Indicating, laws, etc...

[liviy]

I've just got off the phone with my insurance company about an accident I was in almost 2 weeks ago.

What happened was the guy was coming towards me, was indicating left, maneuvering towards the left hand side of the road n slowing right down. I was indicating right and I was sure he was stopping so I went and then he suddenly decides it was the wrong place so started coming straight again.

We hit on front right hand corners and that was that.

Apart from the fact that he said at the scene to let him know what damage there was and then he'd sort me out, he's now telling my insurance company that he had no intentions of turning left there and was going to stop on the other side of the junction (which is crap but anyway) and I was cutting the corner on him (a blind corner, so commit me now because I'd have to be insane to do so).

The lady from the insurance company reckons that it doesn't matter that he was indicating left or anything as an indication is just an indication and doesn't have to mean anything.

I always thought it was a case of, if you're indicating to do something and then don't then that's a huge no no...especially if all other factors seem to point to the fact that he was going to do as he was indicating. She just says, it's a big grey area in the law...

Sorry if it's a bit of a ramble but I'm pretty pissed off as this adds insult to injury and just thought I'd get some other thoughts, probably better than mine on the situation.

[janno]

I was walking to work once when an indicating car went straight through the intersection instead.

Caused a smash, injuries were minor luckily.

The cop on the scene interviewed me as a witness, I told her the car at fault had been indicating and then said "I suppose the other car should have been sure she was turning though" and the cop said, no, if she had her indicator on she was at fault.

Bear in mind this was 15 years ago, things may have changed or the cop may have been wrong.

If the cop was correct, makes you wonder about people who drive along leaving their indicators on, could be liable for a whole heap of trouble if they are ever in a crash. :shit:

[judecatmad]

I was always taught that it doesn't matter what the indicators are saying - always wait until the indicating vehicle actually starts to make a move before you make your move.

I know my dad ticketed people in the UK for indicating and not making the move they were indicating ('driving without due care'), especially driving along motorways, but the rules here may well be different.

From the sounds of it, your guy DID start to move and then changed his mind - but it will be your word against his unfortunately :(

Hope it works out for you.

[liviy]

I'm trying to find something on the web about the whole law thing, if it's illegal for them to indicate before a junction or not to try n blow his made up story out of the water too because otherwise I also have to stump up an excess until it gets sorted. :shit:

[Hitcher]

"Right of way" is something other motorists give you. If they don't give it to you, you haven't got it, irrespective of whether the Road Code is on your side or not.

Assumption is the mother of many intersection accidents. If you're to assume anything, assume all motorists are trying to kill you and don't be fooled by those games they play to entice you into their killing zone, such as erroneously indicating or not indicating at all.

[roogazza]

"Right of way" is something other motorists give you. If they don't give it to you, you haven't got it, irrespective of whether the Road Code is on your side or not.

Assumption is the mother of many intersection accidents. If you're to assume anything, assume all motorists are trying to kill you and don't be fooled by those games they play to entice you into their killing zone, such as erroneously indicating or not indicating at all.

So true Hitch , After all these years and learning the hard way I treat everyone as an idiot. Signalling just means they have their blinker on. Gaz.

[janno]

Agreed, roogazza and hitcher, but I'd be interested in what the legalities of it are, rather than the "ride to survive" side of things.

ie who would win in a court of law.

[TLMAN]

Look at it this way, if you were in a car would you have done the same thing?? Probably not.

[liviy]

I do understand about not trusting the indicator but everything else he was doing was strongly suggesting that he was turning and giving way.

Something I'm always conscious about is that being on a motorbike, pretty much anything I hit or hits me, I'm gonna come of second worst so I'm always very wary...so that's how sure I was that he was doing what he was indicating.

What I'm more interested in currently is (because I already found out the hard way that he's a tard), as janno said...the legality of the situation, I mean if you caused an accident by not indicating at all then surely causing an accident by signaling incorrectly would be the same...failure to indicate correctly?

I mean, I believe he already stated to my insurance company that he was indicating prior to the junction and slowing down because he was going to stop just on the other side.

Just a footnote but I'm thankful of one thing, my insurance company is immediately suspicious as he claims it's my fault and yet he's not claiming for any damages to his vehicle, they said it does sound like he's just trying to get out of paying for the accident as he has no insurance.

[liviy]

Look at it this way, if you were in a car would you have done the same thing?? Probably not.

Am afraid I don't quite understand what you mean, maybe my concussion is worse than I thought! lol

[Chickadee]

In McJim's recent ding he made damn sure the cops showed up and there were a fair few witnesses to add weight to the facts.

Then the person at fault cannot recant their story when challenged by the insurance company.

They are likely to change their story based on the cold light of day and advice from pub lawyers (a friend of mine says.....).

[TLMAN]

Am afraid I don't quite understand what you mean, maybe my concussion is worse than I thought! lol

I dunno, the bourbon is taking over a lil bit. It sounded like a valid point when I made it. What I was trying to say is that if you were in a car then would....... oh I dunno fk it. Yore all in one peice though thats the most important thing.

[liviy]

If I was driving a car I would have done the same thing as was 100% sure he was turning n giving way.

Yeah, I am still here...and I'm thankful for that...glad to see my 7 month old again!

When I saw him change direction towards me, I thought it was game over!

[discotex]

The lady from the insurance company reckons that it doesn't matter that he was indicating left or anything as an indication is just an indication and doesn't have to mean anything.

I always thought it was a case of, if you're indicating to do something and then don't then that's a huge no no...especially if all other factors seem to point to the fact that he was going to do as he was indicating. She just says, it's a big grey area in the law...

Sorry if it's a bit of a ramble but I'm pretty pissed off as this adds insult to injury and just thought I'd get some other thoughts, probably better than mine on the situation.

Gotta love insurance companies don't you....

I'm no lawyer but if you had witnesses that they were giving way then basically decided to drive into you you're probably in the right. I'd guess it'd also depend on where you hit them (or they hit you).

From what I've seen insurance companies will go with the path of least resistance (and least cost) so whatever you do don't accept what some phone rep says. Ask them to provide evidence of the law/road rules that apply and see what happens. If they can't do that then they obviously haven't checked and assumed that because you're on two wheels you must have been in the wrong.

Oh and if they still say it's a grey area then push them to pay out based on that. Surely if it's not clear then you aren't in the wrong......... Best of luck!

[janno]

Oh and if they still say it's a grey area then push them to pay out based on that. Surely if it's not clear then you aren't in the wrong......... Best of luck!

Great points in your post that I hadn't considered, thanks - hopefully I'll never have to call upon my new found knowledge . . . :shit:

[TLMAN]

Did you get the cops involved? the insurance company almost every time will go with the decision that the police came to based on the traffic crash report that was completed at the scene.

[swbarnett]

This is not quite the same situation but may help all the same.

I heard of one case that went to court where a car driving at a steady speed was indicating left and proceeded through the intersection. Another car turned right across their path because they had assumed the other car was turning left and. The judge ruled that the two drivers were equally at fault because the right turning driver should've been able to judge by the speed of the other vehicle that they were not going to turn.

I'm no lawyer but I think in your case the fact that they were decelerating is the key. They had shown clear intent.

My own philosophy is that if I'm intending to stop just past an intersection I don't indicate at all. The brake light should be sufficient for following traffic.

[homer]

I had the same thing luckly no accident
was going south on a two lane south and two lane north avenue which has a centre rasied island running full length along it....anyways there was a car indicating from the inner lane heading north wanting to turn left i was going to wait as it changed lanes and then i saw it indicating so i went right and cut it off....what made me do this well considering it indicated and was also a cop and since the car was going down the street to the police station you would assume it was going to turn so had to give way to me ...but no it was just changing lanes
i got pulled up round the corner and was asked if i had seen the indicator which i replied yes then explained i thought he was turning to go to the station but he was just changing lanes anyway i didnt get a ticket so all was good i did explain the fact that you shouldnt change lane coming up to an intersection .

[Grahameeboy]

This is why the turning left rule needs scrapping.

Yes you should wait until they stop but other factors like slowing down etc are relevant factors too.

It would be different if you were emerging from a junction when you thought someone was turning into the junction you were exiting from because you are emerging so you have the primary responsibility to gived way,but with this turning left rule it is more difficult because the way I see it the vehicle indicating left before a junction combined with the turning left rule means that they have the primary responsibility to give way as you have right of way, if that makes sense.

Misleading signals in Binghams Case Studies is still relevant in NZ.

[swbarnett]

The problem in NZ is that we drive on the left but give way to the right. In Switzerland (and the rest of Europe I believe) they drive on the right but still give way to the right. Giving way to the same side that you drive on eliminates a whole lot of ambiguous situations. If we adopted this here and started giving way to the left the situation that started this thread would be a non-issue. The right turning vehicle would have to wait until the left turning vehicle had completed their turn or passed the intersection - no-brainer, no accident.

[liviy]

Lots of good info guys!

...And yes, I'd totally agree with the scraping of the give way to the right rule...

I have 3 full licences...


UK - Drive on left, give way to left
Australia - Drive on left, give way to left
NZ - Drive on left, give way to right?


I honestly can't think of a single country that drives on the left that gives way to the right...bar NZ...

I hate the give way to right rule and the most annoying thing is, if I'd stuck with my underlying gut feeling that giving way to the right is wrong...I would have never been in the accident! (as in, quite often I'll sit there like a nonce while the other person is waiting for me to turn right n I have to go...what the hell are they waiting for??? Oh crap, I'm supposed to go!)

[roogazza]

Agreed, roogazza and hitcher, but I'd be interested in what the legalities of it are, rather than the "ride to survive" side of things.

ie who would win in a court of law.

Guess we sound like old farts ? and we are ! But if your leg is hanging off who cares ? You could be in the right , in court, with you leg hanging off (or Sewn back on ) But i do see your point. Gaz.

[NordieBoy]

I like the "give way to anyone who could hit you in the drivers door" version of the give way to the right rule.

[Hitcher]

I am a fan of the current "give way to your right" rule, as it tidies up many situations that may result in unsafe situations on the road as a result of stationary turning traffic.

Riding in Australia recently where the turning rule is different was a bit of a trick, particularly in towns. But judicious use of the "proceed with extreme caution" principle seemed to work famously well.

[marty]

he could have quite legitimately had his indicator on signalling a turn left into a driveway just after the intersection. there are occasions where i can recall myself putting my indicator on to pull into a servo for gas, just past a side road, when the car waiting at the side road, or the car waiting in the middle of the road, has pulled out thinking i was going to turn into the side road. the mobil in cambridge approaching from the south is a classic example of this.

afaik the 'rule' is:

1. you must indicate 3 seconds before turning

2. you must give way to traffic turning from your right

3. you must give way to traffic travelling straight through.

the indicator is just that, an 'indicator'. it's not called an 'absolute'.

[Toaster]

This is why the turning left rule needs scrapping.

Yes you should wait until they stop but other factors like slowing down etc are relevant factors too.


Very true. We are, as I understand it, the only country that does it this way and are out of step with everyone else.

To the thread starter:
It appears given the facts stated that the driver of the indicating car was driving carelessly and the test in court is whether any reasonable person would expect a vehicle to turn if it had its indicator on. Of course any person would conclude that it is likely the vehicle intended to turn if it is indicating to do so and also visibly appears to be slowing in order to make the turn.

Of course defensive driving/riding emphasises the need to never assume anything and as such to drive/ride with extra care in case someone makes an error, as the driver did in this case.

[Grahameeboy]

Very true. We are, as I understand it, the only country that does it this way and are out of step with everyone else.

To the thread starter:
It appears given the facts stated that the driver of the indicating car was driving carelessly and the test in court is whether any reasonable person would expect a vehicle to turn if it had its indicator on. Of course any person would conclude that it is likely the vehicle intended to turn if it is indicating to do so and also visibly appears to be slowing in order to make the turn.

Of course defensive driving/riding emphasises the need to never assume anything and as such to drive/ride with extra care in case someone makes an error, as the driver did in this case.

Agreed, however, the turning left rule changes things and the way I see it puts more onus on the driver indicating to turn left..........all the Case Law on 'Misleading Signals' relates to normal 'Intersection' scenario's i.e. emerging vehicle.

[Grahameeboy]

he could have quite legitimately had his indicator on signalling a turn left into a driveway just after the intersection. there are occasions where i can recall myself putting my indicator on to pull into a servo for gas, just past a side road, when the car waiting at the side road, or the car waiting in the middle of the road, has pulled out thinking i was going to turn into the side road. the mobil in cambridge approaching from the south is a classic example of this.

afaik the 'rule' is:

1. you must indicate 3 seconds before turning

2. you must give way to traffic turning from your right

3. you must give way to traffic travelling straight through.

the indicator is just that, an 'indicator'. it's not called an 'absolute'.

Agree although to avoid giving a misleading signal a driver should not indicate too early either. If there was a driveway just after intersection, then I would slow, which would alert following vehicles, and indicate closer i.e. when level with intersection, to driveway because as the driver I should be aware that any earlier indication would mislead others given the turning left rule.

Plus since when is the turning left rule giving way to traffic on your right when they are in fact oncoming......

I think the problem with the turning left rule is that it makes the indication more of an absolute than in the case of an emerging scenario and if as appears to be the case here, the car was slowing and close to kerb a reasonable and prudent person would assume that vehicle was turning left.

[jim.cox]

I like the "give way to anyone who could hit you in the drivers door" version of the give way to the right rule.


I subscribe to the

"Give Way to anything thats bigger than you, harder than you, or can kill you"

version.

And don't trust them idiot motorists either...

So far it seems to be working :)

[Little Miss Trouble]

I subscribe to the

"Give Way to anything thats bigger than you, harder than you, or can kill you"

version.

And don't trust them idiot motorists either...

So far it seems to be working :)

You forgot to add "anything WAY more expensive coz theyre usually arrogant pricks!"

[liviy]

Thanks for all the thoughts guys...definitely lots of information in various forms!

It's helping me collect my thoughts for the possible fun and games ahead. plus I've taken note for future situations on the road & in case of accidents. :)

Just still waiting for honda to get the photo's to the insurance company...one says they've sent them twice and the other reckon they've never received them...it's all _just peachy_ right now :sick:

[TLDV8]

I was always taught that it doesn't matter what the indicators are saying - always wait until the indicating vehicle actually starts to make a move before you make your move.

I as a rule if turning right on to a car turning left (which has to give way) i like to see it stop before continuing the turn.

Which reminds me (pic attached)

A week or so back it is around 7:30pm and quite dark (Maich and Browns Road/Manukau/AKLD)
I come up to a tee intersection in the car as i have done many times for a right turn,look left,there is a car coming but some way off,look right and a car is coming down the hill and indicates a left turn,as per usual i wait to see that it is infact going to slow for its turn.
As it gets closer it veer's to the left of the lane a little, slows right down and for sure is going to turn left.
I look left,that car is closer but i can safely making my turn,look right and that car is looking good also so i am good to go.
Did i ?
No i didn't,as i was about to,something did not seem right but was not sure what it was,something had caught my eye !!!!!!
To the right of that car turning left was a small strange dull patch of light just next to the light from the car.
I sat there,as that car slowed to take the turn what appears beside it and is now passing because of the car slowing,a motorcycle !!!!!! which i would have taken out for sure had i pulled out.
This person was sitting in the blind spot of the car if not up its rearend and to the right on a dark night coming through an intersection.
I guess the bike headlight was lower than the view through the car side windows.
Do you think it was their lucky night and probably had no idea what may have happened.
I think it was a newer unfaired Triumph with the triangular headlight.
I for one day or night on the bike make sure i am visible going past intersections for my own wellbeing.

That is how easy it is to have an accident,all i saw at first was two cars,all i saw when i looked second was two cars.
A good thing i am never in a hurry in the car and take my time at intersections.

As for the post,indicating says 3 seconds or 100 metres beforehand,but,you would have to be a !@#$wit to signal left prior to a intersection if turning left past that intersection.?
Most folk indicate right when pulling away from the curb.

[TLDV8]

The lady from the insurance company reckons that it doesn't matter that he was indicating left or anything as an indication is just an indication and doesn't have to mean anything.


The flipside is..What would her answer be if one of her clients was going to cross an intersection and you decided to drive around and signal a left turn at every tee intersection but drive straight on.
According to her it is just an indication (indication to others of your intention) so they would not try and get costs from you should there be a collision...yeah right.
The reality is although there is one rule,it applies to motorcyclists differently as they have more to lose even in a low speed impact.
Be careful out there but not to the point where you miss the obvious.

[peasea]

Agreed, roogazza and hitcher, but I'd be interested in what the legalities of it are, rather than the "ride to survive" side of things.

ie who would win in a court of law.

If you're able to appear in the court then you're already a winner.
True about not taking indicators as gospel, I never do, especially when I'm turning across the line of oncoming traffic.

The Road Code is one thing, the ability to stay alive is quite another. Sorry to hear about your prang liviy, stick to your guns in court and good luck.

[rok-the-boat]

The give way to the right rule got me into a lot of trouble when I first came to NZ early last year - I had no idea it even existed! And how would I? Now that I have gotten used to it, and thought about it, ... I have come to the conclusion that it is really stupid. One simple reason is that at any one time, say in summer, there are thousands of tourists driving about that do not know it. And even if you do, instinct prevents you from following it for ages. I think it is one of those things thought up by bureaucrats sat in comfy seats that just want to simplify their paperwork - so they come up with GIVE WAY TO THE RIGHT REGARDLESS. And another thing, in the US and Korea you can turn right (= left here) at a red light - it is such a good rule and keeps traffic moving, though you have to give way of course.

And back on topic, if the driver intended to turn laft and changed his mind you should win. I am very careful at NZ intersections because of the stoopid rule mentioneed above - I just don't trust anyone to take care of my life - so learn the lesson.

[NordieBoy]

And another thing, in the US and Korea you can turn right (= left here) at a red light - it is such a good rule and keeps traffic moving, though you have to give way of course.

Don't like that one.
Red means Stop.

[fridsy]

may not be any help but...

The way I had it explained to me was that failing to indicate is an infringement, while failing to give way is an offense.... offence beats infringement... wander if that applies to indicating when not planing to Turn?....

hay but what the f I know, just like most people here I drive/ride as if everyone else was out to get me!....maybe they are...mmm...:bye:

[janno]

As I understand it, the give way to the right rule used to be a UK rule (where we inherited it from), and an Aussie one too, but they both saw sense and scrapped it.

Without the hellish mayhem or disasters that the naysayers said would prevail.

I'm pretty sure we are the ONLY country in the world which still has this rule.

The only thing loopier that I have come across is the right hand hook turns in inner city Melbourne, to cater for the tram tracks. (Hug far left, dash across in the nanosecond between light phases changing or when there is a gap in traffic). Now that is scary if you're trying to navigate!

But highly entertaining to watch if you are standin on the street with a nice cup of coffee in hand . . . :innocent:

[rok-the-boat]

Don't like that one.
Red means Stop.

Yeah, that'swhat I thought - but you soon learn to love it.

[denill]

Three things:

1 - Pleased that you are able to write about this.

2 - Bloody ridiculous r/h rule that places vehicles on a collision course.

3 - Don't take your right of way till you are sure it's been given to you. (You probly don't need me to tell you that!)

[denill]

The only thing loopier that I have come across is the right hand hook turns in inner city Melbourne, to cater for the tram tracks. (Hug far left, dash across in the nanosecond between light phases changing or when there is a gap in traffic). Now that is scary if you're trying to navigate!

But highly entertaining to watch if you are standin on the street with a nice cup of coffee in hand . . . :innocent:


Yeah. I couldn't make that one out for ages?
And I was driving in the city!!!!!!!

[swbarnett]

Plus since when is the turning left rule giving way to traffic on your right when they are in fact oncoming......

When you turn right, you are approaching the left turning vehicle from their right.

[Grahameeboy]

When you turn right, you are approaching the left turning vehicle from their right.

Mmmm..no you are approaching from the opposite direction............when you exit a junction you give way to traffic approaching from your right because they are on your rightside and traffic approaching from your left because they are on your leftside.

When you turn right into a road you have to give way to traffic approaching from the opposite direction....they are not coming from your right and nor are you...........

When you are turning left, you are giving way to traffic coming from the oppositeSIDE that wants to turn right across you.......you are still oncoming because you are coming from the opposite direction, not the right...I mean is the head of the driver turning left looking right or straight ahead at the right turning vehicle?

[swbarnett]

Mmmm..no you are approaching from the opposite direction............

True, but only as you approach the intersection. The trick is to think of what relationship the two vehicles have when the right turning vehicle has entered the intersection and started to turn. I agree that this is perhaps a bit counter intuitive but I believe that this is the way it is seen in law.

To consider the fact that the vehicles are facing each other is of no use because this would mean that neither of them has to give way.


When you turn right into a road you have to give way to traffic approaching from the opposite direction....they are not coming from your right and nor are you...........

In a collision that results from this situation the right turning vehicle will always impact on the right side of the left turning vehicle. The give way rule applies primarily at the point where a collision would occur.


I mean is the head of the driver turning left looking right or straight ahead at the right turning vehicle?

Actually slightly right. But this is true for both drivers.

Note the black lines in the attached picture from the NZ road code. The rule applies to the lines, not to the cars as shown. The dotted line must give way because it is to the left of the solid one.

[Da Bird]

To the thread starter:
It appears given the facts stated that the driver of the indicating car was driving carelessly and the test in court is whether any reasonable person would expect a vehicle to turn if it had its indicator on. Of course any person would conclude that it is likely the vehicle intended to turn if it is indicating to do so and also visibly appears to be slowing in order to make the turn.

I would tend to agree with the above. Would a normal prudent driver indicate to turn left, slow down and pull to the left and then keep driving straight ahead? It looks pretty careless to me.

It gets debated in cop circles too and opinion seems to vary.. some say the person "not giving way" should be held accountable, and some not. At the least, I would say there was culpability on both parties.

BC.

[Grahameeboy]

True, but only as you approach the intersection. The trick is to think of what relationship the two vehicles have when the right turning vehicle has entered the intersection and started to turn. I agree that this is perhaps a bit counter intuitive but I believe that this is the way it is seen in law.

To consider the fact that the vehicles are facing each other is of no use because this would mean that neither of them has to give way.

Mmm.....right turning vehicle is facing oncoming vehicle going straight and has to give way?

In a collision that results from this situation the right turning vehicle will always impact on the right side of the left turning vehicle. The give way rule applies primarily at the point where a collision would occur.

Not not always, the front of the left turning vehicle could impact on left side of turning vehicle.

Actually slightly right. But this is true for both drivers.

So basically looking ahead more than looking right then?

Note the black lines in the attached picture from the NZ road code. The rule applies to the lines, not to the cars as shown. The dotted line must give way because it is to the left of the solid one.

Must be that famous Kiwi logic like the turning left rule itself. Picture still shows both vehicles facing eachother from opposite directions and have never seen black lines

...................

[shafty]

Hi Liviy, pleased you're still with us.

I reckon you are exactly correct in what you say and what you did. Without repeating it all again, - you were sensible, and precautious, the other Guy cocked up, and YOU ARE RIGHT. Make sure when you talk to anyone, esp the Insurance co, be ADAMANT about it. Unfortunately sometimes the louder person is listened to, so "go in hard". Good luck MAte

[sunhuntin]

And another thing, in the US and Korea you can turn right (= left here) at a red light - it is such a good rule and keeps traffic moving, though you have to give way of course.


i love that... we need it here. sometimes, if you are late getting to the lights and the arrows gone red, you can sit through a whole cycle of lights, while, meanwhile, not a single car crosses your path.

it would require caution, but then, so does every other aspect of driving/riding.

i see in the states, they are petitioning to allow motorbikes to "run" red lights when they have been sitting for ages. [due to the pad not triggering] tis another good idea!