View Full Version : Took down a biker
Forest
3rd May 2009, 04:24
Interesting situation tonight.
I was driving a van along a major single-land road in Melbourne. The oncoming traffic was stationary so I began turning across the road to enter a driveway on my right side.
Oncoming rider was splitting at ~40 km/h between the stationary traffic and parked cars on his left. I hate to say it, but he really was totally invisible. On seeing me turning he locked, dropped, and slid under the bumper of my van. No major injuries to rider or bike (though his crank cover looked a bit worse for wear).
Police were called. They declined to write any tickets for either parties.
The entire matter is now in the hands of the insurance companies.
As a rider, I have my own opinions on what happened. However I would be interested to know your thoughts.
When splitting you have to allow for people turning across. As a master splitter, my opinion is that cars turning across have the right of way. Survival first. You were not in the wrong.
mujambee
3rd May 2009, 05:42
When splitting you have to allow for people turning across. As a master splitter, my opinion is that cars turning across have the right of way. Survival first. You were not in the wrong.
Totally agree. When you split you do it at your own risk.
jrandom
3rd May 2009, 06:37
As a master splitter, my opinion is that cars turning across have the right of way. Survival first. You were not in the wrong.
Yeah, what the extremely humble gentleman said.
If the motorcyclist wasn't aware of the possibility that someone could be turning in front of him there, then he fucked up. Not your fault.
CookMySock
3rd May 2009, 07:54
Oncoming rider was splitting at ~40 km/h between the stationary traffic and parked cars on his left. I hate to say it, but he really was totally invisible. On seeing me turning he locked, dropped, and slid under the bumper of my van.His speed differential is too high. 40km/hr differential over any traffic, stationary or otherwise, is too quick. It removes all of his options when something goes wrong.
He is passing on the left. Not only illegal in NZ, but unsafe, as no cars have an 'out' to the kerb, and as you note :crazy: invisible to all traffic other than the ones right next to him.
He has crossed the turning bay (that you used for your manoever) at speed without looking first. Perhaps he was legal doing this (and perhaps you were not) but whatever the case he assumed it would be clear (as did you) and now, houston, we have a problem.
Maybe he could have swerved if he had somewhere to go. Sounds like he was better to do what he did, rather than hit you full-on-frontal.
Sounds like a nasty fright and a harsh lesson for everyone. Thems the breaks. :cold:
Steve
Grahameeboy
3rd May 2009, 08:05
How do you know he was doing 40kph?
Sorry but shared blame...the biker should have realised that traffic had stopped...if that was the case...and the driver should have checked..remember it is only the stopped drivers that are saying you can cross..not that it is necessarily safe to cross....
Mikkel
3rd May 2009, 08:28
Hmmm, you could very well argue that if you are turning across the on-coming lane you have to give way to any and all oncoming traffic. The fact he was splitting wouldn't matter from a legal stand-point. Just because someone opens up a gap for you to turn through doesn't mean you don't have to look for people who doesn't stop...
My partner witnessed a somewhat similar situation a couple of days ago. One driver is coming out from a carpark to turn right. The lane she has to turn across is chocker with traffic but someone gives her a gap. In the meantime a guy further back down the line of traffic decides to head down the lane of oncoming traffic (empty ofc) to enter the right-hand turn lane at the lights about a 100 m further down. As she comes out between the stationary cars he clips her front - who's a fault? She has to give way to all traffic. Even if he was doing a rather impatient overtake... after all the road ahead of him was clear. It's not clear cut.
Picture is he was going down your left - between you and parked cars ... am i right??? Cos I would say he is a twat ... that is not splitting ... that is going down the left beside parked cars. Splitting I thought was going down between two lines of moving traffic. Sounded to me like the rider was just lazy riding and not really wanting to account for it. I probably am wrong .. but that is what I read ... :)
davereid
3rd May 2009, 09:10
If he fell off, and STILL managed to stop without crashing into you hard, he would have been able to stop completely, just by braking. Thats cos rubber o the road slows you down much faster than aluminium.
Its sounds like he was not a very good rider, and really managed to fall off mostly without assistance from you.
You must feel annoyed with yourself that you did not see him, but IMHO, you really didn't have a fair chance.
I lane split all the time, but I go very quietly, always expecting a door to open, pedestrian to appear, or car to attempt to turn or U-turn in front of me.
awayatc
3rd May 2009, 09:19
Sounds to me Nasty is right, he wasn't splitting, he was undertaking!
so he was the wrongest........
However, you still have to give way to oncoming traffic when you turn....
You both have to share in allocation of blame....
AllanB
3rd May 2009, 09:20
What they said.
I am constantly surprised when driving my car to work and back at the speed some riders lane-split at. Plus the noise often wakes me up out of my doze-drivin.:yawn:
Conquiztador
3rd May 2009, 09:22
Typical bloody cagers! "I did not see you". Just because they sit in a steel box they think they do not have to look. Where's your man with the red flag???:bleh:
Ms Piggy
3rd May 2009, 09:26
You know that old saying, "be alert, the country needs more lerts"? Sounds like he wasn't being that.
I have to agree with the majority here, as a rider who commutes most days I'm constantly scanning ahead for what the traffic is doing (probably my paranoia that someone is trying to take me out!:crazy:). As we all know cagers often swap lanes with little or no indication and as far as giving way to incoming to turning traffic - being part of the traffic should mean obeying the road rules...surely?
I was interested in your comment
...he really was totally invisible. No headlight on or anything?
short-circuit
3rd May 2009, 09:35
Sounds to me Nasty is right, he wasn't splitting, he was undertaking!
so he was the wrongest........
However, you still have to give way to oncoming traffic when you turn....
You both have to share in allocation of blame....
Yep - agree with you about the underspliting comment but can't see how oncoming traffic comes into the equation. Biker was in the wrong place (overtaking on the left) and moving at a speed which didn't allow him time to react.
Bugger..
If all your details here are correct than sounds like the dude on the bike cocked up aye, I've done exactly what he did, undertaking and got smoked by a turning car, my fault, hope insurance sees it the same way yeah.
The Stranger
3rd May 2009, 09:59
Seems to be quite a few riders are familiar with the laws in Australia, well done guys.
Not your fault:
He should have read your road position and indicators (in that order).
He was going too fast to stop safely, therefore he did it to himself.
However did you indicate well before turning? That may have given him more time...
Sparrowhawk
3rd May 2009, 10:31
If I'm on a one laned road, I won't 'split' between the traffic & the parked cars, that's asking for trouble. I tend to try & overtake between the cars & the centreline, watching for gaps & u-turning cars, but where possible I try to avoid busy one lane roads.
What I'm trying to say is if the rider was passing other vehicles, he has a responsibility to look for oncoming vehicles.
If I'm on a one laned road, I won't 'split' between the traffic & the parked cars, that's asking for trouble.
Of course it is. And of the Infringement type as well. That practice is known as under-taking, and is illegal. UNLESS the cars in the lane are stopped as well.
And in that case, although the law MAY be on your side, because of your practically invisible nature, the onus should be on you to ensure that some poor bastard turning across your bows won't take you out. 40kph is too fast.
Skyryder
3rd May 2009, 10:53
Hmmm, you could very well argue that if you are turning across the on-coming lane you have to give way to any and all oncoming traffic. The fact he was splitting wouldn't matter from a legal stand-point. Just because someone opens up a gap for you to turn through doesn't mean you don't have to look for people who doesn't stop...
My partner witnessed a somewhat similar situation a couple of days ago. One driver is coming out from a carpark to turn right. The lane she has to turn across is chocker with traffic but someone gives her a gap. In the meantime a guy further back down the line of traffic decides to head down the lane of oncoming traffic (empty ofc) to enter the right-hand turn lane at the lights about a 100 m further down. As she comes out between the stationary cars he clips her front - who's a fault? She has to give way to all traffic. Even if he was doing a rather impatient overtake... after all the road ahead of him was clear. It's not clear cut.
Something simular to this came up in a discussion with some bus drivers I worked with a few years back. The general consensus on this is that it becomes the responsibility of the person who gives the 'all clear' for the other driver. I'm not too sure that I agree with that. However an example was given by one of the drivers who was once engaged in deliverys to the the Lyttelton Port. One of his collegues was flagged on by a railway worker and the truck was hit by a shunted wagon. No serious injuries but the fault was found to be with the railway worker who signalled the all clear.
Perhaps one of our boys in blue may have the definitive answer to this.
Skyryder
jrandom
3rd May 2009, 11:35
His speed differential is too high. 40km/hr differential over any traffic, stationary or otherwise, is too quick.
:lol:
Ah, the things you learn from filtering the mean streets of Edgecumbe in rush hour.
Freeatlast
3rd May 2009, 11:50
If the cop on the scene has no issues with either party... why should we. Let the insurance companys sort it.
jaymzw
3rd May 2009, 12:25
Interesting situation tonight.
I was driving a van along a major single-land road in Melbourne. The oncoming traffic was stationary so I began turning across the road to enter a driveway on my right side.
Okay, wel someone needs to teach me how to put a youtube video into my post BUT, i thought this was kinda similar to what your talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU3SzpLfEpw
Trumpess
3rd May 2009, 12:36
I shall share my view too :yes:
The motorcyclist shouldnt of been there, frankly you are asking for trouble overtaking on the left. Especially stationary traffic.
The driver of the car should have looked! Because the left of any road is where you will find push-pedal cyclists. Well in NZ anyways.
I hope the motorcylist has speedy recovery.
FROSTY
3rd May 2009, 12:53
Sorry dude I can't offer my opinion because Im not familiar with the road rules in that state of Australia.
I'd guess its same as NZ in which case I'd say the biker stufffed up.
we have road in wellington where there is almost a whole lane on the left of the peak hour cue, I use it all the time because it shaves 20-25 minutes of the ride home but I constantly look for cars crossing, in a case like this it really is too easy for a car not to see you, and I know that if I get hit doing this I have no one to blame but myself
R6_kid
3rd May 2009, 13:40
Sounds like a pretty stupid place to be lane splitting. I'd assume their rules are similar to ours in that you can only 'split' stationary traffic (legally) and that it must be done at such a speed so as not to be considered dangerous.
From your position you had allowances to safely pull into the driveway based on what you could see, and had were not doing anything out of the ordinary in pulling in to the driveway so you should be free of liability.
danchop
3rd May 2009, 13:59
if passing on the left is illegal,whats with bus or t3,t2 lanes as thier main purpose is passing stationary vehicles on the left,and the same situation often happens so whose in the wrong there?still in a single lane situation i agree the bike should suffer the consequences
gegvasco
3rd May 2009, 14:40
I was witness to exactly this type of accident. Rider was splitting down the left side of stopped traffic on a one-lane road. Approaching a shopping centre, the traffic(a 2 ton van) left a gap to allow cars to turn across. Being a one lane road and traffic stopped, the car rightly crossed the road and managed to poleaxe the rider who split out from behind the van at about 30kph. I was on the bike at the time but had chosen not to split as there was no way to legally do it safely in that circumstance. Rider ended up with a broken leg and his bike was trashed as he and the bike got thrown into a power pole. Not pretty to see!
Cops took my witness statement and I was called by the rider's solicitor thinking I would back him up somehow - they were trying to claim "failure to give way" against the car driver. Sorry but the rider was riding illegally and the driver was driving within the law and showing all reasonable caution. I would have done exactly the same as the driver in that situation. I believe the rider was charged and driver was cleared -it seemed that was the way it was heading anyway.
**shrug** no ticket = no fault AFAIK...
YellowDog
3rd May 2009, 15:02
Okay, wel someone needs to teach me how to put a youtube video into my post BUT, i thought this was kinda similar to what your talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU3SzpLfEpw
Ask Q-Moto about the YouTube video stuff. he is now an expert.
BTW: That incident was the impatient drivers fault. He didn't look before attempting to make a U-turn. The biker didn't do anything wrong.
Regarding the Aussie incident on this thread: it is always annoying when you are a biker yourself and you are responsible for taking down a fellow biker. You are well trained at taking all reasonable precautions before making a move and you go out of your way to look for motorcycles.
Glad the guy was alright. I took out a motorcyclist down in central London in the 1980s. I was indicating and looking over my shoulder as I turned left off a main highway. I still don't know where he came from and he would not tell me (yes he was also conscious and unhurt). I don't think I could have done any more than I did to avoid the accident and neither could you.
I do lane split and if I do find myself in a lane in between stationary and moving vehicles, it would have to be at a slow pace. When I am splitting between two lanes, I am always conscious of the cars and their blind spots. I am always ready to move with a car changing lane rather than into one.
I hope he has leart from this incident and will be more careful in future.
Sorry but the rider was riding illegally
No. He wasn't. As long as the traffic on his right was stationary. The second they move, tho...:Police:
Conquiztador
3rd May 2009, 15:12
U guys are soo PC!!!
A dick in a cage takes down a biker, surely we all realise that the cagers is at fault!:buggerd:
Forest
3rd May 2009, 15:44
Sorry for the quick post last night. Here's the missing details regarding the police response.
After both being breathalysed and giving quick statements, the policeman informed me that I was at fault. The reason given was that under Victorian law I have an absolute responsibility to give way to all oncoming traffic at all times.
The rider said "So you're going to give him a ticket!" to which the Policeman replied that no he wouldn't because undertaking was also a prohibited activity on Victorian roads.
After verifying the insurance details, he told us that the matter would be best left in the hands of the insurance companies and left us to exchange details.
I think the outcome was fair, and an example of good policing in action. It also shows the value in having a system of compulsory third party insurance (though that discussion might be best left to another thread).
As an aside. I am technically classified as a tourist here and am driving here in Melbourne on a NZ license. The rider was in Melbourne on a temporary student visa and driving on an Indian issued driving license. As much as I like to think that the Policeman carefully weighed all the evidence and drew on all his wisdom & experience, it could just have been that the corresponding paperwork was all too much to bear. :Police:
Forest
3rd May 2009, 15:55
Okay, wel someone needs to teach me how to put a youtube video into my post BUT, i thought this was kinda similar to what your talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU3SzpLfEpw
No. It wasn't like that situation at all.
Here's a basic diagram
-----------------------------------------
Parked Cars==============================
Van (me) ---->
+++++++++++++++Center Line+++++++++++++++
<---------------- <----- oncoming traffic (gap opened to let me through)
<----- rider (undertaking)
Parked Cars======= ==================
-----------------------------------------
XXXXX (driveway entrance)
Situation:
Oncoming traffic momentarily stalls due to congestion. Gap opens to allow me to turn right and cross over opposing lane into driveway.
Rider is undertaking between oncoming traffic and parked cars.
Rider sees me crossing into driveway, locks wheels, drops bike, slides into the front bumper of my van.
Marmoot
3rd May 2009, 17:22
Oncoming rider was splitting at ~40 km/h between the stationary traffic and parked cars on his left. I hate to say it, but he really was totally invisible.
How to detect the speed of an invisible thing without using radar?
Conquiztador
3rd May 2009, 17:51
How to detect the speed of an invisible thing without using radar?
By the time between mobile transmitters as he was clearly texting!
jaymzw
3rd May 2009, 18:04
No. It wasn't like that situation at all.
Here's a basic diagram
Yeah i didnt really think that one through. Just the similarities of a bike filtering being involved in an accident really.
And then on indianbiker.com theres probably someone posting about how some inconsiderate cage driver pulled out infront of him in Melbourne ;)
Seriously though the compulsory third party insurance laws are great aren't they
YellowDog
3rd May 2009, 19:19
Yeah i didnt really think that one through. Just the similarities of a bike filtering being involved in an accident really.
And then on indianbiker.com theres probably someone posting about how some inconsiderate cage driver pulled out infront of him in Melbourne ;)
Seriously though the compulsory third party insurance laws are great aren't they
For third party to be of any value, you have to be able to prove that it was the other person's fault.
But yes I do agree that it should be compulsory.
Forest
3rd May 2009, 19:41
How to detect the speed of an invisible thing without using radar?
That's a good question.
My estimate is based solely on the fact that he laid the bike over and slid it down the road (which I don't think would be possible at low speed).
gegvasco
3rd May 2009, 20:00
No. He wasn't. As long as the traffic on his right was stationary. The second they move, tho...:Police:
Actually, no. He was riding illegally. He was overtaking on the left across a solid line marking the edge of the road. Even if you thought that was OK, he was going too fast for the situation, and an accident resulted. Under Australian law the only time you are allowed to undertake in a lane is if the traffic is turning right or is unusually unable to move (ie. broken down). This exemption doesn't include stopped traffic which is where everyone is supposed to remain in the lane and wait their turn. Splitting on a bike in Oz is technically allowed within a marked lane to the right of other vehicles, not the left. The things the cops may be able to ping riders for while splitting is overtaking on the left or unsafe lane changes(crossing the lane markers without due care) or not indicating a lane change (crossing a lane marker without indicating). It is a nebulous law here and has been the cause of much consternation and thanks to our Federal/State system it still isn't sorted out.
But in the case I witnessed the rider was gone for all money. He had no defence.
Mikkel
3rd May 2009, 21:02
Picture is he was going down your left - between you and parked cars ... am i right??? Cos I would say he is a twat ... that is not splitting ... that is going down the left beside parked cars.
Sounds to me Nasty is right, he wasn't splitting, he was undertaking!
so he was the wrongest........
However, you still have to give way to oncoming traffic when you turn....
You both have to share in allocation of blame....
There is no graduation of wrong - it is an absolute and you are both exactly that.
You can pass any vehicle within your own lane on the left-hand side if (and only if) the traffic is stationary. MSTRS is quite right about this...
U guys are soo PC!!!
A dick in a cage takes down a biker, surely we all realise that the cagers is at fault!:buggerd:
Surely, this has more to do with a KB member whinging online about being dealt a poor hand by the authorities (or "the powers that be" as BRONZ would have put it).
So long as he wasn't caught speeding, of course he'll get heaps of sympathy. ;)
Sorry for the quick post last night. Here's the missing details regarding the police response.
After both being breathalysed and giving quick statements, the policeman informed me that I was at fault. The reason given was that under Victorian law I have an absolute responsibility to give way to all oncoming traffic at all times.
The rider said "So you're going to give him a ticket!" to which the Policeman replied that no he wouldn't because undertaking was also a prohibited activity on Victorian roads.
After verifying the insurance details, he told us that the matter would be best left in the hands of the insurance companies and left us to exchange details.
I think the outcome was fair, and an example of good policing in action. It also shows the value in having a system of compulsory third party insurance (though that discussion might be best left to another thread).
What you describe is pretty much exactly what I would have expected the police to do... bar the fact they didn't give you a ticket. You could be right about the paperwork - but all in all you were pretty lucky (and so was the biker to be honest).
Enjoy the rest of your "holiday". :)
My estimate is based solely on the fact that he laid the bike over and slid it down the road (which I don't think would be possible at low speed).
Conservation of momentum dictates that it will slide no matter how fast it is going - the speed only dictates how far ;)
It is a nebulous law here and has been the cause of much consternation
As it is here. Sorry, I missed your location, but in NZ splitting is legal in the following circumstances...
Within the marked lane, to the right of any stationary or slow-moving vehicle.
Within the marked lane, to the left of any stationary vehicle.
The nebulous part comes in that 'slow-moving' is not quantified as/under a particular speed, and the speed differential between the 2 vehicles is also not quantified. Every cop seems to have a different idea as to what is acceptable, so you takes your chances when splitting.
mujambee
4th May 2009, 09:52
As it is here. Sorry, I missed your location, but in NZ splitting is legal in the following circumstances...
Within the marked lane, to the right of any stationary or slow-moving vehicle.
Within the marked lane, to the left of any stationary vehicle.
The nebulous part comes in that 'slow-moving' is not quantified as/under a particular speed, and the speed differential between the 2 vehicles is also not quantified. Every cop seems to have a different idea as to what is acceptable, so you takes your chances when splitting.
Here it is well defined and there is no doubt: Splitting is not permitted. Period.
As originally posted, that same accident happening here would be the sole responsibility of the bike rider.
Here it is well defined and there is no doubt: Splitting is not permitted. Period.
That would be too sensible for NZ. In addition to that, it would seriously impact on their ability to extract 'road tax' from the unwary.
Seriously, NZ law is full of grey areas like this one. Another case in point...we have a statue re assault in all it's forms. There was a section (#59) that referred to physical punishment of one's children. It stated that 'reasonable force' was allowed. Many abusive parents got off a charge of assault using a clever lawyer and this clause. So...instead of clarifying 'reasonable force' (ie open hand on the buttocks, say), our looniest Greenie tried to get the whole section repealed. She only managed to modify the wording to something along the lines of 'minor, inconsequential smack for the purposes of correction'. There's more, but essentially this is still as grey an area as it was before.
The Pastor
4th May 2009, 10:14
Police were called. They declined to write any tickets for either parties.
.
ok now i KNOW you're lying!
Scouse
4th May 2009, 10:19
Sorry to differ from most of you, but I think you were in the wrong here forest, as you turned into the bike riders path. Turning traffic should give way to oncomming traffic and as a biker you should be looking out for other bikers. I think the spliting is irrelevent, and I think deep down you know you are in the wrong.
Sorry to differ from most of you, but I think you were in the wrong here forest, as you turned into the bike riders path. Turning traffic should give way to oncomming traffic and as a biker you should be looking out for other bikers. I think the spliting is irrelevent, and I think deep down you know you are in the wrong.
It's been stated that splitting on the left is a no no in Oz. That makes it the biker's primary fault
Mikkel
4th May 2009, 10:29
Within the marked lane, to the right of any stationary or slow-moving vehicle.
Within the marked lane, to the left of any stationary vehicle.
Are you 100% certain of this? I seem to recall - having read the road code recently - something like this:
Passing a vehicle within the same lane:
-On the right; at any time provided that it is safe to do so.
-On the left; if the vehicle is stationary, indicating to turn right or performing a right-hand turn.
I could be wrong, but it isn't that long ago that I read the roadcode...
Max Preload
4th May 2009, 10:31
Here's a basic diagram
-----------------------------------------
Parked Cars==============================
Van (me) ---->
+++++++++++++++Center Line+++++++++++++++
<---------------- <----- oncoming traffic (gap opened to let me through)
<----- rider (undertaking)
Parked Cars======= ==================
-----------------------------------------
XXXXX (driveway entrance)
Nice diagram! :niceone:
Are you 100% certain of this? I seem to recall - having read the road code recently - something like this:
Passing a vehicle within the same lane:
-On the right; at any time provided that it is safe to do so.
-On the left; if the vehicle is stationary, indicating to turn right or performing a right-hand turn.
I could be wrong, but it isn't that long ago that I read the roadcode...
You may very well be right. The devil is in the details. For the 'on the left' situation, I would not trust that right-turn-indicator if the vehicle was still moving straight forwards. So, stationary it is (for me, at least)
awayatc
4th May 2009, 10:39
Yep - agree with you about the underspliting comment but can't see how oncoming traffic comes into the equation. Biker was in the wrong place (overtaking on the left) and moving at a speed which didn't allow him time to react.
True scenario:
Car drives through an intersection controlled by traffic lights.
Lights are green.
From his right a car comes blasting through a red traffic light and the collide.
Cops come.
My mate who went to the green light is guilty of causing the accident, since he didn't give way to the car on his right...
Car that went through the red light got ticketed for doing so.....
Ok it was in a country far far away,
and it was a f**king long time ago....
klingon
4th May 2009, 10:50
The biker needs to realise that he is virtually invisible to other traffic when he is between vehicles. The only part visible to an oncoming driver would have been his helmet - doesn't matter if he had lights on or whatever, because the only bit you can see is the bit that sticks up above the cars. If there are trucks, vans or 4-wheel drives in the queue, then there will be times when he is genuinely invisible to oncoming traffic.
The driver of the turning van (especially being a biker himself) should also be aware of exactly the same factors. He should have actively looked for motorbikes and pushbikes coming towards him between the lanes, and been prepared to stop. Just as the bike rider should have looked for turning traffic and been prepared to stop.
So I say they are both at fault.
I split between lanes virtually every day. I have had many times where a vehicle has turned across in front of me, and (so far) I have always been able to stop. As a rider, if you're splitting and see the lanes of cars leaving a gap to let another vehicle through, you'd have to be pretty thick not to expect a vehicle to turn across in front of you at that point.
One of the most frightening incidents (and the best lesson) for me was when I was splitting behind another bike. The front bike was much noisier than mine, so to a certain extent I felt safer because it was "clearing the way" for me and I thought car drivers would be more alert looking for bikes after the noisy bike had passed.
The noisy bike passed one car, and a little kid (maybe 3 or 4 years old) suddenly stuck his head out of the car window to look at the noisy bike. His head was DIRECTLY in front of me, facing away from me. I stopped centimetres away from the back of his head.
No matter who had been in the 'right' or 'wrong' in that situation, if I had slammed into the back of that kid's head, I would never have forgiven myself. Every time I'm lane splitting, my margin for safety is based on that one incident. If I smashed into a turning vehicle I would probably be sore and my bike wrecked. If I smashed into a little kid's head I would be scarred for life.
And that's why the onus is always on the biker to do it safely (whatever that is)
Mikkel
4th May 2009, 11:24
And that's why the onus is always on the biker to do it safely (whatever that is)
Safely on a bike... at least they've got humour! :lol:
I had a similar thing happen except it was a cyclist. The cyclist tried passing between my ute and trailer while I was entering the driveway.
The police gave him a ticket - can't remember what it was for tho.
His mistake earnt him a trip to the horse piddle and the expense of replacing his boss' road bike.
CookMySock
4th May 2009, 11:53
Seriously, NZ law is full of grey areas like this one.Fuck yeah, aint it grand. ;)
Interesting to hear splitting is legal on the left past stationary cars.
If the cop on the scene has no issues with either party... why should we. Let the insurance companys sort it.Hell yeah. Though, if you argue long enough with him, he can write you a ticket if you really want one. ;)
If cars can't see the biker then he's going to get dead. And when you are dead, you are wrong. The law is irrelevant.
Steve
NOWOOL
4th May 2009, 14:24
Sounds like a case of natural selection in progress. You were totally in the right.
CookMySock
4th May 2009, 15:32
For third party to be of any value, you have to be able to prove that it was the other person's fault.
But yes I do agree that it should be compulsory.It seems a little odd to have something compulsory when its that difficult to enforce. A one-in-four chance? One-in-ten? I bet the insurance company is giggling all the way to the bank. Not only do you have to prove the guilty party is guilty, you have to then prove that to the insurance company. :crazy:
Steve
mujambee
4th May 2009, 17:24
The noisy bike passed one car, and a little kid (maybe 3 or 4 years old) suddenly stuck his head out of the car window to look at the noisy bike. His head was DIRECTLY in front of me, facing away from me. I stopped centimetres away from the back of his head.
Pfeew. That must have been frightening.
It seems a little odd to have something compulsory when its that difficult to enforce. A one-in-four chance? One-in-ten? I bet the insurance company is giggling all the way to the bank. Not only do you have to prove the guilty party is guilty, you have to then prove that to the insurance company. :crazy:
Steve
Remember that, if everyone has third party insurance, there is always one company that has to pay, be it your's or the other's. So it is a one in two to start. Then, if you are in the right, YOUR insurance company will be the one to battle for you, since they'll have to pay for the other's damage.
Remember that, if everyone has third party insurance, there is always one company that has to pay, be it your's or the other's. So it is a one in two to start. Then, if you are in the right, YOUR insurance company will be the one to battle for you, since they'll have to pay for the other's damage.
Not necessarily. In this country, if 2 drivers/riders collide, and both have 3rd Party cover with the same insurer, then one of the 2 MUST admit liability. The insurer will not help and will make no moves to pay out etc until and unless this admittance is made. Even a traffic infringement from the police to the responsible party isn't enough.
mujambee
4th May 2009, 17:48
Not necessarily. In this country, if 2 drivers/riders collide, and both have 3rd Party cover with the same insurer, then one of the 2 MUST admit liability. The insurer will not help and will make no moves to pay out etc until and unless this admittance is made. Even a traffic infringement from the police to the responsible party isn't enough.
That's ridiculous.
Here they call that an "endogamic crash". In that case your insurance's lawyer has conflicting interests, so you can hire whatever lawyer you want and pass the bill to your insurance company. Then you pit your lawyer against the other driver's and hope for the best. Anyhow, it's not going to cost you nothing except time.
That's ridiculous.
Here they call that an "endogamic crash". In that case your insurance's lawyer has conflicting interests, so you can hire whatever lawyer you want and pass the bill to your insurance company. Then you pit your lawyer against the other driver's and hope for the best. Anyhow, it's not going to cost you nothing except time.
We didn't quite get to the lawyer stage...have a read. It is enlightening and amusing.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=43667
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.