First crash, I need advice

[iranana]

Just had my first crash on my way into work this morning and I'm all good (fairly low speed), but not sure about the legalities of it all and I'm just looking for some advice as to who's at fault (legally speaking). I was travelling down a road that had a flush median in the center. Traffic had come to a complete stop, so I moved into the flush and had been travelling for ~30m when a car (which was in the main lane) indicated and turned across the flush into my path of travel. Roads were wet, I got on the brakes and just started sliding and went right into the side of them. In hindsight, I could have started braking earlier, but shit happens. Might have bent forks but I'm not too sure, I'll have to check. Other than that, all is good, just bent handle bars, broken mirrors, a toasted indicator lens and the crash also revealed that my gas tank is full of bog lol (could have fooled me, whoever did that patch up job did it pretty damn well). No damage to me though. I don't think she looked in her mirrors/over her shoulders at all (otherwise she should have seen me), so she's at fault there. But what about my presence in the flush? Is it illegal to ride in the flush when traffic is at a complete stand still?

[Banditbandit]

Not sure what you mean by a "flush"

But if it is the white striped area between lanes then often it is illegal to ride there ...

And when traffic is at a complete standstill you will probably find that passing them on the outside is at least verging on illegal - it's certainly not a good idea .. for reasons you have just found out ..

[R650R]

Sadly it's illegal to be overtaking on any painted median strip. I know a guy who got ticketed for it just going past two cars into a right turn bay.
A learning experience for you and prob a $150 careless fine if cops turned up.

[BigAl]

Insured? other party insured? witnesses?

Submit claim to insurance co as usually knock for knock but you may loose excess if deemed at fault.

[sil3nt]

A flush median is a strip in the centre of the road that is marked with white diagonal lines within parallel lines. It provides a place for vehicles that are turning right, or vehicles that have turned right onto the road from a side road or driveway.

You can only drive onto the flush median to:

wait to move into a gap in the traffic flow after you have turned right (car A in the diagram below)
slow down and wait before turning right (car B in the diagram below).

296824

[iranana]

Ah all good, I was somewhere I wasn't meant to be then. Just wanted to know for insurance reasons. They were driving a company car so I'll see what they want to do for insurance. If I'm really really lucky I might not have to make a claim. But if I do then that's just a 500 dollar excess. Could have been worse, cheers guys

[FJRider]

I don't think she looked in her mirrors/over her shoulders at all (otherwise she should have seen me), so she's at fault there. But what about my presence in the flush? Is it illegal to ride in the flush when traffic is at a complete stand still?

As the flush median strip is illegal to use for overtaking ... there should be no need to look. The two seconds of legally required indicating doesn't take long to go .. if you're not looking. Many never use their right side mirror (at ANY time) anyway ... and just rely on the mid mounted interior one (and miss seeing you).

It is not illegal to cross the median strip at right angles (nor even U turns) ... but as the flush median strip can be (legally) used by vehicles traveling in both directions .. care must be taken when using them. (as you have already found)

[FJRider]

Ah all good, I was somewhere I wasn't meant to be then. Just wanted to know for insurance reasons. They were driving a company car so I'll see what they want to do for insurance. If I'm really really lucky I might not have to make a claim. But if I do then that's just a 500 dollar excess. Could have been worse, cheers guys

THEIR Insurance company will have some say in the matter ... they may chase YOUR Insurance company for damage you did to that vehicle ... if you were in the wrong. Do you have full cover .. ???

[discotex]

Ah all good, I was somewhere I wasn't meant to be then. Just wanted to know for insurance reasons. They were driving a company car so I'll see what they want to do for insurance. If I'm really really lucky I might not have to make a claim. But if I do then that's just a 500 dollar excess. Could have been worse, cheers guys

Don't admit fault though as your insurance company may then deny to pay out. Just accurately describe what happened and let them sort it out on your behalf. If the police came they will want a copy of the incident report.

[swbarnett]

The two seconds of legally required indicating
That's actually three seconds.

[FJRider]

Don't admit fault though as your insurance company may then deny to pay out. Just accurately describe what happened and let them sort it out on your behalf. If the police came they will want a copy of the incident report.

You don't admit fault to the other party. Most policies do not rely on you not being at fault to be paid out. (If you have full cover)

The downside is often an increase in your premiums though ..

[Mazztah]

just say you pulled into the medium strip to do a u turn when she just pulled out in front of you.

[Big Dog]

just say you pulled into the medium strip to do a u turn when she just pulled out in front of you.

Just don't change your story.
Or talk about how you plan to edit your story before presenting it on the internet.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[discotex]

You don't admit fault to the other party. Most policies do not rely on you not being at fault to be paid out. (If you have full cover)

The downside is often an increase in your premiums though ..

Most policies include a clause requiring you to not admit fault to a third party, lest your entire claim be potentially considered void. I was simply reminding the OP of this given he is talking about conversing with the third party and now knows he was in the wrong.

Never said he couldn't claim if he was found to be at fault..

[FJRider]

Never said he couldn't claim if he was found to be at fault..

NO ... you said they may not pay out if you admit fault.

[discotex]

NO ... you said they may not pay out if you admit fault.

YES ... you admit liability when it was actually the other party at fault, and many policies will not pay out...

Simple innit?

[russd7]

As the flush median strip is illegal to use for overtaking ... there should be no need to look. The two seconds of legally required indicating doesn't take long to go .. if you're not looking. Many never use their right side mirror (at ANY time) anyway ... and just rely on the mid mounted interior one (and miss seeing you).

It is not illegal to cross the median strip at right angles (nor even U turns) ... but as the flush median strip can be (legally) used by vehicles traveling in both directions .. care must be taken when using them. (as you have already found)
actually, regardless of whether there is a median strip or not there is always a need to look, what if a vehicle was right turning in to the median strip from across the road, i would think if it went to small claims then the adjudicator would rule 50/50 fault.

as far as i am aware the road code still states that you should always do a shoulder check as well as use your mirrors and yes i do because it is amazing what can fit in to a blind spot

[FJRider]

actually, regardless of whether there is a median strip or not there is always a need to look, what if a vehicle was right turning in to the median strip from across the road, i would think if it went to small claims then the adjudicator would rule 50/50 fault.

The median strip is not a lane ... and not to be used as such. And it is still not legal to overtake on the right of that vehicle lawfully in its lane. There is no 50/50 at fault ... as a vehicle colliding with a vehicle in front is almost always at fault. More so it the collision occurs with a vehicle legally turning on/across a flush median strip.


as far as i am aware the road code still states that you should always do a shoulder check as well as use your mirrors and yes i do because it is amazing what can fit in to a blind spot

See above about colliding with a vehicle in front of you.

Overtaking on roadway ... that is illegal to be used for the purpose of overtaking is ... ummm ... Illegal. So ... how could the vehicle in front (legally turning) be any way at fault .. ???

[roy.nz]

Don't admit fault though as your insurance company may then deny to pay out. Just accurately describe what happened and let them sort it out on your behalf. If the police came they will want a copy of the incident report.

Police will not disclose their incident Report. It's for Police use only. But guessing by what you said happened you are at fault. Police could possibly deal with you in two ways.

Summons you to court for careless driving. But they most likely give you a ticket for overtaking on a flush medium and failing to stop short.

Don't change your story be and keep honest.

[roy.nz]

Police will not disclose their incident Report. It's for Police use only. But guessing by what you said happened you are at fault. Police could possibly deal with you in two ways.

Summons you to court for careless driving. But they most likely give you a ticket for overtaking on a flush medium and failing to stop short.

Don't change your story be and keep honest.

Been in similar position. Got paid out though.

[DR650gary]

actually, regardless of whether there is a median strip or not there is always a need to look, what if a vehicle was right turning in to the median strip from across the road, i would think if it went to small claims then the adjudicator would rule 50/50 fault.

as far as i am aware the road code still states that you should always do a shoulder check as well as use your mirrors and yes i do because it is amazing what can fit in to a blind spot

What that man said. :woohoo:

There are a number of factors at play. Liability for the accident and legality of the manoeuvre.

If you had your indicator on and were riding in a safe manner your liability for the accident may be minimal as the car driver is still legally obligated to ensure that their manoeuvre is safe to carry out. That is the rear view mirror looking thing. I would suggest that you claim on your insurance and let them sort it out as you do not want to be facing the "hold liable" letter you will almost certainly get from the driver's insurance company on your own.

Whether your manoeuvre is legal is above my pay grade.

Because someone's action is illegal you do not have the right to drive into them or their way. For example, crashing into an illegally parked car, running over a pedestrian on the motorway or a cyclist in the middle of the lane restricting the traffic flow. The onus is always on the driver to obey the road rules and avoid the collision if possible.

So, go claim, you may be surprised.

Cheers

[DR650gary]

Forgot to add that the "no admission of Liability " clause does not mean that the claim will/can be declined if you admit liability, it is designed to protect you from yourself. If you, in a state of panic or guilt, admit liability at the time of the crash and then later either the insurance company or Disputes Tribunal deem you to "not" be liable, your policy will not cover you for any costs that the third party may have incurred based on your admission of liability.

For example, " Oh I am so sorry it was all my fault. Please get the car fixed and my insurance will fix you up for the costs and also get a rental car, take a holiday to recover from the shock................."

Get the idea?

Cheers

[discotex]

Forgot to add that the "no admission of Liability " clause does not mean that the claim will/can be declined if you admit liability, it is designed to protect you from yourself. If you, in a state of panic or guilt, admit liability at the time of the crash and then later either the insurance company or Disputes Tribunal deem you to "not" be liable, your policy will not cover you for any costs that the third party may have incurred based on your admission of liability.

For example, " Oh I am so sorry it was all my fault. Please get the car fixed and my insurance will fix you up for the costs and also get a rental car, take a holiday to recover from the shock................."

Get the idea?

Cheers

Exactly the scenario OP could find themselves in as they are discussing directly with the third party.

[discotex]

Police will not disclose their incident Report. It's for Police use only. But guessing by what you said happened you are at fault. Police could possibly deal with you in two ways.


When I was taken out I was given a report placing fault with the third party - after being asked to obtain it by my insurance. Perhaps incident report is the wrong term?

[R650R]

I can't believe some of the extrapolations in this thread. The answer is in her second sentance "indicated and turned across the flush into my path of travel".

That means you saw and were aware of the drivers intended actions. Whilst you were clearly breaking the law on median strip the other drivers confirmed use of indicator means you're the one likely deemed at fault.
Absent any reliable witnesses saying she pulled out in a reckless manner I doubt you'll get any other result.
Cops don't like to waste time on these types of failing to stop in time cases and I doubt the courts do either so the status quo is the following vehicle is at fault outside of some decent evidence otherwise.
And the fact that you lost control before the collision from heavy braking (wet road or not) says your riding outside that required in those conditions.

[jasonu]

I do ride those strips myself but only to get into a right turning lane at the lights if the lane is not full.

I heard they teach that in the Iams riding course?

[rastuscat]

just say you pulled into the medium strip to do a u turn when she just pulled out in front of you.

Yeah, always good to tell lies when you are at fault.

It's the KB way.

[DR650gary]

I can't believe some of the extrapolations in this thread. The answer is in her second sentance "indicated and turned across the flush into my path of travel".

That means you saw and were aware of the drivers intended actions. Whilst you were clearly breaking the law on median strip the other drivers confirmed use of indicator means you're the one likely deemed at fault.
Absent any reliable witnesses saying she pulled out in a reckless manner I doubt you'll get any other result.
Cops don't like to waste time on these types of failing to stop in time cases and I doubt the courts do either so the status quo is the following vehicle is at fault outside of some decent evidence otherwise.
And the fact that you lost control before the collision from heavy braking (wet road or not) says your riding outside that required in those conditions.

Not entirely correct. It does depend on the time lapse between indicating and moving right. The requirement is for a 3 second gap between the actions. That may not have happened, we don't know as the OP never stated what the delay was.

Whether either of the driver/rider"s actions are legal is not the entire point in establishing liability. If you pull out in front of a drunk driver in an illegal manner you will still be liable for prosecution. Whether the OP was in the flush lane legally or otherwise, the accident would not have occurred had the driver not pulled out. However, until we know, and we may never know, whether the driver indicated for the required amount of time before pulling across the lane, absolute liability cannot be ascertained.

I would strongly advise the OP to deal with this through his insurance company. If he has full cover there may be no excess for the third party damage and if his damage is below excess he can withdraw the claim and sort his own damage himself if the 2 companies involved agree that he was no fully liable.

Cheers

[DR650gary]

Yeah, always good to tell lies when you are at fault.

It's the KB way.

Is that from experience? From behind the handlebars or under the cap? :Police:

[iranana]

Whoa lots of replies here. Looks like there's (kind of) varying opinions on the technicalities, but I just filed a claim so we'll see how it pans out, it's up to the insurance companies now. I have full cover and my excess was actually only $200, so worst case scenario is that I lose a bit of cash. Just pleased I'm intact and that the person I crashed into was nice about it all. Will report back once I know the outcome

[russd7]

The median strip is not a lane ... and not to be used as such. And it is still not legal to overtake on the right of that vehicle lawfully in its lane. There is no 50/50 at fault ... as a vehicle colliding with a vehicle in front is almost always at fault. More so it the collision occurs with a vehicle legally turning on/across a flush median strip.



See above about colliding with a vehicle in front of you.

Overtaking on roadway ... that is illegal to be used for the purpose of overtaking is ... ummm ... Illegal. So ... how could the vehicle in front (legally turning) be any way at fault .. ???
quite simple, they didn't check the way was clear which is also illegal, unfortunately i have been to small claims with my daughter for a situation where even our insurance co beleived that she was in no way at fault but the adjudicator rule 50/50 just because she was driving on an icy road and was not able to stop in time to avoid hitting the vehicle pulling out of a car park, (note if the conditions were dry she would have been able to avoid the accident)
on your logic then driving a vehicle that has an out of date warrant makes you automatically at fault if in an accident as the vehicle should not be on the road.

[haydes55]

As much as I believe it takes 2 people to crash, and both parties could have done something simple to avoid the accident. I vote biker 99% at fault. Simple really, no car driver will ever check before pulling into a median strip (ok maybe 3 people will) and you shouldn't be there anyway. You should know that a car will pull into the median strip.... Because that's what it's for. Start thinking about what every other road user is going to do or could do.

[FJRider]

quite simple, they didn't check the way was clear which is also illegal

BULLSHIT. ... It was illegal for the OP to be where he was ... End of story. The OP collided with another vehicle from behind. We ALL know THAT is a big no no ...

Stop grasping at straws ... the OP fucked up.


unfortunately i have been to small claims with my daughter for a situation where even our insurance co beleived that she was in no way at fault but the adjudicator rule 50/50 just because she was driving on an icy road and was not able to stop in time to avoid hitting the vehicle pulling out of a car park, (note if the conditions were dry she would have been able to avoid the accident)

The OP reported NO ice. Therefore all that bit is both irrelevant and of no point in this thread.

DIFFERENT situations in DIFFERENT conditions. NO similarity to the OP's incident whatsoever ...


on your logic then driving a vehicle that has an out of date warrant makes you automatically at fault if in an accident as the vehicle should not be on the road.

It DOES indeed. I think you ARE now starting to understand ...

Get over it. You can't break the law then claim innocence.

[DR650gary]

BULLSHIT. ... It was illegal for the OP to be where he was ... End of story. The OP collided with another vehicle from behind. We ALL know THAT is a big no no ...

Stop grasping at straws ... the OP fucked up.



The OP reported NO ice. Therefore all that bit is both irrelevant and of no point in this thread.

DIFFERENT situations in DIFFERENT conditions. NO similarity to the OP's incident whatsoever ...



It DOES indeed. I think you ARE now starting to understand ...

Get over it. You can't break the law then claim innocence.

Passionate but not entirely correct. There are 2 issues, legality and liability. I am unaware whether being in the flush lane is an offense. I think not but for what purposes I cannot say.

The liability side is more clear. Both parties have a responsibility to drive safely as well as legally (they can be different I imagine) so in this particular case both parties bear some liability and their respective insurance companies will sort that out, or it will end up at the Disputes Tribunal (unlikely). Having an accident with a vehicle without a wof does not make you liable for the accident unless the reason there is no wof in a "contributory factor" in the accident. ie no brakes, bald tyres etc. If you park a vehicle on a clearway (illegally) and another vehicle crashes into it because they did not look or assumed it was moving or whatever dumb reason, they will be held liable for the accident, not you. You may get a ticket but unlikely to be held "liable". Park in legal park without a wof, no issue, not your fault.

If you see a pedestrian on the motorway without a rego plate on their bum, can you run them over because they are breaking the law?

Cheers

[R650R]

Back to reality. There has been no evidence presented and unlikely there is that the car moved to turn right in a careless manner, even the original poster say the car was indicating.
It is an offence to pass on a median strip, confusion arises as some places with high crash rate like near Horotiu actually have it signposted as such to remind people.
Crossing a solid white line such as approaching or leaving an intersection is also an offence but rarely tickted/enforced.
I know a truck driver that was fined for careless use/leaving the roadway after hitting an abandoned car with no lights parked left of the fogline at nightime on a state highway.
All that is at stake here is both parties excess fee a mere $200. No one is going to waste half a day in small claims court over that.
Insurance co is only going to chase for costs from other party if there is strong evidence of fraud or negligence.

[Berries]

There are 2 issues, legality and liability. I am unaware whether being in the flush lane is an offense. I think not but for what purposes I cannot say.
It is fairly clear and should be basic knowledge for anyone with a licence -

Road User Rule

2.7 Passing on right
A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the right of another vehicle moving in the same direction when—
(b) approaching or passing a flush median, unless the driver—
(i) intends to turn right from the road marked with the flush median into another road or vehicle entrance; or has turned right onto the road marked with the flush median; or
(iii) can make the entire movement without encroaching on the flush median.

Car drivers will not look over their shoulder for you as you should not be there unless about to turn right yourself. Cars will leave gaps for others to pull through who won't look for you, pedestrians will walk through stationary traffic in to your path without looking as well. People need to know the rules, and if you are going to bend them a little, or ignore them completely, ride accordingly. Even more so in the wet.

[DR650gary]

Nice to know that. I must admit to still using the margins to progress, but always on the right :msn-wink:

I still think you have to look though before making the movement.

Hopefully the OP drops a note in here after the 2 insurance companies have sorted it all out but I think the excess comment is probably on the button.

Cheers

[russd7]

Passionate but not entirely correct. There are 2 issues, legality and liability. I am unaware whether being in the flush lane is an offense. I think not but for what purposes I cannot say.

The liability side is more clear. Both parties have a responsibility to drive safely as well as legally (they can be different I imagine) so in this particular case both parties bear some liability and their respective insurance companies will sort that out, or it will end up at the Disputes Tribunal (unlikely). Having an accident with a vehicle without a wof does not make you liable for the accident unless the reason there is no wof in a "contributory factor" in the accident. ie no brakes, bald tyres etc. If you park a vehicle on a clearway (illegally) and another vehicle crashes into it because they did not look or assumed it was moving or whatever dumb reason, they will be held liable for the accident, not you. You may get a ticket but unlikely to be held "liable". Park in legal park without a wof, no issue, not your fault.

If you see a pedestrian on the motorway without a rego plate on their bum, can you run them over because they are breaking the law?

Cheers

well put, my point exactly :niceone:

[Katman]

well put, my point exactly :niceone:

Yes, but this site has no shortage of fucking idiots. You seem to be fitting in nicely.

The OP was at fault - end of story.

[FJRider]

All that is at stake here is both parties excess fee a mere $200. No one is going to waste half a day in small claims court over that.

In MOST cases ... the excess is charged to the client regardless. Different policies may vary.


Insurance co is only going to chase for costs from other party if there is strong evidence of fraud or negligence.

Their primary responsibility is to fulfilling their clients policy requirements (with little outlay). If there is/was a chance of "The other party" paying the costs ... that will be their aim.

The OP WAS at fault ... and may be prudent to expect a premium increase after this episode.

[FJRider]

Passionate but not entirely correct. There are 2 issues, legality and liability. I am unaware whether being in the flush lane is an offense. I think not but for what purposes I cannot say.

Being there is NOT an offense. Overtaking IN THAT AREA IS ...


The liability side is more clear. Both parties have a responsibility to drive safely as well as legally (they can be different I imagine) so in this particular case both parties bear some liability and their respective insurance companies will sort that out, or it will end up at the Disputes Tribunal (unlikely).

Driving safely is advised ... and if you don't adhere to to the provisions of the Land Transport act ... you can be prosecuted. THAT ... is NOT the same thing.


Having an accident with a vehicle without a wof does not make you liable for the accident unless the reason there is no wof in a "contributory factor" in the accident. ie no brakes, bald tyres etc. If you park a vehicle on a clearway (illegally) and another vehicle crashes into it because they did not look or assumed it was moving or whatever dumb reason, they will be held liable for the accident, not you. You may get a ticket but unlikely to be held "liable". Park in legal park without a wof, no issue, not your fault.

No mention the OP did not have a WOF ... :rolleyes:

He was not "Parked in a clearway ... :rolleyes:

NOBODY crashed into HIM ... :rolleyes:

The OP was the dumb one ... as he was NOT aware the Flush median is NOT for overtaking ...:rolleyes:

The OP was not parked. :rolleyes:

The OP WAS AT FAULT. End of story.


If you see a pedestrian on the motorway without a rego plate on their bum, can you run them over because they are breaking the law?

Cheers

Pedestrians on the motorway won't live long ... even if they have a rego plate on their bum ... :lol:

[awayatc]

Bike is riding in a straight line

Car turns into bike riding in straight line......

Makes no fucking difference who painted what on tarseal.........

Car driver caused accident.

Bikerider could no doubt get fined for breaking traffic rules,

(if one could find a cop capable of getting unstuck from his speedcamera that is)

[haydes55]

Bike is riding in a straight line



Car turns into bike riding in straight line......



Makes no fucking difference who painted what on tarseal.........



Car driver caused accident.



Bikerider could no doubt get fined for breaking traffic rules,



(if one could find a cop capable of getting unstuck from his speedcamera that is)





So lets say you're driving a car, indicate left then pull into a driveway. Ban hit in the side if your car by a motorbike who was riding down the footpath. Is the car driver at fault?

The bike shouldn't be there and the car driver legally doesn't have to check if the foot path is clear. Just like the bike shouldn't be in the median strip and the car driver doesn't have to check the median strip is clear

[Katman]

The bike shouldn't be there and the car driver legally doesn't have to check if the foot path is clear.

A kid on a push bike might disagree with you there.

[MarkH]

Bike is riding in a straight line

Car turns into bike riding in straight line......

Makes no fucking difference who painted what on tarseal.........

Car driver caused accident.

Bikerider could no doubt get fined for breaking traffic rules,

(if one could find a cop capable of getting unstuck from his speedcamera that is)

Refreshing to see some truth in this thread!
Seriously, so much BS about the biker being legally at fault because he should not have been there. A car driver is NOT legally entitled to pull into the path of another vehicle, regardless of whether they have been indicating for 3 seconds or not.

Of course a sensible rider seeing a car driver indicating would endeavour to avoid being hit in the off chance that the driver will be careless and not ensure the way is clear before turning, but that doesn't make the car drivers actions legal.

Vehicles are legally allowed to drive along the flush median for a limited distance in certain circumstances, no one is entitled to turn onto it without ensuring it is safe to do so. My guess would be that the car driver in this case is the liable party.

Certainly the rider could give an account of riding along the flush median so that he could turn right on a side street ahead, or could be honest, regardless the car driver was at fault for not ensuring the way was clear. If the rider wanted to avoid disclosing that he was illegally using the flush median to overtake then it would be a good idea to do that from the start, changing your story looks really bad.
One way of doing things would be to give an account like "I was riding along the flush median when this car pulled into my path of travel and I did not have the room to stop", with no mention whatsoever of why you were on the flush median. Really does it actually matter why for the purposes of assessing liability? The advantage of this approach is that you are not lying. Leaving out irrelevant information is not a big no-no as far as I'm aware.

[MarkH]

A kid on a push bike might disagree with you there.

Or a pedestrian, or a woman pushing a pushchair, or an invalid on a mobility scooter, or . . .

I'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to just drive into a driveway without ensuring it is safe to do so - checking that no one is coming along the footpath would be legally mandatory I would think.

[Tazz]

A kid on a push bike might disagree with you there.

The Firetruck bowling down the median strip might disagree with you're view too as you pull out in front of it without looking...

Both the OP and the car are at fault, but the car more so because they didn't check and caused the accident. It's like that argument about rocks on the road a while back. Rocks shouldn't be on the road hiding around corners, but if they are, it is your fault for hitting them.
People shouldn't be overtaking you if you've indicated for 3 seconds to overtake a vehicle in front of you, but if they do and you pull out and hit them, it's your fault...

People shouldn't be driving down the medium strip legally speaking apparently, but if they are and you pull out in front of them, it is your fault...
Anything that comes after that against the rider is a separate issue.

That footpath thing (where all foot traffic has right of way) makes me think of zebra crossings as well where if you're inside the diamond you have right of way and the pedestrian is supposed to wait...but guess whose fault it is if you run them over...yeah, yours.

[Katman]

Both the OP and the car are at fault, but the car more so because they didn't check and caused the accident.

The motorcycle was performing an illegal overtaking manoeuvre - that is where fault will be placed.

[FJRider]

The motorcycle was performing an illegal overtaking manoeuvre - that is where fault will be placed.

The car was using the flush median strip for the purpose it was intended ... as written in legislation.

The Bike was not (As written in legislation).

The Bike rider was not even aware it WAS illegal to use it for the purpose of overtaking. Had he known ... the accident would not have happened .. surely .. ??

[Tazz]

The motorcycle was performing an illegal overtaking manoeuvre - that is where fault will be placed.

I'd agree if he had rear ended the car instead of hitting the side. We'll see I guess.

[Katman]

I'd agree if he had rear ended the car instead of hitting the side. We'll see I guess.

You just keep sounding more and more clueless.

[Tazz]

You just keep sounding more and more clueless.

Awesome. Does that mean I'm part of your club now? :rolleyes:

Going by your logic I can bowl into anything 'illegally' in my way through carelessness or a misplaced sense of righteousness and come out smelling like roses. World doesn't work like that. Use your mirrors :niceone:

[MarkH]

The car was using the flush median strip for the purpose it was intended ... as written in legislation.

The legislation says you may pull onto the flush median strip in front of another vehicle, causing an accident?
That doesn't sound right to me.

The law also says that you can't park a car in the middle of the road, but that doesn't mean that other cars aren't legally obliged to try their best to avoid hitting it if you do.
"why did you drive into that parked car?"
"I was allowed because it shouldn't have been there!"
Yeah, that is not how the law works!

[pritch]

Pity that the person seemingly most qualified to advise us all of the likely legalities just chose to post an irrelevant comment.

Whatever, the OP needs to work on his survival skills. That the manoeuvre he was undertaking was unsafe is borne out by the result. Don't want to come across like another Katman, but the OP could best use this experience as a learning opportunity.

[Katman]

Don't want to come across like another Katman.....

You say it like it's a bad thing.

Don't worry, there's always room for more Katmen.

[FJRider]

The Firetruck bowling down the median strip might disagree with you're view too as you pull out in front of it without looking...

Any Emergency vehicles using the median strip will have all the lights and sirens on (pretty hard to not see/hear THEM coming) ... and THEY are legally allowed to use it ... for emergency purposes only.


Both the OP and the car are at fault, but the car more so because they didn't check and caused the accident.

The car was performing a legal turn .... a legally allowed to be on the median strip to turn. The bike was overtaking illegally ... and no action of ANY OTHER person can, or will ... change (or lessen) that.


It's like that argument about rocks on the road a while back. Rocks shouldn't be on the road hiding around corners, but if they are, it is your fault for hitting them.

I have never seen or heard of ANYTHING written in Legislation ... forbidding the hitting of rocks on the road. Your insurance company will pay out if you DO hit some. But ... I cannot recall any person ever being prosecuted for hitting rocks on the road.

You ARE forbidden from PLACING rocks on the road for others to hit though. I have even heard of prosecutions for trying to avoid rocks on the road ... and hitting other vehicles in the process. Which is entirely different to what YOU suggest.


People shouldn't be overtaking you if you've indicated for 3 seconds to overtake a vehicle in front of you, but if they do and you pull out and hit them, it's your fault...

Indicating for the minimum of time (or more) makes it a legal turn. The bike rider will not see the car driver looking when the driver started indicating 3 (or more) seconds previous ... when the rider was 50 meters back. The rider did notice the car indicating but continued.


That footpath thing (where all foot traffic has right of way) makes me think of zebra crossings as well where if you're inside the diamond you have right of way and the pedestrian is supposed to wait...but guess whose fault it is if you run them over...yeah, yours.

Not so much fault ... but a responsibility NOT to hit any person using a pedestrian crossing. It is the responsibility of the pedestrian to use the crossing safely. Just being on a crossing is not an automatic immunity or protection from prosecution ... OR .. INJURY.

Any person approaching a pedestrian crossing at 50 km/hr and intends passing over it at that speed ... without ensuring it IS absolutely safe to do so .... must accept some responsibility for possibly hitting some person. Irresponsible actions of the pedestrians may negate any prosecution if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle. I have known of several case of "No charges laid" at such times.

Children/adults crossing the pedestrian crossing on a bicycle are actually doing so illegally.

[DR650gary]

Refreshing to see some truth in this thread!
Seriously, so much BS about the biker being legally at fault because he should not have been there. A car driver is NOT legally entitled to pull into the path of another vehicle, regardless of whether they have been indicating for 3 seconds or not.

Of course a sensible rider seeing a car driver indicating would endeavour to avoid being hit in the off chance that the driver will be careless and not ensure the way is clear before turning, but that doesn't make the car drivers actions legal.

Vehicles are legally allowed to drive along the flush median for a limited distance in certain circumstances, no one is entitled to turn onto it without ensuring it is safe to do so. My guess would be that the car driver in this case is the liable party.

Certainly the rider could give an account of riding along the flush median so that he could turn right on a side street ahead, or could be honest, regardless the car driver was at fault for not ensuring the way was clear. If the rider wanted to avoid disclosing that he was illegally using the flush median to overtake then it would be a good idea to do that from the start, changing your story looks really bad.
One way of doing things would be to give an account like "I was riding along the flush median when this car pulled into my path of travel and I did not have the room to stop", with no mention whatsoever of why you were on the flush median. Really does it actually matter why for the purposes of assessing liability? The advantage of this approach is that you are not lying. Leaving out irrelevant information is not a big no-no as far as I'm aware.

What he said :niceone:

[FJRider]

The legislation says you may pull onto the flush median strip in front of another vehicle, causing an accident?
That doesn't sound right to me.

The car driver wont be prosecuted. The bike rider will. You figure it out.


The law also says that you can't park a car in the middle of the road, but that doesn't mean that other cars aren't legally obliged to try their best to avoid hitting it if you do.
"why did you drive into that parked car?"
"I was allowed because it shouldn't have been there!"
Yeah, that is not how the law works!

It may surprise you how often that actually happens ... :laugh:

The charge is not for hitting that car ... but Driving without due care and intention. (or Intentional Damage) Driving without due care (etc) springs to mind.

Prosecution and subsequent penalties ... depend on circumstance. And by no means is always an automatic due process for the latter. If the cops DO have ANY doubts about who is at fault ... it is left for the judge to decide (Often the latter) ... as BOTH (all) parties have the right to due process of law. Those whose actions were illegal usually come off worst. Careless use is secondary and is a lesser offense to dangerous use.

Such is the legislation.

[MarkH]

The car driver wont be prosecuted. The bike rider will. You figure it out.



It may surprise you how often that actually happens ... :laugh:

The charge is not for hitting that car ... but Driving without due care and intention. (or Intentional Damage) Driving without due care (etc) springs to mind.

Prosecution and subsequent penalties ... depend on circumstance. And by no means is always an automatic due process for the latter. If the cops DO have ANY doubts about who is at fault ... it is left for the judge to decide (Often the latter) ... as BOTH (all) parties have the right to due process of law. Those whose actions were illegal usually come off worst. Careless use is secondary and is a lesser offense to dangerous use.

Such is the legislation.

This is probably why in the OP's situation I'd be reluctant to admit to using the flush median as an overtaking lane.
It is certainly NOT illegal to be travelling along the flush median but it IS illegal for a car to pull into your path causing an accident.
I'd go with "I was travelling along the flush median and the other car pulled out in front of me leaving me insufficient time to stop", why volunteer the information that you were using it as an overtaking lane?

[Tazz]

Any Emergency vehicles using the median strip will have all the lights and sirens on (pretty hard to not see/hear THEM coming) ... and THEY are legally allowed to use it ... for emergency purposes only.



The car was performing a legal turn .... a legally allowed to be on the median strip to turn. The bike was overtaking illegally ... and no action of ANY OTHER person can, or will ... change (or lessen) that.



I have never seen or heard of ANYTHING written in Legislation ... forbidding the hitting of rocks on the road. Your insurance company will pay out if you DO hit some. But ... I cannot recall any person ever being prosecuted for hitting rocks on the road.

You ARE forbidden from PLACING rocks on the road for others to hit though. I have even heard of prosecutions for trying to avoid rocks on the road ... and hitting other vehicles in the process. Which is entirely different to what YOU suggest.



Indicating for the minimum of time (or more) makes it a legal turn. The bike rider will not see the car driver looking when the driver started indicating 3 (or more) seconds previous ... when the rider was 50 meters back. The rider did notice the car indicating but continued.



Not so much fault ... but a responsibility NOT to hit any person using a pedestrian crossing. It is the responsibility of the pedestrian to use the crossing safely. Just being on a crossing is not an automatic immunity or protection from prosecution ... OR .. INJURY.

Any person approaching a pedestrian crossing at 50 km/hr and intends passing over it at that speed ... without ensuring it IS absolutely safe to do so .... must accept some responsibility for possibly hitting some person. Irresponsible actions of the pedestrians may negate any prosecution if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle. I have known of several case of "No charges laid" at such times.

Children/adults crossing the pedestrian crossing on a bicycle are actually doing so illegally.

Most of that is getting away from the topic but it's not legal for them to rock down the medians like they do, it's just common sense to not kick up a stink about it and get out of the way. Even at intersections with sirens blazing if they (they being an emergency vehicle) hit someone who has a green light they are at fault. This is straight from a professional firefighters mouth. They can bowl down specific lanes (like bus and possible bike?) legally though, but since the median isn't actually a lane...

The rock thing was done to death. The 'rule' was being able to see a certain distance in front of you or some such. I thought you or Katman were quoting some stuff from the road code about visible distance or something. Meh.

The legal turn thing is just going to go around in circles. Indicating for 3 (not 2 :P) seconds doesn't give you the right to turn whenever you want once those seconds have passed...

You could argue it is your "responsibility" to check for hazards whether they are legally supposed to be there or not.

Pedestrians are legally not supposed to step out in front of you when you're inside the diamond but it is your 'responsibility' to check and stop if they do.
Traffic is legally not supposed to treat the median strip as a lane, but as a driver it is your 'responsibility' to check for hazards in front and behind you before making a turn.
I don't see how you can argue the difference between those two things. There is even probably something written about the requirements/checking from a driver before making a turn.

Anyway, I disagree with you and Kat(have a whinge when someone doesn't agree :girlfight:)man, so we'll just have to see what happens... I'll be surprised if the outcome is different to what I think it will be, but life would be boring if everything was predictable.

[FJRider]

This is probably why in the OP's situation I'd be reluctant to admit to using the flush median as an overtaking lane.

Why .... what could possibly go wrong .. :innocent:



It is certainly NOT illegal to be travelling along the flush median

That being in the flush median is not illegal ... overtaking there is.


but it IS illegal for a car to pull into your path causing an accident.

Get an adult that is an experienced driver ... to explain to you the dangers of overtaking (anywhere ... either side) ... a vehicle indicating to move into your path. (As the OP WAS)


I'd go with "I was travelling along the flush median and the other car pulled out in front of me leaving me insufficient time to stop", why volunteer the information that you were using it as an overtaking lane?

I'm willing to bet ... the cops get a statement from both parties involved (and from a few do-gooder witnesses). As will the insurance companies. The cops (and Courts) get a bit stroppy when you make false statements. Insurance companies can ... and have ... declined claims for such.
But as YOU weren't there ... and YOU won't risk losing any money in this particular incident ... it sounds like pretty dodgy advice to give a learner rider .... that WAS involved. And does have much to lose.

[MarkH]

I'm willing to bet ... the cops get a statement from both parties involved (and from a few do-gooder witnesses). As will the insurance companies. The cops (and Courts) get a bit stroppy when you make false statements. Insurance companies can ... and have ... declined claims for such.
But as YOU weren't there ... and YOU won't risk losing any money in this particular incident ... it sounds like pretty dodgy advice to give a learner rider .... that WAS involved. And does have much to lose.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
I wasn't suggesting lying, just not giving more information than necessary.
I wasn't suggesting saying anything that would conflict with what witnesses would have observed.
I DEFINITELY am NOT suggesting that the OP changes his account in any way from whatever he has already said - changing your story looks very bad.


Get an adult that is an experienced driver ... to explain to you the dangers of overtaking (anywhere ... either side) ... a vehicle indicating to move into your path. (As the OP WAS)

I said NOTHING about the appropriate action prior to the accident that may have helped avoid the accident, I only commented on legalities and what could be said after the accident.
Clearly as the OP admitted, he could have started braking earlier.
Legally - an indicating driver doesn't have a legal right to make the turn just because they are indicating.
Self Preservation wise - riders need to be cautious around indicating drivers because many are careless idiots that don't look properly.

[awayatc]

Blah blah .........

Not sure how you can proclaim such infinite wisdoms about big city traffic issues when you tout about the barrenness of the goat trailsin you neck of the woods.......

Only flush knowledge that comes to mind is the one used after this onslaught of verbal diarrhea.......

[FJRider]

... changing your story looks very bad.

Leaving out important information doesn't look too great either ... when ALL statements of those that WERE there ... are compared .. :whistle:


I said NOTHING about the appropriate action prior to the accident that may have helped avoid the accident

Appropriate actions that may have prevented the accident you mean .. :scratch:

Still leaving the important bits out. Like why he was on the flush median in the first place. If you don't mention it ... it didn't happen .. right .. ?? :rolleyes:


I only commented on legalities and what could be said after the accident.

Clearly as the OP admitted, he could have started braking earlier.[/QUOTE]

Still leaving bits out ... like he shouldn't have been overtaking there. His lack of experience and lack of basic knowledge of inner city road rules bit him in the ass .... ;)


Legally - an indicating driver doesn't have a legal right to make the turn just because they are indicating.

But the following vehicles are required to overtake safely. Overtaking a vehicle that is indicating a turn is not exactly safe .... Would YOU overtake such a vehicle .. ?? :scratch:


Self Preservation wise - riders need to be cautious around indicating drivers because many are careless idiots that don't look properly.

No shit .. !!! The OP wasn't .... :killingme

His first crash ended up well ... He survived it. Broken bike bits are better than broken bones.

[FJRider]

Not sure how you can proclaim such infinite wisdoms about big city traffic issues when you tout about the barrenness of the goat trailsin you neck of the woods.......



The mighty Metropolis of Alexandra doesn't have traffic lights ... but it does have Flush medians. In ample quantity.

We have two roundabouts too ... do you need them explained as well .. ??

[awayatc]

The mighty Metropolis of Alexandra doesn't have traffic lights ... but it does have Flush medians. In ample quantity.

We have two roundabouts too ... do you need them explained as well .. ??

No thanks. Not interested in explanations of somebody who thinks its ok to run into people who have broken some sort of rules.

Will only show up there armed to the teeth and defend myself

[FJRider]

No thanks. Not interested in explanations of somebody who thinks its ok to run into people who have broken some sort of rules.

Will only show up there armed to the teeth and defend myself

Do you think the OP is not at fault .. ?? Because you think the driver didn't look .. ???

So ... it's OK to run into the side/rear of a vehicle ahead of you ... and it's not your fault .. ???

Kiwi legislation favours the vehicle in front in such cases. Any proof the driver didn't look ... or just your guess .. ???

The OP admitted he DID see the cars indicator on and continued overtaking (stationary traffic) anyway. But you say the CAR driver is at fault ... ??

Do you think the OP would have overtaken stationary traffic in an area that was not legally allowed for overtaking ... had he known it wasn't legal .. ??? Would you have overtaken vehicles there .. ??

[MarkH]

Leaving out important information doesn't look too great either ... when ALL statements of those that WERE there ... are compared .. :whistle:

I don't think that you are quite getting what I'm saying and I'm not sure why.
OK, sure, I probably wouldn't be overtaking there as it isn't a good idea in terms of legality as well as safety.
But if I did and ended up in the OP's position then my statement would NOT conflict with ANY witnesses statements.
I would state that I was driving along the flush median - this would be backed up by any witnesses that saw me doing it.
I would state that the car driver moved into my path and that I didn't have time to avoid a collision and so collided.
Why would I need to include my reasoning for driving along the flush median?
No witness could know my motivation although without the accident it would have become apparent.

It is a fact in law that a car isn't entitled to drive into the path of another vehicle even if they indicate first.
Legally the car driver is at fault.

However - motorcycle riders have a duty to themselves ahead of the law to try to avoid dangerous situations and to use caution due to the SMIDSY factor.
The OP has hopefully learned a couple of valuable lessons about not overtaking using the flush median and not exercising more caution upon seeing a car indicating a desire to turn into his path.

Please try to understand that I'm not saying that the OP didn't make mistakes or that his judgement couldn't have been better or that in future he shouldn't change how he rides, just that legally in this case the car driver is at fault. We all have to avoid the risk though of being in the right and also being dead - we shouldn't forget that having the right of way doesn't mean we can't give way and then carry on uninjured.

In my opinion the car driver was at fault in terms of causing an accident, he/she should have checked that the way was clear before moving.
Also the OP was breaking the law by ignoring the road rule about not using the flush median to overtake.
But the OP's rule breaking doesn't excuse the car driver's lack of due care before moving onto the flush median.
Though the OP could have also done more to avoid the accident, including not overtaking on the flush median at all.

[FJRider]

I would state that I was OVERTAKING along the flush median - this would be backed up by any witnesses that saw me doing it.
I would state that the car driver was indicating but I didn't slow down, that I didn't have time to avoid a collision and so collided.
Why would I need to include my reasoning for OVERTAKING along the flush median? .... Perhaps because I was in the wrong ...
Witness's in the cars I overtook reported this their statements ..

It is a fact in law that a car isn't entitled to drive into the path of another vehicle even if they indicate first.
Nor am I entitled to overtake in places I am forbidden to in legislation ...




There ... fixed it for you ... :laugh:

[MarkH]

There ... fixed it for you ... :laugh:

Could someone please explain where I am going wrong here with how I'm explaining this?
I'm getting incredibly frustrated that what I'm saying is not being understood.

The OP described travelling on the flush median for 30m, no witnesses would be able to tell that he is breaking the law because they could not tell if he was driving along the flush median legally so he could turn right or illegally so he could just get passed some cars and then pull back in.
The accident prevented his intentions from becoming apparent to witnesses, there could not possibly be witness reports that would back up:

Why would I need to include my reasoning for OVERTAKING along the flush median? .... Perhaps because I was in the wrong ...
Witness's in the cars I overtook reported this their statements ..

The fact is that you can legally pull onto the flush median and drive by some stationary cars, but legally you need to indicate and turn right from the flush median within a short distance. If you collided with another car how could anyone know that you weren't about to turn right?
Without the accident the OP would have pulled back into the lane and thus others would have realised that he wasn't using the flush median correctly, but that never happened.

Just what exactly are you suggesting the witnesses are stating?

[Ender EnZed]

Could someone please explain where I am going wrong here with how I'm explaining this?
I'm getting incredibly frustrated that what I'm saying is not being understood.


99% of readers, riders, human beings will understand exactly what you're saying because it's entirely sensical. They might not agree with it, but they'll understand it.

Unfortunately (and unpleasantly), people like FJRider exist to offer inane commentary on every single thing you will ever post. Have a look at just about any thread on KB. There will be a response, probably by FJRider, that might be relevant, useful, helpful (almost certainly not) but what you can guarantee is that it will be contradictory.

Do not mistake FJRider posts as representative of Kiwibiker readers.

[FJRider]

Could someone please explain where I am going wrong here with how I'm explaining this?
I'm getting incredibly frustrated that what I'm saying is not being understood.

The OP described travelling on the flush median for 30m, no witnesses would be able to tell that he is breaking the law because they could not tell if he was driving along the flush median legally so he could turn right or illegally so he could just get passed some cars and then pull back in.
The accident prevented his intentions from becoming apparent to witnesses, there could not possibly be witness reports that would back up:

I'll let the OP explain it for you as English is obviously your second language ... in bold is the important bits.


Just had my first crash on my way into work this morning and I'm all good (fairly low speed), but not sure about the legalities of it all and I'm just looking for some advice as to who's at fault (legally speaking). I was travelling down a road that had a flush median in the center. Traffic had come to a complete stop, so I moved into the flush and had been travelling for ~30m when a car (which was in the main lane) indicated and turned across the flush into my path of travel. Roads were wet, I got on the brakes and just started sliding and went right into the side of them. In hindsight, I could have started braking earlier, but shit happens. Might have bent forks but I'm not too sure, I'll have to check. Other than that, all is good, just bent handle bars, broken mirrors, a toasted indicator lens and the crash also revealed that my gas tank is full of bog lol (could have fooled me, whoever did that patch up job did it pretty damn well). No damage to me though. I don't think she looked in her mirrors/over her shoulders at all (otherwise she should have seen me), so she's at fault there. But what about my presence in the flush? Is it illegal to ride in the flush when traffic is at a complete stand still?

"Traveled about 30 meters with traffic at a standstill in the flush median. (that's 5 or 6 cars he overtook on a wet road) and was going fast enough to slide into a car in his path.

But no witnesses in those 5 or 6 cars .. ??? :scratch:

He even admits he should have braked earlier ..

If you ride in the flush with traffic at a standstill ... you are overtaking.

Pull back in with all traffic stopped ... ??? where/how .. ???

AND ... has to ask if he was allowed to overtake (legally) in such circumstances ...


The fact is that you can legally pull onto the flush median and drive by some stationary cars,

Pull onto the flush median ... YES ... overtake other vehicles ... NO.


but legally you need to indicate and turn right from the flush median within a short distance. If you collided with another car how could anyone know that you weren't about to turn right?

NOT indicating is a subtle clue ...


Without the accident the OP would have pulled back into the lane and thus others would have realised that he wasn't using the flush median correctly, but that never happened.

Without the accident ... he wouldn't have come online and told us all of HIS first crash. ...


Just what exactly are you suggesting the witnesses are stating?

EXACTLY as HE reported to US ... 5 cars ... 5 witnesses ... but you think the car drivers he overtook didn't see ... or know .. what he was doing .. ?? (As he overtook them)

Even HE didn't know the legality of his actions ... but he WAS right in one respect ... SHIT DOES HAPPEN.

Now we wait to hear the end result of his actions ... if he reports it. (Which I doubt he will .. call me a cynic if you like)

[jasonu]

Yes, but this site has no shortage of fucking idiots. You seem to be fitting in nicely.
.

Hello pot, this is kettle calling...

[MarkH]

Pull onto the flush median ... YES ... overtake other vehicles ... NO.


Do you really not understand what I'm saying or are you just trying to ignore my point for some reason?
You CAN pull onto the flush median and drive along for a short distance (passing other cars) then turn off to the right on a side street - that is allowed.
For all witnesses know that could have been what he was attempting, though he admits to us here it was not.
Of course for someone to choose to pretend that he had been planning to turn right he would want to avoid coming onto a forum and saying he was overtaking, it would also pay to be aware that it is illegal to be using the lane to overtake otherwise you wouldn't know not to admit that you were overtaking.

Maybe you should read up on NZTA's website about flush medians, here is the link: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/factsheets/52/flush-medians.html

Don't use flush medians as:

overtaking lanes (except for short distances just before the turn or when preparing to turn right and other traffic is occupying the adjacent lane)

Oh look, there is an exception to not using them as overtaking lanes!

[FJRider]

Oh look, there is an exception to not using them as overtaking lanes!

The OP did not intend to turn right at ANY stage. He stated quite clearly he was there to overtake. Therefore no exemption applies.

I think YOU even said he was going to rejoin the traffic in the proper lane ... "later" ...

[MarkH]

The OP did not intend to turn right at ANY stage. He stated quite clearly he was there to overtake. Therefore no exemption applies.

I think YOU even said he was going to rejoin the traffic in the proper lane ... "later" ...

OH MY GOD!

You have to be just trolling me now, surely?

I said:

The fact is that you can legally pull onto the flush median and drive by some stationary cars,

and you argued with that.

from the NZTA website:

Don't use flush medians as:

overtaking lanes (except for short distances just before the turn or when preparing to turn right and other traffic is occupying the adjacent lane)

Which proves me correct and you wrong.

I can't believe that you really don't understand what I have been saying here.
You can't really be arguing that witnesses would have seen the OP not intending to turn right can you?
How could they witness such a thing?

Maybe you could just re-read all my posts and make a real effort to understand my points?
I'd like to know how anything I posted could be interpreted to be me saying that the OP intended to turn right - I never said that or even implied it.

[russiansteel]

either 100% OP fault or shared blame. but there is no way this is the driver's fault alone.
is that the RD you crashed?

[cowpoos]

Just had my first crash on my way into work this morning and I'm all good (fairly low speed), but not sure about the legalities of it all and I'm just looking for some advice as to who's at fault (legally speaking). I was travelling down a road that had a flush median in the center. Traffic had come to a complete stop, so I moved into the flush and had been travelling for ~30m when a car (which was in the main lane) indicated and turned across the flush into my path of travel. Roads were wet, I got on the brakes and just started sliding and went right into the side of them. In hindsight, I could have started braking earlier, but shit happens. Might have bent forks but I'm not too sure, I'll have to check. Other than that, all is good, just bent handle bars, broken mirrors, a toasted indicator lens and the crash also revealed that my gas tank is full of bog lol (could have fooled me, whoever did that patch up job did it pretty damn well). No damage to me though. I don't think she looked in her mirrors/over her shoulders at all (otherwise she should have seen me), so she's at fault there. But what about my presence in the flush? Is it illegal to ride in the flush when traffic is at a complete stand still?

Your at fault.

Let your insurance company sort it out.

[DR650gary]

Got a result on this yet?