Accountability for an accident--feedback please [Archive]

FROSTY

14th February 2009, 10:12

Heres a senario to concider. Whilst out on a group ride a bike was going round a left hand corner. the bike hit some of the corrogations apearing where trucks are digging into the tarmac and suddenly the bike wouldn't turn. It goes straight ahead into a clay bank at relatively slow speed. The motorcycle was completely road legal in every way.
A second or two later a ute towing a boat on a boat trailer came from the oposite direction ,saw bie/rider in the clay bank and took evasive action.
As a result of the evasive action the ute got out of control and the trailer jacknifed skidding onto the wrong side of the road. The trailer ran into a motorcycle legally stopped at the side of the road (Ie had it been moving it would have been oncoming traffic to the ute) This caused extensive damage to the stopped motorcycle and some damage to the trailer..
The boat on the back of the trailer was not secured by any tethers,tiedowns etc and had shifted on the trailer. Also relevant or not the trailer itself was not registered and did not have a current WOF -or indeed show sighns of having had one.
On examination the alloy back wheel on the first bike had literally collapsed causing the bike to be unable to turn left or right.

Given the information above is completely true and for the sake of argument insurance is not involved. Who should pay who for damages?
Also again given the information is not "adjusted" which rider/driver should be charged and with what?

PirateJafa

14th February 2009, 10:15

Technically the ute would have been "unable to stop" within the visible distance, which would put them at fault for their own and the second bike's damage, as I understand it?

Gubb

14th February 2009, 10:32

Ute driver should have been paying more attention to the road, rather than what was happening beside it.

smoky

14th February 2009, 10:36

The first bike is responsible for his bike only:(
The ute is totally in the wrong and responsible for his damage and the second bike:buggerd:

Even if the second bike was parked illegally it would be hard to argue that it wasn't entirely the fault of the ute driver
:mad:
String em up, hang em I say......................I'll get a rope, you find a tree
:banana:

Winter

14th February 2009, 10:42

Yeap what they said.

First bike pays his own damage (then sues council for shitty roads? ha!)

Ute is responsible for his ute, trailer, and the second bike he hit.
Hope ya mates ok.. post pics of his back wheel!

FROSTY

14th February 2009, 11:14

Hope ya mates ok.. post pics of his back wheel!
The first bike rider is basicly ok. The rider on the second bike wasn't so lucky.-Not REALLY unlucky but painfull months off work kinda unlucky
Aparently this particular model is actually KNOWN to break rear wheels.
Bizzario in my mind

Squiggles

14th February 2009, 12:58

Is this in relation to the classic ride on the 14th of December?

portokiwi

14th February 2009, 13:07

First bike needs to take it up with who ever looks after the road.
yes ute seems to be at fault, not stopping in time, non secured items no WOF ect.
Shit happens.

Daffyd

14th February 2009, 13:26

Yup, ute driver should go for a skate. Insecure loading alone is a serious offence. Add to that; unable to stop in visible distance ahead, and no WOF on trailer.

Wouldn't like to be in his shoes.

The local roading authority should be liable for damage to the bike, but the level of difficulty in getting compensation from them would be the same as poking butter up a wild cat's arse with a red-hot gimlet!

FROSTY

14th February 2009, 20:54

The local roading authority should be liable for damage to the bike, but the level of difficulty in getting compensation from them would be the same as poking butter up a wild cat's arse with a red-hot gimlet!
Um no aparently tis a desighn flaw in that exact model -Ohh yes er we know that models back wheel colapses at random --but hey sall good

MadDuck

14th February 2009, 21:02

Ute drivers fault. Should be driving to the conditions and stop in reasonable time.

Without details would need to see a graphic. Was the bike parked in a position that would render him in a dangerous or silly place.

Motorbikes are dangerous dont ride them :angry:

reofix

14th February 2009, 21:15

FROSTY

15th February 2009, 08:22

first riders insurance pays all ... damage and subsequent down to his veering over the road... reasons maybe mech failure but lack of wof in other vehicle is only relevant if it contributes( eg bald tyres)
see ya logic. Do you feel it is relevant if the other vehicle was not in a road safe condition --Ie load was insecure and its shifting therefore was relevant to the second accident.

Manxman

15th February 2009, 09:13

Technically the ute would have been "unable to stop" within the visible distance, which would put them at fault for their own and the second bike's damage, as I understand it?

Yup, agree with that.

pritch

15th February 2009, 09:30

Interesting scenario but I'd like to see some :Police: replies.

jonbuoy

15th February 2009, 09:43

If it was a blind or tight corner I don't see it being the ute drivers fault. If the situation was reversed - the ute had veered off the road due to a puncture and was facing oncomming traffic, bike enters the corner and hits the ute or takes overly evasive action and has a head on collision would you think it was the riders fault?

Katman

15th February 2009, 09:50

Interesting that the general concensus seems to be that the ute driver was obligated to stop within the distance he could see.

Buller Gorge anyone?

Badjelly

15th February 2009, 17:11

Interesting that the general concensus seems to be that the ute driver was obligated to stop within the distance he could see.

Buller Gorge anyone?

OK. I'll bite.

It is a rule that you must drive or ride in such a way that we can stop in the clear distance ahead, as you know.

Do you know the riders who hit the U-turning police car in the Buller Gorge were failing to follow this rule? The fact that they hit the police car does not, on its own, prove this.

The Stranger

15th February 2009, 17:42

I would have said first rider wears the lot had the boat been secured to the trailer.
I am aware of a previous case that established the the requirement to stop in the distance of clear road in front has not been enforced where a similar sudden and unexpected event has occurred.

BUT in this case I would also think that the ute driver should get done for insecure load.

I doubt the council would be liable unless the road damage had been reported and they had been given a reasonable time to repair it.

Costs.
First rider's costs are his.
Ute - well I think in this case, even though he would have probably crashed anyway the insecure load was such a significant contribution that I would have thought he would wear the rest.

It was possible that the second bike parked in a silly position, however I don't think it would likely be considered from a legal liability angle

Katman

15th February 2009, 18:11

Do you know the riders who hit the U-turning police car in the Buller Gorge were failing to follow this rule?

Shirley, you're not serious?

The fact that they hit the police car does not, on its own, prove this.

How does that work then?

Winston001

15th February 2009, 18:32

Gotta smile. The automatic response has been - "the ute driver is at fault". Yet I'd wager most people here go around corners expecting them to be clear. Yes, Buller Gorge comes to mind.

There is a good argument here that the first bike has caused this cascade of collisions by crossing the centre line. Not deliberately of course, but when you are on the road you are responsible for your vehicle. The ute driver cannot be expected to anticipate this.

As a matter of civil law ie. who pays - if the boat being unsecured has contributed to the jack-knifing then there is contributory negligence. In fact probably a high degree, maybe 80%. The negligence of the first bike is low given the catastrophic wheel collapse.

As to prosecutions, well the ute has a problem but thats got nothing to do with who pays. Entirely separate.

The Stranger

15th February 2009, 18:47

The negligence of the first bike is low given the catastrophic wheel collapse.

I must admit, I hadn't considered the rear wheel collapse relavent as I assumed this only came to light post crash (else why was it being ridden). Was there anything to suggest it happend prior to the crash as opposed to as a result of the crash please Frosty?

3umph

15th February 2009, 19:10

From what I would believe is 1st bike his own costs...

Rest are the ute drivers responsibility.

Unless the crashed bike happened to be in such a position (ie still on the road) that he had to take evasive action to miss him or if he hadn't he would of hit the 1st bike then the blame is on the ute for damage that he has caused.

It would be the same as rubber neckers that crash... thats not the fault of the original crash victims if a rubber necker crashes looking at there crash

Ixion

15th February 2009, 20:13

If I were a snake, I'd be handing out a careless use ticket to the first bike, and an insecure load ticket to the ute. "Able to stop " etc doesn't cover the case when something is catapulted in front of you. Otherwise you'd never be able to drive along the road legally in case an oncoming vehicle swerved in front of you.

Oh, and anyone on Eytalian or Bosche machinery gets a ticket for consorting with the enemy and unpatriotic motorcycling.

jonbuoy

15th February 2009, 23:57

Should be classed - as an "accident" - no one was completely to blame. Seems the word accident has turned into "who to blame". Sometimes shit happens.

Badjelly

16th February 2009, 06:41

Do you know the riders who hit the U-turning police car in the Buller Gorge were failing to follow this rule? The fact that they hit the police car does not, on its own, prove this.

Shirley, you're not serious? How does that work then?

The U-turning vehicle may have moved into their path after they first saw it, Shirley.

Badjelly

16th February 2009, 06:45

"Able to stop " etc doesn't cover the case when something is catapulted in front of you. Otherwise you'd never be able to drive along the road legally in case an oncoming vehicle swerved in front of you.

Indeed. Perhaps you could explain this to Katman. However the original post in this thread says...

"A second or two later a ute towing a boat on a boat trailer came from the oposite direction, saw bike/rider in the clay bank and took evasive action."

...implying that the bike was stationary when first seen by the ute driver.

Ixion

16th February 2009, 07:31

Indeed. Perhaps you could explain this to Katman. However the original post in this thread says...

"A second or two later a ute towing a boat on a boat trailer came from the oposite direction, saw bike/rider in the clay bank and took evasive action."

...implying that the bike was stationary when first seen by the ute driver.

True . I'm not clear whether the bike shot across in front of the ute (in which case the 'able to stop' doesn't apply) or whether the bike was already in the bank before the ute came round a blind bend (in which case he could qualify for another ticket). But figuring that one out would probably be argumentative.

The Stranger

16th February 2009, 08:43

True . I'm not clear whether the bike shot across in front of the ute (in which case the 'able to stop' doesn't apply) or whether the bike was already in the bank before the ute came round a blind bend (in which case he could qualify for another ticket). But figuring that one out would probably be argumentative.

I must confess, I may have been a little hasty in my assesment.
Given the second bike had time to stop and the rider alight I would tend to agree with BJ. The ute should have been able to stop in time and I think should have one for failing to stop.

awayatc

16th February 2009, 08:53

The Stranger

16th February 2009, 09:23

Thought if I hit something it would naturaly be my fault.....
Doesn't matter why whatever I hit stopped suddenly for whatever sort of reason....
Up to me to be able to avoid it.....
If I got no WOF, then my car shoud not be on the road....Which woul still be my problem...
If I got no licence , or the wrong one, then I should not be on the road either....
Oh...and where does it say that it is ok to run over vehicles after they broke down....?

Take the video recently posted of the car which appears to do a hand brake slide from the 3rd lane of a motorway across the second lane and into the path of a bike. Should the biker be responsible for the accident?

The vehicle in front of you stops from 60kph in 2m.
This would be a sudden and unexpected event.

If you for example rear end a car driven by someone with no license and the car has no WOF or rego you still failed to stop, you will still be charged.

It is fine to run over a vehicle that is broken down if they do so in an inconsiderate place or at an inconvenient time, such as peak hour traffic.

74 knuckle

16th February 2009, 09:36

Interesting case scenario, will indeed like to know the outcome

Mikkel

16th February 2009, 09:37

I'm just a bit curious - how much of the ute's lane was taken up by the motorcycle which was partly embedded into the clay bank?

If it's less than half of the lane I can not see how a roadworthy vehicle could ever be unable to pass the fallen bike without loosing control and hitting other motorists in legal positions.

I must say I very often get concerned when I see what incredulous constructions - often referred to as trailers - people use for hauling all sorts of heavy loads around NZ. It appears that there are hardly any regulations in place in this regard. It is not uncommon to see trailers where the lights aren't connected during daytime and I've even been told that is supposedly legal. :eek5:
People hauling big-arse boats over steep twisty hills on home-made trailers with no brakes...
I take great care around trailers.

Patrick

16th February 2009, 10:03

... a bike was going round a left hand corner. the bike hit some of the corrogations apearing where trucks are digging into the tarmac and suddenly the bike wouldn't turn. It goes straight ahead into a clay bank at relatively slow speed. The motorcycle was completely road legal in every way.
A second or two later a ute towing a boat on a boat trailer came from the oposite direction ,saw bie/rider in the clay bank and took evasive action.
As a result of the evasive action the ute got out of control and the trailer jacknifed skidding onto the wrong side of the road. The trailer ran into a motorcycle legally stopped at the side of the road (Ie had it been moving it would have been oncoming traffic to the ute) This caused extensive damage to the stopped motorcycle and some damage to the trailer..
The boat on the back of the trailer was not secured by any tethers,tiedowns etc and had shifted on the trailer. Also relevant or not the trailer itself was not registered and did not have a current WOF -or indeed show sighns of having had one.
On examination the alloy back wheel on the first bike had literally collapsed causing the bike to be unable to turn left or right.

Given the information above is completely true and for the sake of argument insurance is not involved. Who should pay who for damages?
Also again given the information is not "adjusted" which rider/driver should be charged and with what?

Here is my take, on what was presented...

1st motorbike... accident.

Ute "a second or two later" taking evasive action for a sudden and unexpected event, loses control and crosses the centre line into a parked bike...... but with no WOF, reg and an insecure load to start with, crossing the centre line as a result of this load, could be careless use.
Just my 2c worth...

awayatc

16th February 2009, 10:27

Take the video recently posted of the car which appears to do a hand brake slide from the 3rd lane of a motorway across the second lane and into the path of a bike. Should the biker be responsible for the accident?.

The car doing the handrake is doing the hitting.....NOT the bike...

The vehicle in front of you stops from 60kph in 2m.
This would be a sudden and unexpected event..

Funny thing is these "unexpected events" are easier to deal with when you leave some distance.....Something which for some inexplicable reason hasn't caught on that much yet around here.....
My responsibility to stay alive....

If you for example rear end a car driven by someone with no license and the car has no WOF or rego you still failed to stop, you will still be charged..

Scenario as was presented on this thread is different.....sounds like trailer definitely contributed to accident, it was not being stationary as in your scenario

It is fine to run over a vehicle that is broken down if they do so in an inconsiderate place or at an inconvenient time, such as peak hour traffic.

What is the weather like on your planet?:scooter:

Mikkel

16th February 2009, 10:44

The car doing the handrake is doing the hitting.....NOT the bike...

Newton's 3rd law.

FROSTY

16th February 2009, 10:48

Sorry guys I thought It was clear. Several motorcycles had negotiated the same corner with no more issue than a bit of a wallop through the suspension. This bike however hit the corrogations and was suddenly unable to turn, it also continued being unable to turn right up untill impact with the wall.It is impossible to go back in time and see at what exact point the wheel collapsed -IE at hitting of corrogations or as a result of hitting the clay bank.However that particular model has a reputation for theit rear wheels to collapse without warning The inability of the bike to steer left back onto the correct side of the road after the corrogations were gone The second motorcycle may/may not have stopped in a dangerous place however only dangerous from the point of view of following traffic certainly not oncoming traffic.Also to give an indication of timelapse the second bike had time to stop completely and turn the ignition off before being hit by the trailer.
Yes the first motorcycle may have been sticking out into the oncoming traffic lane

klingon

16th February 2009, 12:11

... for the sake of argument insurance is not involved. Who should pay who for damages? ...

If this is the same incident that has been described in another thread at the time it happened, I got the impression that the ute had to take major evasive action to avoid the crashed bike. The rider seemed to think that it was only the quick reactions of the ute driver that saved him.

Assuming there is no insurance involved (which would surprise me) I would say each person would pay for the damage to their own vehicle. If insurance was involved, then it would be up to the insurance company/companies to determine who was liable.

Given it was an accident causing injury, I would expect that the police were notified within 24 hours of the event and would have begun their own investigations if they were intending to lay charges. On the surface it looks like both the rider of the crashed bike and the ute driver could be charged with various things. Only the rider of the second bike sounds like he didn't do anything wrong.

vifferman

16th February 2009, 12:19

Motorbikes are dangerous dont ride them :angry:
They're REALLY dangerous - you shouldn't even look at them the wrong way or they'll totally do you. :crazy:

Ixion

16th February 2009, 12:20

Sounds a bit dodgy, rear wheel just collapsing. Sure it wasn't electrics? But if it did collapse (*I'm assuming it's a cast alloy wheel BTW), then I'd believe the rider would not be able to steer. When Petal's rear wheel collapsed (progressively) I had very great trouble cornering. hanging off like mad and sawing round a few degrees at a time. So, in that case , I'd revise my earlier statement and call that an "act of God' accident - assuming the bike had a WoF and there was no prior warning.

It seems a bit harsh slating the driver for failure to stop, when he actually DID stop safely, and maybe saved the biker's life? Though not stop *safely* perhaps?

The insecure load charge is the only clear cut one. Can't argue round that, it wasn't secure.

Ixion

16th February 2009, 12:21

If this is the same incident that has been described in another thread at the time it happened, ..

Nah, not very likely, riders get taken out by flying boats all the time.

The Stranger

16th February 2009, 12:23

What is the weather like on your planet?:scooter:

Not sure what planet, but I sure wouldn't mind some of what you're smoking thanks.

3umph

16th February 2009, 13:07

its quite easy to banter back and forwards either way without all the facts or pics of the scene of the accident.

Was the crashed bike still partly on the road when it hit the bank/wall and came to a rest or how far off the road was it??
where was the rider of the crashed bike???

only certain thing that the boat should of been more secure and the trailer should of had a wof and rego

if all the facts are not presented then it is hard to get a mental pic of what really went on and then all have to just guess to what could of happened and then make there mind up from there.

Winston001

16th February 2009, 13:08

It is clear (in this and other threads) that the separation between civil law and criminal law is not understood. Fair enough, it can be confusing.

Civil law = financial liability, insurance, who pays for what, and assessing blame in proportions etc. Many accidents involve fault on both sides but one will often be much higher than the other.

Most people aren't aware of this because both are insured and the two insurance companies sort it out.

Criminal law = prosecution by the police for breaking the law. Fines, disqualification, reparation (compensation) to victims etc.

Breaking the law (eg. no WOF) doesn't make you liable to pay for civil accident damage. If the accident is not your fault why should you be liable? However - not having a warrantable vehicle may mean it contributes to the accident. To that extent, the criminal offence is relevant to the civil argument.

Patrick

16th February 2009, 13:14

Nah, not very likely, riders get taken out by flying boats all the time.

Drivers too... we had one here a couple of years ago. Flying boat into oncoming car. Not pretty.

Max Preload

16th February 2009, 13:24

Breaking the law (eg. no WOF)

Since you've mentioned civil & criminal, lets also clarify that having no WoF is not breaking any law - it's an infringement on a regulation. Regulations are made by authorised agencies under powers conferred upon them by Acts.

The Stranger

16th February 2009, 15:19

Sorry guys I thought It was clear. Several motorcycles had negotiated the same corner with no more issue than a bit of a wallop through the suspension. This bike however hit the corrogations and was suddenly unable to turn, it also continued being unable to turn right up untill impact with the wall.

I asked previously, is there something to lead you to believe the wheel failed prior to the accident?
You note it collapsed. How? A bearing? Can we have a photo of the collapsed wheel please?

You seem to be trying very hard to guides us to a conclusion, yet we don't have all the information you have. If indeed we can take it as read that the wheel failed prior to the accident and caused the accident then I guess liability would be dependent on the nature of the failure, therefore how could we comment without the above information.

Winston001

16th February 2009, 16:09

It seems a bit harsh slating the driver for failure to stop, when he actually DID stop safely, and maybe saved the biker's life? Though not stop *safely* perhaps?

The insecure load charge is the only clear cut one. Can't argue round that, it wasn't secure.

Well said Ix. However I think the core issue is who is liable to pay for the damage? It won't help, but this is why we have civil courts. To decide liability in situations like this. :bash:

Winston001

16th February 2009, 16:16

Since you've mentioned civil & criminal, lets also clarify that having no WoF is not breaking any law - it's an infringement on a regulation. Regulations are made by authorised agencies under powers conferred upon them by Acts.

Oh my oh my......constitutional law and interpretation of laws........overlaid by the morality of law and the dark arts of jurisprudential theory...just what exactly is a law, a fiat, a prerogative command...can either of us be bothered........??

Nah. :laugh:

Badjelly

16th February 2009, 16:19

Well said Ix. However I think the core issue is who is liable to pay for the damage? It won't help, but this is why we have Kiwibiker. To decide liability in situations like this. :bash:

Yes, isn't it lucky we have Kiwibiker! :banana:

Ixion

16th February 2009, 16:38

Hm. Civil liability .Lotsa arguments. probably about things not mentioned here.

But. On the presumption , implied here, that the first bikes wheel collapsed without warning. Well maintained, being ridden carefully and sensibly, WoF etc.

So, if everyone had been prudent and careful, ie no negligence, what would have happened.

First bike would still have crashed. Act of God , no negligence (unless a claim would lie against the manufacturer). Not likely to succeed suing road authority because there was a bump.

Ute stopped OK. No damage there . And if the boat had been properly tied down, that would have been the end of it. First biker pays his own damage. But the boat wasn't secured. That's negligent. And the boat is what caused the damage to the second bike. So I'd argue that the ute driver is responsible for the second bike damage . Not to the first bike, that's not down to him. But the damage to the boat is against the ute driver too. Should have tied it down.

But if the first biker was contributory (knew the wheel was dodgy, riding irresponsibly , whatever) then he might cop part of the damage to the second bike, maybe even part of the damage to the boat. That's a big 'if'.

Renegade

16th February 2009, 17:57

my veiw:

first bike is liable for his mess unless it could be found that the collasped wheel caused the steering fault leading to the crash in which case the wheel people or bike manufacturer pays for first bike.

Ute may have been taking evasive action on a blind corner but he is obligated to stay within his own lane, when he chooses to steer and leaves his lane anything he hits i.e second bike he is liable for including his boat,

IF he had of stayed in his own lane and braked hard and still hit the crashed bike he couldnt have been found liable for any further first bike damage resulting from his collision if it was found his actions were reasonable in the circumstances and the actions of a prudent driver in this situation, i.e came round blind corner at speed limit,crashed bike in my lane, hit brakes and skid into it.

Ute should have stayed in own lane, if he had then the first bike would have been liable and second bike not damaged.

Just my take.

awayatc

16th February 2009, 19:43

The Stranger

16th February 2009, 20:22

The road code states that you have to be able to stop in half of the clear distance ahead.....

Ute obviously failed to do so.

But I forgot, we are getting realy good at making simple issues realy complicated......
Never accept responsibilities for your actions, just blame it on something else..Anything.....

Of course if that distance is suddenly and unexpectedly reduced then that doesn't apply. A common one is trucks leaving a big gap ahead and a car taking that big gap whilst the traffic in front stops suddenly. The car manages to stop and the truck parks on top of them.

I must admit I thought it was a simple concept too, but apparently there are those that can't grasp it.

Yes, the car would be responsible in such a circumstance, though probably try and blame the truck.

Mikkel

16th February 2009, 20:31

The road code states that you have to be able to stop in half of the clear distance ahead.....

That's when there's no centerline / only one lane.

Otherwise it's just the clear distance ahead.

Winston001

16th February 2009, 20:42

The road code states that you have to be able to stop in half of the clear distance ahead.....

I have to confess this rule bothers me. It is sensible. But.....but.....if it was literally construed then there would be no need for no-passing lines. You'd never pass unless you could stop in half the clear distance ahead.....and if such a clear distance wasn't available....well no need for bold yellow lines to tell you that.

So - the road markings and the law regarding crossing such lines contradicts the stop-in-half-the-clear-distance rule. The lines imply you may and will pass elsewhere. In other words its expected that drivers will not always be able to see twice the clear distance ahead.

All of which says the stop in half is nothing more than a general safety concept. I've never come across anyone prosecuted for breaching it.

jrandom

17th February 2009, 05:50

I've never come across anyone prosecuted for breaching it.

Note that the 'half the visible distance' rule only applies to roads without marked lanes. When there are marked lanes, you just have to be able to stop within the visible distance.

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, s5.9:

Stopping and following distances

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.

(2) A driver must not drive a vehicle on a road that is not marked in lanes at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in half the length of roadway that is visible to the driver.

(3) A driver must not drive on a road a vehicle following behind another vehicle so that the driver cannot stop the driver's vehicle short of the vehicle ahead if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly.

You can be issued a $150 infringement notice for:

- Exceed speed for stopping distance in lane
- Exceed speed for stopping distance on road not marked in lanes
- Drive too close to vehicle in front
- Drive at less than minimum stopping distance for speed

(see http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1999/0099/latest/DLM280158.html)

I got a ticket for 'drive at less than minimum stopping distance for speed' while driving a car several years ago after I noodled my way into someone else's rear bumper in heavy motorway traffic.

Presumably something similar could be issued for breaches of the other stopping distance rules, although it'd be difficult to do with 'exceed speed for stopping distance...' in the absence of a crash, I imagine.

awayatc

17th February 2009, 06:51

I have to confess this rule bothers me. It is sensible. But.....but.....if it was literally construed then there would be no need for no-passing lines. You'd never pass unless you could stop in half the clear distance ahead.....and if such a clear distance wasn't available....well no need for bold yellow lines to tell you that.

those lines are to inform you that you do not have a clear view ahead of you , like before lefthand turns, dips in the road, or anything else that would prevent you from asessing the road ahead properly.....

So - the road markings and the law regarding crossing such lines contradicts the stop-in-half-the-clear-distance rule. The lines imply you may and will pass elsewhere. In other words its expected that drivers will not always be able to see twice the clear distance ahead.

It may in certain circumstances be quite safe to pass a 30 km/h tractor on a ashort stretch of unmarked road,but not safe to pass a line of 90 km/h trucks and trailers... You can't count on lines and signs alone, there used to be a time when people had to rely on common sense.....

All of which says the stop in half is nothing more than a general safety concept. I've never come across anyone prosecuted for breaching it

Lots of people who breach this "safety" concept can be visited in a cemetery
and hospital near you......

Speed doesn't kill, but speeding into somebody or something else on the wrong side of the road will definitely do some very serious damage.....

awayatc

17th February 2009, 07:07

Note that the 'half the visible distance' rule only applies to roads without marked lanes. When there are marked lanes, you just have to be able to stop within the visible distance.

that rule, like most was once dictated by commonsense....
Unmarked lanes, mean traffic going either way....therefor if 2 vehicles close into each other in the same lane, by being able to stop in Half the distance they would both come to a standstill just before annihilation....

On marked lanes(2 lanes going one direction...) you only have to stop in the distance you can see, because the car in front of you is/or was going in the same direction then you...i.e it is not coming towards you.....
Simple isn't it?

Everytime you barrel into a blind corner with a speed that would not enable you to stop should there be anything in your way, you are playing russian roulette with your life.
That is fine, but unfortunately you are also playing russian roulette with other people's lives.....and I resent that. Could be somebody dear to me you are so carelessly prepared to wipe out.....

Winston001

17th February 2009, 08:28

Everytime you barrel into a blind corner with a speed that would not enable you to stop should there be anything in your way, you are playing russian roulette with your life.

That is fine, but unfortunately you are also playing russian roulette with other people's lives.....and I resent that. Could be somebody dear to me you are so carelessly prepared to wipe out.....

Yeah I've discussed that here before. A good friend and very experienced biker rides like that. He expects corners to be clear. He also considers he has the skills to stop if necessary.

As for me - I'll continue to ride like a nana around blind corners.

The stop-in-half-the-clear-distance rule looks like a catch-all law to cover situations where accidents happen and there is no other clear reason. Fair enough, it is common sense.