picked up. Other than the medical staff who gave me assurance after finding out where the bike was. Even the van driver who told the medical staff before leaving the scene that I couldn't see the bike because there were buses behind him, gave his card to the biker for insurance purposes.

If I was at the bus stop and see a guy lying on the floor with an asian driver causing it, I too would point finger at myself.

Oh Christ, you're Asian. If you'd said so at teh beginning, we could have all saved some time by telling you it's your fault.

Seriously though, the cops aren't allowed to make public comments as you ask.

[Ratez]

Oh Christ, you're Asian. If you'd said so at teh beginning, we could have all saved some time by telling you it's your fault.

Seriously though, the cops aren't allowed to make public comments as you ask.

I tend to be a closet Asian when it comes to accidents or motor vehicle forums :P.

Ah alright, never considered that. Fair enough.

[jasonu]

I think you'll find an extra lane doesn't start until the road markings indicate it.

One would fucking hope so...

[nzspokes]

Turning traffic always gives way to straight-through traffic.

Yup. Im heading to court as somebody did exactly that to me a while back. He is starting to understand now the point of having insurance. :laugh:

He has a huge bill coming his way.

[Ratez]

Yup. Im heading to court as somebody did exactly that to me a while back. He is starting to understand now the point of having insurance. :laugh:

He has a huge bill coming his way.

Third party insurance should be compulsory imho. I dont know why it isnt.

[nzspokes]

Third party insurance should be compulsory imho. I dont know why it isnt.

Neither do I.

[Mom]

Are you sure the 2 wheeled vehicle you hit was a motorbike? This sort of shit riding is usually practised by scooter riders in my experience. Absolutely reckless behaviour on the part of the bike rider. Yes you should have been aware of the possibility of a vehicle filtering up the inside, push bikes do it all the time, but the bloke on the bike is insane!

Many years ago I was riding home from work on the Pakuranga Highway. Busy 3+ laned road. My bike started coughing and spluttering as I approached the lights on the corner of PH and Ti Rakau Drive. In order to get out of the traffic I slipped onto the shoulder, and yes I indicated. Very nearly took a bike cop out. He was busy zooming along on the shoulder of the road with out a care in the world. I gave him due cause to think about that as a prudent thing to do :sunny: He didn't hit me, but it was close. He could not say a thing...

Fight this one is my advice. You were in the wrong for certain, but if what you describe is correct, there should have been a corresponding ticket for the rider as well. Then again, shit happens and life is not fair.

Bet you never do that again, and I am picking said rider wont be all the keen to be so reckless with his own skin again either.

Best of luck.

I am amazed at the maturity shown by the forum. WTF is happening to this place, in the olden days, you would have been flamed, roasted and told to fuck off :yes:

[Ratez]

To be honest I expected to receive some flaming but I thought it is more important to get the opinion of those who bike. Not necessarily to determine who is more wrong but rather if I should just accept the fine and demerit points. I am prepared for the insurance etc.. looking at it on the bright side, I get a new door and side fender!

I am thankful for the input be it for or against my actions in the accident. Everyone has their own reasonings.

I was rather amazed at how little people talked about this when I searched the internet for a type of accident that occurs everyday. I asked for this thread to be deleted but I guess it can serve as future reference.

[bosslady]

why on earth would you want the thread deleted?

[Ratez]

why on earth would you want the thread deleted?

No particular reason. I have read all the replies and think that everything that can be said has been said. I understand the bike was technically legal while I was turning into a driveway. It can stay if you guys want it to stay. But I wont be pushing the blame to the biker nor am I contesting liability. Nor am I pushing for him to receive equal fine. I might contest the fine on me and thats it.

[george formby]

Ratez, on ya for having the pills to post here. I reckon your a far wiser man for this experience. Your accident situation is exactly why motorcyclists have such high ACC levies. We don't dent, we break, regardless of fault.
A typical day in the city, we are only human, shit happens. You had the opportunity to turn, you did so, you got T-boned. Law says your at fault. End of story, ish. Probably one of the most common accidents after car park shunts.
If this accident leaves us with a wiser, dented, chagrined, out of pocket driver, perhaps unfairly & a motorcyclist with a sore hand, scarred bike & great deal more caution in the future then it's a win.
Cram a boat load of disparate vehicles together in a multi lane urban environment & a few will hit each other. Fact.

Not gonna get on a soap box but I think the culprit here is the system. How well trained are we to hold a licence? If you have no real interest in driving or riding craft then it's all down hill from the moment we get our licence. Our road environment was designed for Morris Minors & generally is just being embellished.

When you get on the road get your road head on.

All the best, go get yourself a motorbike. They are amazing fun used responsibly..

[Ratez]

Ratez, on ya for having the pills to post here. I reckon your a far wiser man for this experience. Your accident situation is exactly why motorcyclists have such high ACC levies. We don't dent, we break, regardless of fault.
A typical day in the city, we are only human, shit happens. You had the opportunity to turn, you did so, you got T-boned. Law says your at fault. End of story, ish. Probably one of the most common accidents after car park shunts.
If this accident leaves us with a wiser, dented, chagrined, out of pocket driver, perhaps unfairly & a motorcyclist with a sore hand, scarred bike & great deal more caution in the future then it's a win.
Cram a boat load of disparate vehicles together in a multi lane urban environment & a few will hit each other. Fact.

Not gonna get on a soap box but I think the culprit here is the system. How well trained are we to hold a licence? If you have no real interest in driving or riding craft then it's all down hill from the moment we get our licence. Our road environment was designed for Morris Minors & generally is just being embellished.

When you get on the road get your road head on.

All the best, go get yourself a motorbike. They are amazing fun used responsibly..

Thanks for the post. I do feel a lot better now, it could have been much worse for the both of us. Ultimately neither of us wanted it to happen but shit happens. The one day I wanted to buy breakfast as I had an early meeting, I end up in an accident and missed the meeting. I don't even use that road usually!

Today on a 60km/h road at East Tamaki, there were cars that wanted to cross. I stopped out of courtesy and he proceeded onto my lane while the left lane didn't stop. He flashed his lights for the left lane to stop then crossed the road at speeds way faster than one should cross. It is amazing how many people don't expect bikes. Now I am wondering if I should even be courteous for the driver's own good.

[george formby]

Thanks for the post. I do feel a lot better now, it could have been much worse for the both of us. Ultimately neither of us wanted it to happen but shit happens. The one day I wanted to buy breakfast as I had an early meeting, I end up in an accident and missed the meeting. I don't even use that road usually!

Today on a 60km/h road at East Tamaki, there were cars that wanted to cross. I stopped out of courtesy and he proceeded onto my lane while the left lane didn't stop. He flashed his lights for the left lane to stop then crossed the road at speeds way faster than one should cross. It is amazing how many people don't expect bikes. Now I am wondering if I should even be courteous for the driver's own good.

Drive/ride to survive. Don't let the numptys grind you down, that's Darwinism. A flash should be nothing more than a notification of I see you.

If you want to level the field & stop scratching a hole in the side of your head go do some advanced training. I imply nothing. It's great fun & a revelation for the typical road user. Might get cheaper insurance, too.

My daily commute is riddled with fuckwits, the centre line is a suggestion, but I am in no position to guess why they do what they do. I just have to stay out of the firing line.

[Ratez]

Drive/ride to survive. Don't let the numptys grind you down, that's Darwinism. A flash should be nothing more than a notification of I see you.

If you want to level the field & stop scratching a hole in the side of your head go do some advanced training. I imply nothing. It's great fun & a revelation for the typical road user. Might get cheaper insurance, too.

My daily commute is riddled with fuckwits, the centre line is a suggestion, but I am in no position to guess why they do what they do. I just have to stay out of the firing line.

Don't think I will be biking anytime soon, the thought of any accident at all on a motorbike is scary. But I guess you guys hear that often from 'cage' users (did I get it right?). Although it does look like good fun.

[Juniper]

Don't think I will be biking anytime soon, the thought of any accident at all on a motorbike is scary. But I guess you guys hear that often from 'cage' users (did I get it right?). Although it does look like good fun.

Awww your adorable.

He may have meant advanced DRIVER trainning.

I know I need it for both my car and bike.

[Swoop]

WTF is happening to this place, in the olden days, you would have been flamed, roasted and told to fuck off
Bring back WINJA!

[flyingcrocodile46]

I understand that part, but what does the third clause mean?



Yeah I didn't remember about the lane splitting at the end. That could be the case. If I was him, I would probably have done it as well. But if I was myself, I would have done the turning as well. I am sure we both learnt something out of this.

Yes I think you have it now.

If he moved into the third (available) lane as Juniper indicated was present, then he has done exactly what is described in clause 3. That is to say 'he may pass or attempt to pass on the left of another vehicle....' because 'the roadway is marked in lanes' and providing that 'the drivers vehicle does not encroach on a lane that is unavailable to the driver'.

He was in the right on this one. He was neither lane splitting or filtering. He was in an available lane and totally within his rights (but not cleverly so) to pootle through at a speed he believed safe for the conditions. He should have been more cautious given the obvious gap and possibility of someone such as yourself (who was equally incautious) taking the gap.

[Ratez]

Yes I think you have it now.

If he moved into the third (available) lane as Juniper indicated was present, then he has done exactly what is described in clause 3. That is to say 'he may pass or attempt to pass on the left of another vehicle....' because 'the roadway is marked in lanes' and providing that 'the drivers vehicle does not encroach on a lane that is unavailable to the driver'.

He was in the right on this one. He was neither lane splitting or filtering. He was in an available lane and totally within his rights (but not cleverly so) to pootle through at a speed he believed safe for the conditions. He should have been more cautious given the obvious gap and possibility of someone such as yourself (who was equally incautious) taking the gap.

Yeah I am certainly a lot more attentive and hope I don't slack off :). I've always liked to 'try' to view things from every perspective although its hard. I can see why the biker did what he did, and as I said I would have done it if I was a biker. I didn't see him but I am lucky he got away with a sore hand and I got away with an empty wallet. When it is 50/50 result from the response I got here, it just means there are valid reasoning on either side to be thought about.

Just got my insurance claim approved, the panel beater said he will replace the door and fix the body (the impact damaged the body itself, just below the door). On the bright side, one side of my car will look brand new! Will be in for 3 days, no biggy.. and he will vacuum it for me as well. Certainly needs a good cleaning.

[Ratez]

I've just been advised by the police everything against me is dropped after he spoke to a guru. I can throw away the fine that will be arriving in my letter box.

Edit: He said although bikers do travel on the left hand side, it is not legal to do so as the lane is unavailable under third clause. For me it is hands off, I am just happy for the phone call.

[Drew]

I've just been advised by the police everything against me is dropped after he spoke to a guru. I can throw away the fine that will be arriving in my letter box.

Edit: He said although bikers do travel on the left hand side, it is not legal to do so as the lane is unavailable under third clause. For me it is hands off, I am just happy for the phone call.Good result, and sounds like a good copper.

[unstuck]

Good result, and sounds like a good copper.

Bullshit ACAB.:Punk::Punk::Punk::msn-wink:

[Juniper]

I've just been advised by the police everything against me is dropped after he spoke to a guru. I can throw away the fine that will be arriving in my letter box.

Edit: He said although bikers do travel on the left hand side, it is not legal to do so as the lane is unavailable under third clause. For me it is hands off, I am just happy for the phone call.

Does that mean the biker will get a fine?

[bobsmith]

I've just been advised by the police everything against me is dropped after he spoke to a guru. I can throw away the fine that will be arriving in my letter box.

Edit: He said although bikers do travel on the left hand side, it is not legal to do so as the lane is unavailable under third clause. For me it is hands off, I am just happy for the phone call.

Interesting.... How does he figure the lane was unavailable??? As far as I know, as long as there is room and the car is stationary, you can pass on the left as the vehicle is stationary as per http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/40.0/DLM303050.html I'm not sure what exactly makes the lane "unavailable" I always interpreted the last clause where it says "only if the driver's vehicle does not encroach on a lane that is unavailable to a driver" to mean that in passing another vehicle on the left you shouldn't end up going off the road where you're not supposed to be driving or enroaching on special lanes you're not supposed to be on (a bus lane in case of a car but motorcyclist is allowed on that too...)

In saying this, hopefully a good lesson learnt by everyone involved and I'm glad to hear the motorcyclist was okay. Even in cases where you have a free lane (ie bus lanes) motorcyclist needs to be careful when passing stationary traffic. Hell I got run over once when I was going on a bus lane and the cars to my right on normal lanes were stationary even when the car should have been able to see me coming from miles away but that's another story. I'm very cautious of passing on any side of stationary traffic now...

But yes, please do share with us know why the police thought the lane was "unavailable" to the bike rider if they told you so that we know what they consider to be "acceptable" passing :)

[Ratez]

please do share with us know why the police thought the lane was "unavailable" to the bike rider if they told you so that we know what they consider to be "acceptable" passing :)

I dont know what makes a lane unavailable as he did not go into details.
What I stated in the edit is what he told me. Naturally I wont be pushing him to tell me the logic of why I am not at fault but he did mention passing on an unavailable lane. Im as confused as you are about interpreting laws.

Dont know if biker getting fined but I hope not.

[Katman]

It's probably a timely reminder to motorcyclists that if you can't lane split/filter without having an accident, don't fucking do it.

All the excuses in the world will be worth fuck all if TPTB once decide that the easiest way to solve the issue is to ban the practice.

[bluninja]

Did the motorcyclist hit any wing mirrors on the way through?

[Maha]

Time to contact Campbell Live.

[Ratez]

Did the motorcyclist hit any wing mirrors on the way through?

No he did not. I can see where you want this to head but im not the police and I cannot tell you what makes a lane unavailable.

[bluninja]

I don't think you can see where this is headed :bleh:

[Maha]

I don't think you can see where this is headed :bleh:

Heading this way ↓ ;)

[Drew]

No he did not. I can see where you want this to head but im not the police and I cannot tell you what makes a lane unavailable.
This thread has stayed tame and pretty good thus far.

You should leave now, because it's gonna turn into absolute dribble real soon.

You sure you're Asian? Far too interested in learning the road code, for that to be true I reckon!

[Ratez]

This thread has stayed tame and pretty good thus far.

You should leave now, because it's gonna turn into absolute dribble real soon.

You sure you're Asian? Far too interested in learning the road code, for that to be true I reckon!

Yep thanks to those that stayed civil thus far. Off I go.

Asians love to study. It is another story if studies work well in real world environment :). Bye bikers, thanks for the inputs.

[kiwi cowboy]

I've just been advised by the police everything against me is dropped after he spoke to a guru. I can throw away the fine that will be arriving in my letter box.

Edit: He said although bikers do travel on the left hand side, it is not legal to do so as the lane is unavailable under third clause. For me it is hands off, I am just happy for the phone call.

So now wondering by that. If the biker was not legal doing what he was doesn't that put the insurance bill on his company saving you your excess?.

I know what ya problem is anyway:whistle:Your an AISAN driving a BMW:nya::nya::killingme:killingmethats ya problem that culture clash:2thumbsup

[Swoop]

All the excuses in the world will be worth fuck all if TPTB once decide that the easiest way to solve the issue is to ban the practice.
There is an alternative currently being discussed by TPTB. We can only hope it happens...
(Not going into further details at the moment.)

[jasonu]

Asians love to study.

That sounds like a racial stereotype.

[Ratez]

That sounds like a racial stereotype.

im sorry it is hard not to reply when people make silly comments. I am merely answering a stereotype with a stereotype but im glad you picked it up.

And no doubt bmw and asians are cultural clashes. Almost as bad as a white man with 'vtec just kicked in yo' in every self shot isnt it?

[The Reibz]

Almost as bad as a white man with 'vtec just kicked in yo' in every self shot isnt it?
Only homos drive hondas

[unstuck]

Only homos drive hondas

Yeah, real men ride em.:motu:

[Drew]

im sorry it is hard not to reply when people make silly comments. I am merely answering a stereotype with a stereotype but im glad you picked it up.

And no doubt bmw and asians are cultural clashes. Almost as bad as a white man with 'vtec just kicked in yo' in every self shot isnt it?Not much of a sense of humor then?

The Vtec thing was funny though.

I'm so confused.

[Drew]

Yeah, real men ride em.:motu:Aaaaand, their boyfriend.

[unstuck]

Aaaaand, their boyfriend.

Like I said, I,ll ride anything.:shifty:

[Ratez]

Not much of a sense of humor then?

The Vtec thing was funny though.

I'm so confused.

Hahaha no no I am fine with asian jokes. Living here for 13 years already, I crack the occasional asian joke myself. Just didn't know if jasonu was serious; its like saying fuck and being told 'You just said a vulgarity young man'. What was hardest to resist was replying the bmw joke!

Sorry I tend to sound serious typing through a phone.

[Howie]

You have only mentioned that you have been charged with a traffic offence. Do you know for sure that the bike rider hasn't?

many years ago I had a minor crash(non injury) on a tight winding rural road, myself and the other driver both got tickets out of it. In that case one got a ticket for failing to keep left, and the other for failing to stop in half the visable distance of road. The police will lay a charge for any rules broken.

[Eng_dave]

One difference, I was going down the center not on the left. The outcome for me was i was in the wrong, travelling in a unavailable lane!! Quite interested to see what else happens with this because this seems to be upto the officer on the scene's discretion. Which is bollox.

[Ratez]

One difference, I was going down the center not on the left. The outcome for me was i was in the wrong, travelling in a unavailable lane!! Quite interested to see what else happens with this because this seems to be upto the officer on the scene's discretion. Which is bollox.

Hi there,

Received a call 2 nights ago, police comes back and says we are both at fault and are both only receiving warnings. It really shows how incompetent the police is when they can reach to 3 different conclusions. First decision by the police, second one by a guru and third one by a senior police officer. It is a good outcome for both of us though.

[BMWST?]

Hi there,

Received a call 2 nights ago, police comes back and says we are both at fault and are both only receiving warnings. It really shows how incompetent the police is when they can reach to 3 different conclusions. First decision by the police, second one by a guru and third one by a senior police officer. It is a good outcome for both of us though.
incompetent?
it sounds like a situation that has fault on both sides and the police arent supposed to be judge jury and executioner ,that is supposed to be the courts role.
Lessons to be learnt on both sides.Just because someone else stops to let you go through doesnt mean the way is clear,and the motorcyclist was in the wrong if the traffic was not stationary(you cant pass of the left unless you are in a seperate lane OR the traffic is stopped.Also it sounds like he was in the same mind set as you,in that the traffic obscured his view of you.
Good on you for venturing onto a motorcyclist forum tho to put your case

[Murray]

Hi there,

It really shows how incompetent the police is when they can reach to 3 different conclusions. First decision by the police, second one by a guru and third one by a senior police officer. It is a good outcome for both of us though.

Incompetent - Give us the number of the coppa and I will give him a call and let him know you want justice done to one of you!!

I think its a bloody good decision and shows common sense not imcompetence!!

[Ratez]

incompetent?
it sounds like a situation that has fault on both sides and the police arent supposed to be judge jury and executioner ,that is supposed to be the courts role.
Lessons to be learnt on both sides.Just because someone else stops to let you go through doesnt mean the way is clear,and the motorcyclist was in the wrong if the traffic was not stationary(you cant pass of the left unless you are in a seperate lane OR the traffic is stopped.Also it sounds like he was in the same mind set as you,in that the traffic obscured his view of you.
Good on you for venturing onto a motorcyclist forum tho to put your case

The police sent me a fine because he believed I was fully at fault. Then sent me a letter saying I am not at fault and the biker is at fault - I can discard the fine. Then phone me at night 2 nights ago to say both people are at fault.

I am saying the police is incompetent not because of the verdict but how many twist and turns before a proper verdict. They should be clear before sending out letters saying who is at fault. After the first mistake, I would think due care should be taken before committing the second mistake. Obviously not if letters get sent out so easily. I don't think our case was major enough to have the fault dictated by court.

[Ratez]

Incompetent - Give us the number of the coppa and I will give him a call and let him know you want justice done to one of you!!

I think its a bloody good decision and shows common sense not imcompetence!!

I love the twisting of my intentions.

If you don't think reaching to three different conclusions after sending legal documents on the first two decisions stinks of incompetence, then sure. But don't twist my words to mean a different meaning.

I even clarified this point by saying it is a good outcome for both of us - acceptance of the outcome.

[BMWST?]

The police sent me a fine because he believed I was fully at fault. Then sent me a letter saying I am not at fault and the biker is at fault - I can discard the fine. Then phone me at night 2 nights ago to say both people are at fault.

I am saying the police is incompetent not because of the verdict but how many twist and turns before a proper verdict. They should be clear before sending out letters saying who is at fault. After the first mistake, I would think due care should be taken before committing the second mistake. Obviously not if letters get sent out so easily. I don't think our case was major enough to have the fault dictated by court.


the police dont decide if you are guilty,a court does.If the police send you a letter saying they are fining you you dont have to agree,you can go to court to put your argument to a judge.That has its risks of course,if the judge decides you are guilty of what the police say you end up paying the fine plus some court costs

[Ratez]

the police dont decide if you are guilty,a court does.If the police send you a letter saying they are fining you you dont have to agree,you can go to court to put your argument to a judge.That has its risks of course,if the judge decides you are guilty of what the police say you end up paying the fine plus some court costs

The first letter was his decision. The second letter was after he consulted a guru. And the third letter was after a senior officer confronted him.

What I am saying is, no court is involved in all these. Yes the police doesn't decide if I am at fault and I can bring it to court, but that is a different case. No one is bringing it to court.

[bogan]

I love the twisting of my intentions.

If you don't think reaching to three different conclusions after sending legal documents on the first two decisions stinks of incompetence, then sure. But don't twist my words to mean a different meaning.

I even clarified this point by saying it is a good outcome for both of us - acceptance of the outcome.

I get what you mean, it shouldn't be too much to ask that cops know the road rules, or at least know when they don't and hold off passing judgment.

[Ratez]

I get what you mean, it shouldn't be too much to ask that cops know the road rules, or at least know when they don't and hold off passing judgment.

Thanks for that bogan. That is exactly my point. These guys work to uphold the law and fine people for not knowing road codes. I hope it is now finally over :clap:.