Oh, no, I crashed - and apparently I am at fault...?

[niero]

Hey guys, I was riding today and as I happen to accelerate from the lights over by the chch airport the guy in front of me diceded that he did not want to go in that direction he was intending on going before. So instead (now going 30km/h btw) he nearly locks up his breaks.:gob: (there was a street directly to the right of us, I guess he wanted to go there and didnt want to overshoot). Me meanwhile in my head "moher Fu***, moher Fu***, moher Fu***" I can see that I dont have nearly enough distance and performance to outbreak him so I swear to the left as I couldnt go right... in front of me (as murphies law suggests) is a damn camodore (thankfully traveling at about 20) So I plow into his side. I bounce off and go back into that other braking moron... and I am at fault... :bye: ... And I guess as far as I think I am at fault here, but none the less, at least some of the fault is on that guy... right? I had at least 8 meters clearance. What should I do now? Anyway, thankfully my tank of a motorbike is 98% fine. apart from the front waterguard. Where can I get one from? Its Kawasaki ZXR750 H1 (89model) does anyone make carbonfiber parts for them, or just parts in general? So moral of the story... Everyone is trying to kill and when they succeed, well... it turns out by law that you were trying to kill them.

Nikolai *sigh*

[MentalFacility]

Sorry to hear that. I see how that happened but by the road code i think it says that you must have adequate distance in front of you so you can stop whatever, whenever. But don't go of my comment alone, i'm no expert, and i hope there is something else you can do there.
Im just glad to hear that you are ok.
Speedy recovery and good luck.

[Nagash]

Y'ouch.. that really does suck.. two cars in one and a commadore aswell.

One can only hope you're insured otherwise i've heard Australia's nice.

But yup, gotta be able to stop no matter what.. pretty black and white on that one.

[Katman]

Yeap, you're at fault.

[MentalFacility]

Y'ouch.. that really does suck.. two cars in one
One can only hope you're insured otherwise i've heard Australia's nice.


:lol::lol::lol:

[blacksheep]

Yeap, you're a fault.

at fault or a fault :dodge:was that on purpose?if it was bling coming your way!

[Rockbuddy]

yeah wahoo ten points for the hit on the commodore

[Katman]

at fault or a fault :dodge:was that on purpose?if it was bling coming your way!

Who are you? The new Hitcher?

:msn-wink:

[yod]

following too close by the sounds of it

you're at fault, sorry mate

[FJRider]

Third party insurance... Cheap... get some. It would have covered you here, or did you have insurance...??
If I remember the wording...be able to stop within half the clear distance of roadway ahead. I can't recall there being any exemptions to this rule...

[FJRider]

yeah wahoo ten points for the hit on the commodore

Twenty...if it was this years model...

[yod]

Who are you? The new Hitcher?

:msn-wink:

nah, he's an old bastard

[niero]

Sigh, yeah. Thats kinda hard when you have a tuner WRX in front of you... well, I guess that selling my parents into slavery is a good option right now... thankfully I hae insurance, its K, but premium is kinda high... $500 gar! I can see where everyone is coming from here, but none the less... the guy had some $5000 Brembo ferarri brakes on his car he litrally stoped in 3 metres. just like that... Isnt there a rule or anything to help me out here. I mean thats why we have the jury in law cases, to make it more humane and just... Do you think that this is justice? Its equivelent to driving in front of a moving wall which stops faster than the brake lights have the time to light up.

[FJRider]

But if due to dangerous driving on the cages part, both may be charged... what did the cops say ...???

[FJRider]

Sigh, yeah. Thats kinda hard when you have a tuner WRX in front of you... well, I guess that selling my parents into slavery is a good option right now... thankfully I hae insurance, its K, but premium is kinda high... $500 gar! I can see where everyone is coming from here, but none the less... the guy had some $5000 Brembo ferarri brakes on his car he litrally stoped in 3 metres. just like that... Isnt there a rule or anything to help me out here. I mean thats why we have the jury in law cases, to make it more humane and just... Do you think that this is justice?

Talk to the cops... give them his details...explain.
What does the insurance rep say ???

[Katman]

What if he'd been stopping to avoid a child who ran out on to the road?

Would you still be trying to shift the blame?

[Headbanger]

What if he'd been stopping to avoid a child who ran out on to the road?

Would you still be trying to shift the blame?

Yes, To the parents.

Damn idiots, training their kids to run through intersections.

What if was an Alsation in a miniature shopping cart?

Aye?....makes ya think....

[niero]

What if he'd been stopping to avoid a child who ran out on to the road?

Would you still be trying to shift the blame?

OK... thanks for that comment. Do you go on 100km/h areas? I bet you do and since you are (I asume, (NOT taking the piss)) a safe rider, and that same child ran in front of you, would you be able to stop mate? I bet your motorbike is good, but I bet you will not be able to do anything either. So would you be asking this same question if that same child ran infront of you? Would you blame yourself for riding 100 km/h in a 100 km/h area and not being able to get out of the way in time? I would really like to see you outbreak that car mate, I really do. Blaming me for the crash is one thing and I'm ok with that but putting child into this scene and compearing me on the same level to a drunk teenager in his overtuned car traveling 3 times the speed limit not caring about anything and tailgating is damn an other.

[Griffin]

I can see its the pits when people brake suddenly because they've made an error and want to change direction but as pointed out the law is clear... you must have enough room between you and the vehicle in front to allow you to stop safely at all times. We are all guilty of following too closely on occasion and taking for granted that the vehicle in front of us that is speeding away from traffic lights intends to keep moving but unfortunately for you.... this time wasnt to be. :doh:

[lostinflyz]

if he dives on the brakes to make a turn it is dangerous driving. so long as u have yet to admit fault to anyone (important) you can weez your way out of it. While you are supposed to be able to stop (and as such you have some liability) he drove in an erratic fashion that caused a dangerous situation.

you can wiggle your way out of almost anything if you are cunning enough. While you are supposed to be able to stop if he goes down the road continuously brake checking you its not completely your fault. Be grateful your not in the states. the law where i used to live was if you hit someone from behind your at fault, no questions asked. here it sounds like you could plead that dangerous driving contributed. if your that way inclinded.

[Katman]

OK... thanks for that comment. Do you go on 100km/h areas? I bet you do and since you are (I asume, (NOT taking the piss)) a safe rider, and that same child ran in front of you, would you be able to stop mate? I bet your motorbike is good, but I bet you will not be able to do anything either. So would you be asking this same question if that same child ran infront of you? Would you blame yourself for riding 100 km/h in a 100 km/h area and not being able to get out of the way in time? I would really like to see you outbreak that car mate, I really do. Blaming me for the crash is one thing and I'm ok with that but putting child into this scene and compearing me on the same level to a drunk teenager in his overtuned car traveling 3 times the speed limit not caring about anything and tailgating is damn an other.

That post doesn't warrant a serious response.

[Oakie]

I can see its the pits when people brake suddenly ... but as pointed out the law is clear... you must have enough room between you and the vehicle in front to allow you to stop safely at all times. We are all guilty of following too closely on occasion and taking for granted that the vehicle in front of us that is speeding away from traffic lights intends to keep moving but unfortunately for you.... this time wasnt to be. :doh:

Yeah. That's what happened to me last week. Following a car, straight road, no other traffic when suddenly he slams on anchors. I managed to pull up a few metres short of him with no dramas and as I sat there thinking "WTF?", a mummy duck appeared out from infront of the car and continued to waddle across the road.

[Headbanger]

That post doesn't warrant a serious response.

It was better then yours, The ability to stop in your visible clear space doesn't cover kids running into the road as per your scenario, if it did it wouldn't be legal to travel at more then 2 or 3 km/h.

So, fuck up, fuck off.

[sinfull]

OK... thanks for that comment. Do you go on 100km/h areas? I bet you do and since you are (I asume, (NOT taking the piss)) a safe rider, and that same child ran in front of you, would you be able to stop mate? I bet your motorbike is good, but I bet you will not be able to do anything either. So would you be asking this same question if that same child ran infront of you? Would you blame yourself for riding 100 km/h in a 100 km/h area and not being able to get out of the way in time? I would really like to see you outbreak that car mate, I really do. Blaming me for the crash is one thing and I'm ok with that but putting child into this scene and compearing me on the same level to a drunk teenager in his overtuned car traveling 3 times the speed limit not caring about anything and tailgating is damn an other.

Cut it out DB , Was a straight forward comment ! The guy stopped , don't matter if it cause he changed his mind or if it was a kid, was all KM said ! Your to blame no two ways about it !
If any of us were to be on 100km areas it is up to the operator of the vehical to have anough visibility to stop in half the distance of the vehicle in front !
You left the lights same time as car ! You have twice accelleration car has, by rights you should have twice the stopping power too ! Hello My friend !
Totally fucked it up !

[scracha]

------ SNIP LOAD OF WHINGEING $HITE -----

I would really like to see you outbreak that car mate, I really do.

------ SNIP LOAD OF IRRELEVANT SHITE ------


You don't have to outbrake cars. You just have to follow them at a safe distance to be able to stop in time. And yes, if you're following a Ferrari then you'd damn well best double your following distance.

[niero]

Cut it out DB , Was a straight forward comment ! The guy stopped , don't matter if it cause he changed his mind or if it was a kid, was all KM said ! Your to blame no two ways about it !
If any of us were to be on 100km areas it is up to the operator of the vehical to have anough visibility to stop in half the distance of the vehicle in front !
You left the lights same time as car ! You have twice accelleration car has, by rights you should have twice the stopping power too ! Hello My friend !
Totally fucked it up !

Thanks mate. Respect, I understand, I am at fault as I suspected. I respect everything that you have said, apart from one thing. It does not mean that I can stop at half the distance of a car, in a matter of fact if you compeare my brakes to brembo on a car you will find that the car out stops me. I know that its not an excuse, and that once again I should have followed further behind, but none the less, please undertand my frustration here, would it have been something else (an other car I mean) I would have been fine, the 2 second rule asumes that you have the same braking power as the car in front of you. Unfortunatly with motorbikes thats not the case, generally speaking we take longer to break. Thats why I have adobted the 3-4second rule instead. In any case it does not mean that its OK, and that it excuses me of everything, but what I thought was more than safe, has turned out to be well... this. The blame is mine and I take it as a man should take it but at least a little bit is his... Thanks

Nikolai.

[Ixion]

I am at a loss to comprehend what logic could suggest that your running into the back of another vehicle, which you were following (!) could somehow be his fault.

Moreover, you state that the vehicle in front was going about 30kph ("now going 30km/h btw") : and that you allowed 8 metres following clearance (" I had at least 8 meters clearance") : and that the WRX stopped in 3 metres (about what one might expect at 30kph) ("he litrally stoped in 3 metres).

So, you were unable to stop from30kph in 11metres (8 mtr + 3 mtr).

Any modern bike will easily stop from 50kph let alone 30 in that distance . 60 years ago, when brakes were little more than cast iron ornamentation we could stop in 20 foot from 30 mph.

And yet, you managed to hit both him and another vehicle. And somehow it is his fault ?

The suggestions that the rules on following distance are not able to include someone (a child or otherwise) running out from hiding in front of the vehicle, are correct but irrelevant. The vehicle you hit did not run out in front of you, drop down from the sky, or otherwise unexpectedly materialise in front of you. You were following it!. Did you not see it ?

[<Rhino>]

Stink one mate, sounds like you got off lightly though, little damage and NO injury.

It does suck that cars can just stop in front of you without warning but thats life, it does say you have to be able to stop in half the distance in front of you. I nearly rear ended a car a couple of weeks ago in the wet who did the same.

[Ixion]

T.... It does not mean that I can stop at half the distance of a car, in a matter of fact if you compeare my brakes to brembo on a car you will find that the car out stops me. ... would it have been something else (an other car I mean) I would have been fine, the 2 second rule asumes that you have the same braking power as the car in front of you. Unfortunatly with motorbikes thats not the case, generally speaking we take longer to break. ...

Goodness me. Either urgently get your bike to a qualified repairer for urgent attention to its (apparently severely defective) brakes: or get yourself urgently to a RRRS course or similar.

[niero]

I am at a loss to comprehend what logic could suggest that your running into the back of another vehicle, which you were following (!) could somehow be his fault.

Moreover, you state that the vehicle in front was going about 30kph ("now going 30km/h btw") : and that you allowed 8 metres following clearance (" I had at least 8 meters clearance") : and that the WRX stopped in 3 metres (about what one might expect at 30kph) ("he litrally stoped in 3 metres).

So, you were unable to stop from30kph in 11metres (8 mtr + 3 mtr).

Any modern bike will easily stop from 50kph let alone 30 in that distance . 60 years ago, when brakes were little more than cast iron ornamentation we could stop in 20 foot from 30 mph.

And yet, you managed to hit both him and another vehicle. And somehow it is his fault ?

The suggestions that the rules on following distance are not able to include someone (a child or otherwise) running out from hiding in front of the vehicle, are correct but irrelevant. The vehicle you hit did not run out in front of you, drop down from the sky, or otherwise unexpectedly materialise in front of you. You were following it!. Did you not see it ?

Yes everything is correct here... Please dont take my readings of 3 metres exact, I saw tyre skids and I breaked. Sorry I didnt leave my left brain to calculate the exact measurement of how fast he stoped, if you want lab results ask Brembo, all I am saying is that he stoped, and done so very quickly. Please dont take my values so exact. I was trying to draw a picture, not a lab tested result.

[Str8 Jacket]

You were quite obviosusly following too close to stop. Obviously. And im sorry but im feeling really pissed off at the moment so this is for YOU!:
:wari:

FAIL! You suck, you're at fault, your fault, you suck. FAIL! :wari:

[Katman]

So, you were unable to stop from30kph in 11metres (8 mtr + 3 mtr).



In fact it's a WOF requirement that your bikes brakes can stop you in less than 7 metres from 30kph.

[imdying]

at least a little bit is his...No, it's not...

[Mikkel]

If he braked to turn right he would have had to start indicating at least 3 seconds prior to performing the turn. Otherwise he is not observing the roadcode.

It's your responsibility to keep a safe following distance. It would appear that you did not do that in this case.

I can't see how you would be able to wiggle your way out of it - but shared fault may be an option if the car in front of you did not indicate properly.

[Motu]

It was better then yours, The ability to stop in your visible clear space doesn't cover kids running into the road as per your scenario, if it did it wouldn't be legal to travel at more then 2 or 3 km/h.



That's exactly the reason you need to be able to stop in your visible space.No wonder people have prangs,they haven't got a bloody clue.

[Headbanger]

That's exactly the reason you need to be able to stop in your visible space.No wonder people have prangs,they haven't got a bloody clue.

Right, You lead by example then, Don't ever travel at a speed where you wouldn't be able to stop for an object appearing immediately in front of you.

Good luck with that.

[niero]

In fact it's a WOF requirement that your bikes brakes can stop you in less than 7 metres from 30kph.

Ehhh... whaaa? I have WOFed my bikes 6 times never did a braking test, EVER!

_____________________

Thats, the point, I made it a rule to subcontiously count in my brain and I was 3-4 seconds behind the bastard... That what pisses me off, and no he did not indicate, just skip-skidded (a little bit of black tread on the road is showing there and there) while he was turning to the right, ended up about 60-70` across the road when he finished the manuvre and I was performing mine.

[Str8 Jacket]

Ehhh... whaaa? I have WOFed my bikes 6 times never did a braking test, EVER!
.

hmmmmmmmm, you're not a very good liar, are ya?

[Katman]

Ehhh... whaaa? I have WOFed my bikes 6 times never did a braking test, EVER!



If the person inspecting your bike for a WOF doesn't perform a road test they shouldn't be issuing WOFs.

[Headbanger]

Ehhh... whaaa? I have WOFed my bikes 6 times never did a braking test, EVER!




Should have given up while you were ahead.

Now you should at least learn from the incident so you don't repeat it. I could stop a truck in the amount of space your talking about.

[niero]

In fact it's a WOF requirement that your bikes brakes can stop you in less than 7 metres from 30kph.


hmmmmmmmm, you're not a very good liar, are ya?


Huh?! I hope that you dont lie and that you are having a bad day too, otherwise I really do feel sorry for people around you... on the other hand if you did lie that must make you very good at what ever you do in life. Want to expand on the lying about braking distance plz...

cheers!

[FJRider]

What if he'd been stopping to avoid a child who ran out on to the road?


There are no exceptions to the rule... tailgate at your peril...

[Nagash]

hmmmmmmmm, you're not a very good liar, are ya?

Err, i've never received a braking test either, just told to ride the bike forwards and then stop using each brake individually.. I assume just to test the brakes actually work.


This burning at the stake is getting somewhat ridiculous, he's in a bad situation, give the guy a chance to vent.

He fucked up, it happens. And he has a bill to pay ontop of it. No one gets the message straight away, that's why people always post after they've had time to reflect on what's happened and can actually see what happened.

[Str8 Jacket]

......otherwise I really do feel sorry for people around you...

So do I. So do I!!!!! :yes:

:shake:

[dipshit]

I saw tyre skids and I breaked. Sorry I didnt leave my left brain to calculate the exact measurement of how fast he stoped, if you want lab results ask Brembo,

Any car can stop in one car's length from 30kph... Brembo or not.

[Katman]

Err, i've never received a braking test either, just told to ride the bike forwards and then stop using each brake individually.. I assume just to test the brakes actually work.




The 'brake test' is carried out during the road test (which is an integral part of the inspection) performed by the WOF inspector.

[Str8 Jacket]

He fucked up, it happens. And he has a bill to pay ontop of it. No one gets the message straight away, that's why people always post after they've had time to reflect on what's happened and can actually see what happened.

YEah, you're right. I fuck up all the time. Its usually always my fault. Whenever I post about my crashes I usually get mocked...... Go figure?!

BTW, sorry if I offended you. I was being sarcastic, *really*!

[FJRider]

OK... thanks for that comment. Do you go on 100km/h areas? I bet you do and since you are (I asume, (NOT taking the piss)) a safe rider, and that same child ran in front of you, would you be able to stop mate? I bet your motorbike is good, but I bet you will not be able to do anything either. So would you be asking this same question if that same child ran infront of you? Would you blame yourself for riding 100 km/h in a 100 km/h area and not being able to get out of the way in time? I would really like to see you outbreak that car mate, I really do. Blaming me for the crash is one thing and I'm ok with that but putting child into this scene and compearing me on the same level to a drunk teenager in his overtuned car traveling 3 times the speed limit not caring about anything and tailgating is damn an other.

Kids, sheep, and dogs, cause more "offs" than other vehicles do. Usually under the label of "rider error".
Very experienced riders are more scared of sheep, than Mack Trucks.

[niero]

Should have given up while you were ahead.

Now you should at least learn from the incident so you don't repeat it. I could stop a truck in the amount of space your talking about.

Should have given up while you were ahead. --- ?!?! Given up on braking?

About the truck... I dont know, every person is entiteled to his/her opinion. I have given my side of the story... And yes, what ever I make of it is just as importaint as everyone else makes of this, thats why I am currently suffrening through this. Someone here may in a result travel further from that cager in front of him/her and dont end up doing what I have done... What I am trying to say is that,

2 SECOND RULE ON A MOTORBIKE IS NOT ENOUGH,

be careful and learn from my mistakes

good riding everyone

[Nagash]

And the world goes on..

[XP@]

... unless you can prove the guy in front was driving carelessly / dangerously.

in which case you may stand a chance... ask hitcher, he plowed up the arse of a car and the car driver was prosecuted... however the rav 4 driver did put it in to reverse when overtaking...

[Jerry74]

Bugger oops... hope youhave some joy in sourcing parts and getting off

[MIZXR]

There can be exceptions to the following to close rule but generally you will be at fault. - unless you can prove he did something wrong.

for anyone who dosn't believe me try slamming your brakes on in front of another car when driving.

[dipshit]

Goodness me. Either urgently get your bike to a qualified repairer for urgent attention to its (apparently severely defective) brakes: or get yourself urgently to a RRRS course or similar.

niero is probably just talking shit. More than likely he was caning it away from the lights to keep up with his boy-racer mate in the WRX.

[TimeOut]

If he braked to turn right he would have had to start indicating at least 3 seconds prior to performing the turn. Otherwise he is not observing the roadcode.

It's actually 3 seconds before slowing to turn.

Had the same happen a few years back towing a horse float, an old dear passed us going up a hill then to sit at 70km/h for 20km. When a truck indicated to turn right (but still moving) she stoped dead in the middle of the road (we conected) Cop said there was fault on both sides so no charges and each repair own vechicles.

If he didn't indicate at least 3 seconds before slowing I think there's shared blame.

[FJRider]

The 2 second rule asumes that you have the same braking power as the car in front of you.


The "two second rule" is a guidline, not a defined law, that must be obeyed.
Half the clear distance of roadway ahead IS...

[Motu]

Right, You lead by example then, Don't ever travel at a speed where you wouldn't be able to stop for an object appearing immediately in front of you.


Good work,I'm happy to see you have finally figured it out.

[niero]

The "two second rule" is a guidline, not a defined law, that must be obeyed.
Half the clear distance of roadway ahead IS...

Yes, but... I bet that people are more likely to use the two second rule rather than the distance LAW because its easier and more practical. Thats all.

[TimeOut]

Half the clear distance of roadway ahead IS...


I think that is for an unmarked road.

On a road with a centre line it's the clear distance of road ahead.

[Forest]

The 'brake test' is carried out during the road test (which is an integral part of the inspection) performed by the WOF inspector.

That's interesting. I've never seen an inspector perform a road test on any of my bikes as part of a WoF inspection.

[Headbanger]

Good work,I'm happy to see you have finally figured it out.


Aye?

If your trying to say the rules about stopping in the clear distance ahead cover objects entering from the side of the road then your quite wrong. But hell, If your going to ride at walking speed then more power to you.

Though I'd suggest you trade the bike in for an electric scooter of some description.

[Motu]

That's interesting. I've never seen an inspector perform a road test on any of my bikes as part of a WoF inspection.

Then insist on it!

Nothing I like better than a fang on some else's bike with some good hard emergency breaking thrown in.

[FJRider]

Ehhh... whaaa? I have WOFed my bikes 6 times never did a braking test, EVER!

Do you do your own WOF's... according to my calculater, at 30 km/h you should have 16.6 metres @ 2 secs. were you... or do you count fast.

[Motu]

Aye?

If your trying to say the rules about stopping in the clear distance ahead cover objects entering from the side of the road

I'm not trying to say it - I am saying it!

[FJRider]

Yes, but... I bet that people are more likely to use the two second rule rather than the distance LAW because its easier and more practical. Thats all.

Believe what you want, easier and more practical TO BIN....you mean.
No BUT's about that.

[Headbanger]

I'm not trying to say it - I am saying it!


Lmao, well good for you then, Now please tell me you stand behind your words and ride at 2km/h, otherwise its a crock of shit even saying it.

Well its a crock anyway because your wrong, But thems the breaks.

[Katman]

That's interesting. I've never seen an inspector perform a road test on any of my bikes as part of a WoF inspection.

To be honest, I wouldn't want half the dickheads that work at testing stations riding my bike either. (Lucky I can issue my own WoFs).

If people want a proper inspection carried out they should take it to a bike shop, that has WoF certification, that they trust. But that's not what people want - they just want their bike to pass without any problems (regardless of whether there are problems).

I refuse to carry out an inspection if someone says they don't want me to ride their bike.

[Nagash]

But that's not what people want - they just want their bike to pass without any problems (regardless of whether there are problems).

Yes siree'

[Griffin]

Geez this threads taken off since I went to sit down for dinner... personally - after reading all this drivel, Id like to say 'good on ya Niero for stepping up and accepting that you are responsible for this wee learning curve fuck up'.

The facts are (minus the measurements and mental picture painting... cos that only serves to get your balls roasted) that you were behind a vehicle, said vehicle stopped, you did not... in time. Your fault, you accept that, sweet.

The truth is we are all guilty of following too close to other vehicles...
The difference is that many of us have been fortunate enough not to have one brake to a screeching halt in front of us while we were following too close.

Like you say... maybe a few of us will bear this in mind based on your experiences... thanks :)

[johns.swifty]

Good luck with talking to the cops and the insurance rep - I don't like your chances but glad to here that you are OK and that Insurance is present.

I had an accident a couple of months ago (WITHOUT INSURANCE) lucky the guy was nice and agreed it was his fault. If he wasn't then who know how I would have been getting around as the bike was a right off.
Get this, the guy even lent me his own personal car until the insurance money came through.

[R1madness]

Modern cars (especially sports cars) have fantastic brakes these days. I remember a test from a few years ago where a fararri and a GSXR1000 were tested side by side. The bike blasted the car up to about 250kph then the car came past due to superior power. Then in the brake test the bike was completely out classed by the car. Bigger disks and more rubber on the road. The real problem is that most riders do not have the fine motor control needed to brake properly. Its a squeeze not a tug on the brakes that stops ya best. Practice it lots, it may save your life some day. The theory is if you squeeze the brakes the tyre has time to spread itself on the road giving you a bigger contact patch so making better use of the braking power you have. The more the tyre spreads itself the more you can squeeze the brakes. A tug just locks the wheel.

[dyls]

Sigh, yeah. Thats kinda hard when you have a tuner WRX in front of you... well, I guess that selling my parents into slavery is a good option right now... thankfully I hae insurance, its K, but premium is kinda high... $500 gar! I can see where everyone is coming from here, but none the less... the guy had some $5000 Brembo ferarri brakes on his car he litrally stoped in 3 metres. just like that... Isnt there a rule or anything to help me out here. I mean thats why we have the jury in law cases, to make it more humane and just... Do you think that this is justice? Its equivelent to driving in front of a moving wall which stops faster than the brake lights have the time to light up.

the law is pretty black and white and from every example I've ever heard, if you hit someone from behind, unless they were for some reason going in reverse, you're at fault.

sucks man : /

at least a) you're not hurt b) noone else is hurt c) you have insurance

[ynot slow]

Re WOF some places have great testing stations with hours which suit,i.e open 7.30-5.30 or 8-5 and sat morning,my case was vtnz station open at 7.30 and at time I left for work at 8 and home about 5.30,they didn't open on Saturday.My bike shop was almost open at 8 but closed by 5 although if pressed they would stay there.

Sad to be in the wrong re crash,but depending on the cops attitude and yours and theirs at time of crash his report could help.We had a failure to give way crash last year,wife turning right into building supplies carpark,the setting sun a pain(May)stupid girl was being smart and took off from the curb after talking to her mates,showing off the turbo starlet,witness(older guy)said heard the noise twice(blow off valve)bang,wife rang the cops,girl wanted to get away so went to hospital,she did have license but no insurance,insurance said we were in the wrong despite mitigating factors,the panel beater had both cars and with technology placed cars together and the crash speed impact was approx 75km,wife was almost stationary.

We were told by insurance we could take the girl to court and if the court said her fault our excess was to be refunded,talked to lawyer his thoughts were to costly,and would she pay if guilty lol.

And to rub salt the cop gave her a ticket for failing to give way,sure she did but he could have been able to use initiative,afterall my wife waited other girl didn't want cops there,originally the cop said both to blame.

[Mikkel]

Sucks when you get screwed over by the system.

I'd been tempted to take it further on sheer principle.

[pritch]

You don't have to outbrake cars. You just have to follow them at a safe distance to be able to stop in time. And yes, if you're following a Ferrari then you'd damn well best double your following distance.

Or pass the thing and get in front of it... :devil2:

But seriously, scracha has shit the nail on the head.

[The Stranger]

if he dives on the brakes to make a turn it is dangerous driving. so long as u have yet to admit fault to anyone (important) you can weez your way out of it. While you are supposed to be able to stop (and as such you have some liability) he drove in an erratic fashion that caused a dangerous situation.


What were you doing for the 3 seconds he was indicating?

[The Stranger]

I had at least 8 meters clearance. What should I do now?

Study the road code - particularly the part about the 2 second rule.

[nodrog]

2 SECOND RULE ON A MOTORBIKE IS NOT ENOUGH

its plenty



If he didn't indicate at least 3 seconds before slowing I think there's shared blame.

if he didnt indicate all he will get is a $150 (or whatever it is) fine for failing to indicate, nothing else.


What were you doing for the 3 seconds he was indicating?

calculating stopping distances and admiring his brembos

[The Stranger]

if he didnt indicate all he will get is a $150 (or whatever it is) fine for failing to indicate, nothing else.


Could get careless use if they feel that contirbuted to the accident perhaps?

[lostinflyz]

What were you doing for the 3 seconds he was indicating?

if he indicates then your fucked and at fault. it sounded like the guy didnt indicate and dived on the brakes.

if the bloke indicates at all its usually a good sign to drop anchors.

but that being said i know several cases where people said that others didnt indicate for long enough (despite indicating at least a full 3 sec) and the accident has been deemed both parties fault.

[nodrog]

Could get careless use if they feel that contirbuted to the accident perhaps?

the only thing that was careless was the fact that he failed to indicate, the carelessness for the accident lies with the rider that failed to stop within the required distance set out by the law. any charges laid will be laid out to the black and white version of the law, not a bunch of "what if's" or "but he had Brembo's"

[Forest]

To be honest, I wouldn't want half the dickheads that work at testing stations riding my bike either. (Lucky I can issue my own WoFs).

If people want a proper inspection carried out they should take it to a bike shop, that has WoF certification, that they trust. But that's not what people want - they just want their bike to pass without any problems (regardless of whether there are problems).

I refuse to carry out an inspection if someone says they don't want me to ride their bike.

I'm sure the road test is an excellent idea, I've just never seen it done on my bikes.

[forkoil]

That post doesn't warrant a serious response.
Mainly because you dont have one, good reply niero

[Ixion]

the only thing that was careless was the fact that he failed to indicate, the carelessness for the accident lies with the rider that failed to stop within the required distance set out by the law. any charges laid will be laid out to the black and white version of the law, not a bunch of "what if's" or "but he had Brembo's"

Plenty of bikes have Brembo brakes. Just saying.

[pzkpfw]

Had a mate break a car with his bike.

He went to court as he felt the other guy had some blame.

Court agreed, and gave a % of the blame to the other guy.

It then cost my mate more $$$ as the car was worth so much more than his bike anyway, and all the court costs and stuff added up.

[nodrog]

Plenty of bikes have Brembo brakes. Just saying.

that will be the ones that get rear ended then, how much % of the blame should they take? :msn-wink:

[CookMySock]

Ah that sucks bro. Yeah bikes are for goofing off on, and sometimes we screw it up - thems the breaks! This time you got off lightly.

Right, any damage to anyone else ? Any liability ? If so, deny everything and refuse to discuss the accident with anyone. Disappear into the long grass, and say nothing. Fix your own bike with your own money, and let your sore knee mend itself etc. If anyone wants to knock on your door and talk about the incident, tell them they are at the wrong place. If the feds turn up, tell them u dunno jack about that, and shut the door and go back to what you were doing. Letter from some insurance company demanding payment? bew hew hew, chuck it in the bin. Life goes on. Dont FFS admit the whole thing to the feds in the hope things will be better.. :rolleyes:

DB

[nodrog]

- thems the breaks!

yep, and he should have used them.

[blacksheep]

following too close by the sounds of it

you're at fault, sorry mate

cheeky sod,however correct(i must spread some rep around before giving it to yod again)

[Katman]

Ah that sucks bro. Yeah bikes are for goofing off on, and sometimes we screw it up - thems the breaks! This time you got off lightly.

Right, any damage to anyone else ? Any liability ? If so, deny everything and refuse to discuss the accident with anyone. Disappear into the long grass, and say nothing. Fix your own bike with your own money, and let your sore knee mend itself etc. If anyone wants to knock on your door and talk about the incident, tell them they are at the wrong place. If the feds turn up, tell them u dunno jack about that, and shut the door and go back to what you were doing. Letter from some insurance company demanding payment? bew hew hew, chuck it in the bin. Life goes on. Dont FFS admit the whole thing to the feds in the hope things will be better.. :rolleyes:

DB

Fuck you talk some shit.

[MIZXR]

[/QUOTE=Katman]The 'brake test' is carried out during the road test (which is an integral part of the inspection) performed by the WOF inspector.[/QUOTE]

A "road test" is NOT a integral part of the inspection = It's only an opinion of someone who sweep floors in a garage for so many years.
feel free to find something in writing so I can ask my testing stations why they use testing devices instead of just guessing.

Oh wait you'd be the sort who said tyres with 2mm would need replacing judging on your amazing inhuman ability to assess and measure without using a tool.

When in the 30's, you think your opinion is more accurate than a machine? Sorry but I live in a city no way in hell I would let anybody drive my vehicles to gauge if it was safe. I can't believe anybody would take that risk.


Then insist on it!
Nothing I like better than a fang on some else's bike with some good hard emergency breaking thrown in.

And that's a good reason why.

[Katman]

........blah, blah, blah..............

A road test is an integral part of a WOF inspection. There are a number of things that can't be checked without one. The testing stations that choose not to perform a road test are just soft cocks who have become scared of motorcyclists who say "not fuckin' likely, mate". As I've said, any motorcyclist that won't allowed me to ride their bike can find another issuing authority.

It is a mandatory requirement that any issunig authority has an area that they can test the stopping distance of the brakes from 30kph.

[Ixion]

I have a simple test for this. "Yeah sure mate. No electric leg (or, the leccy starter doesn't work). If y' can start it go for it"

I figure if they can start a big bike without an electric leg, then they probably know what they're about.

Amazing how many bike WoF testers have never ridden anything bigger than a scooter.

[sinned]

Should have given up while you were ahead.

be careful and learn from my mistakes

good riding everyone


niero is probably just talking shit. More than likely he was caning it away from the lights to keep up with his boy-racer mate in the WRX.


Geez this threads taken off since I went to sit down for dinner... personally - after reading all this drivel, Id like to say 'good on ya Niero for stepping up and accepting that you are responsible for this wee learning curve fuck up'.

Niero there is one thing you can learn from this: if you tell KB about a cock up you made the best thing to do is not feed it with more posts - it will be all down hill. Thanks for the humour guys - it has been a good after dinner read.

[Matt_TG]

It is a mandatory requirement that any issunig authority has an area that they can test the stopping distance of the brakes from 30kph.

I've always used On Road for my car and bike WOF's.

They have never "road tested" anything apart from the ride from one end of the shed to the other. Maybe the roller thing with dials tell them whether your brakes will stop the bike at 30km/h? I guess it must do or they better start shutting them down aye.

[Ixion]

or most AVIs the "ride from one end of the she dto the other" is sufficient to check that the brakes pass. Mainly because the brake performance required for a WoF is so ludicrously small that it would be almost impossible for a modern bike to fail, unless the brake was completely inoperative (eg, no hydraulic hose). Even the old 1950s cast iron ornaments could pass it.

Seriously, is there ANYONE who doubts their (or their bikes) ability to stop in 7 metres from 30kph. That's not much faster than walking pace.

[Mom]

You are at fault. There is no "grey area" in law at all.

No matter the circumstances, no matter the appalling driving from them in front at all. No matter anything, you failed to stop! IIRC it is $70 infringement offence, no record, no shame. Pay and walk away! (sorry)

Unfair? YES sometimes it really is unfair. Insurance fallout can be immense!

Try as you might you do everything right and some arse makes it impossible to stop, unless of course you are travelling at 2 kmph, TUI anyone? Katman disagrees with this notion, we should have been traveling at 1.5kmph on the open road to have avoided this accident!

I have spoken to cops that shake their head and give the $70 ooopps ticket, then ticket the C*&T that caused the pile up with careless, causing injury :yes: My response was brought up in court when one of the 5 decided to defend his $70 ticket. What a dick! Yelling is for the time it happenes.

I got out the car and abused the friggen daylights out of the old farker that stopped in the middle of the road around a blind corner, that caused the ongoing mayhem behind him. I had a 7 week old baby in the back of my car, I was NBM for surgery and as the car goes round a corner all I can see is mayhem! I was not polite to this old guy at all, I spent many hours in an A&E department getting my neck looked at, wore a rigid neck brace for weeks, and was refused the surgery I was needing for another couple of months :sunny: Where is the teeth grating icon at times like these? We paid the fine, we failed to stop in the distance available. Made no difference the stopping was impossible, we still got a fine.

There is no defense that I am aware of to get out of being at fault if you rear end/collide with from behind another road user. What you need to do is ensure the driver up front gets done for his/her careless actions :yes: You pay the fine, and try better to travel at 1.5kmph in future to avoid these situations...LOL :crazy:

[Matt_TG]

Yeah 7 metres at 30km/h is pretty do-able.

However, 30km/h walking pace? Bloody hell, try running at 30 km/h. The treadmill at the gym goes to about 17, that's pretty full on! Not knocking what you said, I get what you mean though :)

[Katman]

They have never "road tested" anything apart from the ride from one end of the shed to the other.

Yeap, that sounds like On Road.

[Katman]

Katman disagrees with this notion, we should have been traveling at 1.5kmph on the open road to have avoided this accident!



Are you serious?

[Ixion]

Interesting. Checking the VIRM manual, I notice that the requirement is the same for front and rear brakes (50%). But pre 1977 does not need a front brake. I did not realise it was a s late as that.

And the rule applying to separate wheels gives an advantage to coupled brakes.

Not that it really matters , because any bike dshould be able to laugh at the requirement.

[Mom]

Are you serious?

Yes, I dont see too much grey in your attitude to these accident situations, or any for that matter. We should have been able to avoid this.

Actually I will test you here. Has to be our fault eh?

Open road, 100k speed limit. Husband driving reasonably sick wife to hospital for an operation. They had spent the previous day in the hospital just for the hell of it. She is Nil By Mouth in preparation for surgery that morning. There is a 7 week old baby in the back of the car. This is a true story BTW.

Doubt the car was travelling more than 80kmph, cruise around a tightish lefthand blind bend to be faced with cars everywhere!
Failed attempt to stop resulted in a mild tap to the car infront of us. As I (the sick wife) was about to get out of the car and bearing in mind this was a blind corner, we got hammered by a car from behind!

All accidents are the result of the driver/riders negligence though.

Gospel according to Katman.

[Katman]

Gospel according to Katman.

Are you back on the rag?

[Mom]

Are you back on the rag?

Seeing as you have decided to bring this thread down to your Friday night had a couple too many level, I wont respond they way you want me too :sunny:

[Katman]

Seeing as you have decided to bring this thread down to your Friday night had a couple too many level, I wont respond they way you want me too :sunny:

You started it.

To answer your question, I'd suggest there was a good chance that your driver was distracted by your constant caterwauling.

[Number One]

You started it.

To answer your question, I'd suggest there was a good chance that your driver was distracted by your constant caterwauling.
You on the booze again Katman?

[Katman]

You on the booze again Katman?

Why? You looking for a fight?

:msn-wink:

[Number One]

Why? You looking for a fight?

:msn-wink:
I'm a lover not a fighter...

Why? Are you dying for another round old man :msn-wink:

[Irontusk]

Are you back on the rag?

Have you ever been off the rag?

[Katman]

I'm a lover not a fighter...

Why? Are you dying for another round old man :msn-wink:

Nah, check out my new location.

And besides, if I was dying for an old man, he wouldn't be round.

[Mom]

You started it.

To answer your question, I'd suggest there was a good chance that your driver was distracted by your constant caterwauling.

I really wish you could hear me laughing mate! I really do...LOL.

:girlfight: ROTFLMAO!

[Number One]

Nah, check out my new location.
Ahhh so you smokin weed instead...fine choice madam :lol:

[Katman]

I really wish you could hear me laughing mate! I really do...LOL.

:girlfight: ROTFLMAO!

I think I can.

The hair just stood up on the back of my neck.

[FJRider]

Ahhh so you smokin weed instead...fine choice madam :lol:

I think he's suffering from extreme sexual exhaustion...... time to use the other hand katty...

[Katman]

I think he's suffering from extreme sexual exhaustion...... time to use the other hand katty...

Yeah, I really envy you guys that only need to use one hand.

[niero]

OK, personal message to Katman, If I knew that you would sink that post down to "using one hand" I would not have posted at all. Second message, my responce is valid and fair, but who can argue rationally when you drop a bomb like "this does not valid a serious enough responce". Mate you seem to come off to me as a complete extremist. The way you set your responce is

1. Rider should be able to stop all the time, (well... wouldnt then bike wrecking business be a nightmare if that was possible)

Responce: In a perfect world yes... but in todays world thats not the case. You will not be able to stop if that same poor child ran on to the road, and dont even argue with me. In some sitiuations its just bad luck (not in my case ofcourse where it was bad judgement), as kb member "mom" just said sometimes where there is a blind corner and you are turning at x ks an hour and there is a stationary car in front of you, there is nothing you can do. Hey, have you ever ran over a possum before mate? Have your mates ever ran over a possum? Did you also ask them "Man, this could have been a baby, and you failed to react, you should be in prison" , your views are extrimist, and wrong, fair enough this accident was my fault but when a car fails to stop it doesnt mean that no matter what has happened that car/bike is at fault. This is just not right. (I hope that valids a serious enough responce)

[Ragingrob]

:corn:

Yeah I'm bored

[Mikkel]

OK, personal message to Katman, If I knew that you would sink that post down to "using one hand" I would not have posted at all. Second message, my responce is valid and fair, but who can argue rationally when you drop a bomb like "this does not valid a serious enough responce". Mate you seem to come off to me as a complete extremist. The way you set your responce is

Just ignore the fucker... not worth anybody's time, ever.


1. Rider should be able to stop all the time, (well... wouldnt then bike wrecking business be a nightmare if that was possible)

Responce: In a perfect world yes... but in todays world thats not the case. You will not be able to stop if that same poor child ran on to the road, and dont even argue with me. In some sitiuations its just bad luck (not in my case ofcourse where it was bad judgement), as kb member "mom" just said sometimes where there is a blind corner and you are turning at x ks an hour and there is a stationary car in front of you, there is nothing you can do. Hey, have you ever ran over a possum before mate? Have your mates ever ran over a possum? Did you also ask them "Man, this could have been a baby, and you failed to react, you should be in prison" , your views are extrimist, and wrong, fair enough this accident was my fault but when a car fails to stop it doesnt mean that no matter what has happened that car/bike is at fault. This is just not right. (I hope that valids a serious enough responce)

Shit happens mate - I wasn't there so I can not say what's fair and what's not. However, it would appear that the collective experience (and opinion too) is that, no matter whether it's fair or not, you will be found at fault.

As I posted much earlier, your only possible defense - and that will only get you a shared fault if succesful I believe - is if the guy didn't indicate properly. It is hard to prove however, whereas there are a couple of dents that must be considered hard physical evidence towards the fact that you hit a couple of cars.

Best of luck.

[Katman]

(I hope that valids a serious enough responce)

A serious enough response?

Fuck me - you're kidding, right?

P.S. Don't listen to Mikkel - Scandanavians are known for inbreeding. Long winter nights, you know.

[Irontusk]

A serious enough response?

Fuck me - you're kidding, right?

P.S. Don't listen to Mikkel - Scandanavians aren't known for inbreeding. Long winter nights, you know.

So.. you only listen to those who inbreed? It all becomes clear..

[Katman]

So.. you only listen to those who inbreed? It all becomes clear..

You're none too bright, are you?

[Irontusk]

You're none too bright, are you?

Maybe you can't type and don't know it.. but your wording says not to listen to Scandanavians because they don't inbreed.

[FJRider]

1. Rider should be able to stop all the time, (well... wouldnt then bike wrecking business be a nightmare if that was possible)

Responce: In a perfect world yes... but in todays world thats not the case.

but when a car fails to stop it doesnt mean that no matter what has happened that car/bike is at fault. This is just not right. (I hope that valids a serious enough responce)

Yes the rider should...thats the law.

True...live with it.

The car did stop...you didn't....fault is for the courts to decide. Not you. Get over it.
The courts aren't always "right"...but thats life.

(serious... not even close)

[niero]

A serious enough response?

Fuck me - you're kidding, right?

P.S. Don't listen to Mikkel - Scandanavians are known for inbreeding. Long winter nights, you know.

Eh, dont swing that way, and no I am not kidding

Extrimist, Sexiest, and now racist... what else can you add to the list pal? I am starting to feel the need to close this thread before it will trully become (if not already) offencive.

[JMemonic]

P.S. Don't listen to Mikkel - Scandanavians aren't known for inbreeding. Long winter nights, you know.

Can you say Aryan breeding programme, is that what you expect Scandinavians to be doing, you really are odd Katman.

Are you confusing Scandinavia with the hillbilly's of the US, or are you from the west coast ?? I have heard rumours that in some areas there that is common practice, although that might just be a religious compound over there.

[Mikkel]

So.. you only listen to those who inbreed? It all becomes clear..


Eh, dont swind that way, and no I am not kidding

Extrimist, Sexiest, and now racist... what else can you add to the list pal? I am starting to feel the need to close this thread before it will trully become (if not already) offencive.

Please stop quoting the idiot - it kinda makes having him on ignore pointless.

And don't just take my word regarding the idiot label - please make sure to admire the evidence at hand for all of it's clarity. (what has already been quoted in this thread should be enough to drive that nail firmly home I think)

[dipshit]

Responce: In a perfect world yes... but in todays world thats not the case. You will not be able to stop if that same poor child ran on to the road,


The reason someone mentioned being able to stop if a child ran out onto the road... was making the point that you have to allow room for any vehicle you are following in case *they* see something that you don't (like the child running out onto the road) and they need to slam on the anchors. You don't want to go slamming into the back of them.

You should never assume that the car you are following isn't going to all of a sudden jump on the brakes for no apparent reason. They may have seen something that you haven't seen. And people do go - shit, that's the turn off!

[Katman]

Extrimist, Sexiest, and now racist... what else can you add to the list pal?

Give me a minute.

:msn-wink:

[FJRider]

Give me a minute.

:msn-wink:

You can tell us, all that you are an expert on.... in half that...