Legal aid for bike crash - how?

[p.dath]

$150 is the cost of chain +1 sprocket for one of my bikes so *I* would be doing something about it.

Money does not grow on trees!

So you would spend a couple of grand on defending a ticket to say $150? Remember full costs will not be awarded in your favour.

You could choose to defend your self in court, but if you loose costs could be awarded against you.

So quite a big risk for just $150. Paying the $150 sounds the cheaper of the options to me.

[Str8 Jacket]

So you would spend a couple of grand on defending a ticket to say $150?

Show me where I said that?

If I was in the right and knew that I was in the right then I would defend the ticket using the dispute process noted on the back of the infringement notice/ ticket.

I wouldn't pay a lawyer to write a letter for me in other words.

[jrandom]

Finally, passing parked cars inside a line of stopped traffic is a recipe for disaster. What's happened here (unless I've completely misunderstood the facts) is an accident begging to happen.

Speaking in my professional capacity as a bicycle courier - what he said.

In the traffic situation described here, on anything with two wheels, I'd be out in the middle of the road, on the other side of the centerline, in fact, letting oncoming traffic move a little to the left to get out of my way if necessary.

It may be mildly obnoxious, but it's relatively safe.

Who was at fault is still important - it's the staggering amount of handwringing and woe-is-me that is going on over a ticket that hasn't even been issued yet (and imho, won't be).

And, what he said.

Let insurance call you 'at fault' if they want. Who cares? You're still covered, that's what insurance is for. Shit happens.

And in my view, the rider was partially at fault. Getting car-doored is an occupational hazard that all (motor)cyclists need to take responsibility for avoiding.

[Katman]

Finally, passing parked cars inside a line of stopped traffic is a recipe for disaster. What's happened here (unless I've completely misunderstood the facts) is an accident begging to happen.

And in my view, the rider was partially at fault. Getting car-doored is an occupational hazard that all (motor)cyclists need to take responsibility for avoiding.

I'm surprised that in a thread of 5 pages that these posts are just about the only ones I can find where common sense prevails.

30kph, past stationary traffic, through a gap that a motorcycle could "squeeze" through, in a road placement that carries a high degree of risk, is just plain fuckin' dumb.

[Ixion]

The question posed , however, was not whether the action was wise, but whether it was legal. It may be unwise, but it was legal. Clearly, the wise and prudent choice would be to sit patiently in the queue of vehicles, like a car. Though why, then, one would bother to ride a bike seems unclear.

[jrandom]

Clearly, the wise and prudent choice would be to sit patiently in the queue of vehicles, like a car. Though why, then, one would bother to ride a bike seems unclear.

Nonsense. Sitting in the queue carries its own dangers, as you well know. The wise and prudent choice, as I mentioned earlier, would be to pass the stopped traffic out in the middle of the road.

This rider's timidity was his downfall.

[Ixion]

Actually, the wisest and most prudent course would be to use the auxiliary motorbike lane - aka footpath. I find it is the only place where one can reasonably reliably not be subjected to cager idiocy.

[Katman]

The question posed , however, was not whether the action was wise, but whether it was legal.

Personally, I think it should be illegal to be that fucking stupid.

[jrandom]

Actually, the wisest and most prudent course would be to use the auxiliary motorbike lane - aka footpath. I find it is the only place where one can reasonably reliably not be subjected to cager idiocy.

Once again speaking in my professional capacity as a bicycle courier, I must point out that pedestrians are even more homicidal and suicidal than car drivers.

Of all road users, they are the least predictable and the most unaware of their surroundings.

Intentionally riding on the part of the road most frequented by them is foolhardy in the extreme.

[Ixion]

Ah. On a bicycle, maybe. But i have half a ton or so of mass . And a very loud horn. And pedestrians are at least soft and squishy. A head on with a pedestrian is a better bet than a head on with a cage.

[CookMySock]

It is abundantly fucking clear to the injured person whether he will be doing that again or not. It is also becoming abundantly clear to him what is legal and what is not - thanks to the useful participation in this thread.

The rest of you - there is a rant or rave forum for stone throwing, bickering, finger pointing, and other arguing. This thread is about the legality of the situation, and whether we can help him extract himself from his predicament. If you can't help, or voice a considered opinion without the put downs and name calling, then please do not post in the legal forum.

Thank you.

We are tempted to post daily updates here, but that will quite likely compromise our situation, as we will update as we are able.

Steve

[CookMySock]

What a lot of blah blah for a very simple matter - am I correct in thinking that no ticket has even been received yet?

It seems pretty simple - it's an 'opens door without due consideration' - Provision 7.2(1), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 .

If however, the cars were legally parked in some kind of Clearway, then your friend could have been 'riding in an unavailable lane', Provision 2.3(1)( a ), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Ticket is apparently 'in the mail, and you should receive it shortly'. He has spoken to one of the the officers that took his statement at the ER, and she has told him that he has been found at fault for this particular incident, for "undertaking", or something silly like that. He was told that the ticket is in the mail and should be arriving shortly

So if it was outside the hours that the clearway states, i.e., cars can legally park there, it is the riders' fault? I.E. he is completely boned and is not going to get any insurance money out of the person who opened teh car door?

And yes - the damage to the bike is substantial. In fact saying it's totally fucked would be putting it nicely.

10 chars outside the quotes..

[NordieBoy]

Wait for the ticket and once you've got the exact wording etc. work from there...

[Patrick]

No, its not for me. How would one apply for legal aid to fight the pigs over a bike crash thats heading badly in the wrong direction?

ta.
Steve

With such a polite invite, why do I bother..... oh well.... since it isn't for DB....

Ok I just talked to him, and he wrote this up; If you recognise him, please do not identify him. No, its not me.

Has PMed me direct.

So it may be that both parties may get a ticket ...

Quite likely. But more like both, or neither, get tickets.... Only one has been issued. One gets cancelled, or another gets issued...

Completely agree. the parked vehicles should be ticketed as well. ....

This was at 3pm... the clearway starts at 4pm. They were legally parked.

Who would the police charge if they opened their door in front of a cyclist?

The door opener. Although a bike is a "vehicle" it is not a "motor vehcile." There is a problem with the bike being where it was....

Theres a twist to the story ;

.........
1.) contact her and say you are going to take it up with a court of law. Tell her

"this is likely to go in my favour, and could look really bad for you."
"at your option, we can resolve it out of court, or take pot-luck with what the judge says."
"I'm prepared to lose, but my legal advice is that I will win, so do you
want to go to court or what?"

if she says "yes" then do it. if she says "no" then say to her "what would you offer to resolve this?"

Seriously, all she has to do is admit to her insurance company that she was in the wrong, and they pay him out as their third party - no one loses face or job. If she fights it in court and loses, for her it's a careless use causing injury charge, and if she is indeed an officer, this is going to hurt.

If she wants to go to court ;

2.) Go to the police station and tell them you will challenge their passing on the left infringement notice in a court of law, and secondly, that you wish to make a formal complaint and make a statement with regard to a motor vehicle accident, and that you would like to the NZ police to act on your behalf in a court of law


Any suggestions?

Steve

Not bad advice, but I would take it up with the issuing officers supervisor or higher. Seek a review, with these points mentioned above. Not bad at all DB....

Am looking into this, as interested in it... Wait a bit......

The car driver. Careless Use Causing Injury. Seen it happen.

This case might be a little different because it involves two vehicles sharing the same lane (our biker on the left, and stopped cars on his right). The parked driver is required to keep a clear lookout so has prima facie committed an offence.

However that driver could argue they could not reasonably expect another vehicle to suddenly appear in-between stopped traffic and their vehicle. Reasonable doubt.

Although if a judge was a cyclist he might take a dim view of that.

Well put. Legal beagle strikes again. No problem if it was a bike. Car door opener clearly at fault. Differing views on it being a motorbike.

@pzkpfw, the cars on all sides were stationary - traffic stopped at red lights.

If this person was indeed an officer 'o the law, what are the consequences of them facing a careless use causing injury charge while off-duty?

Steve

Getting charged. Getting a desk job if licence lost. No loss of job, so the frothing can stop now.....

Of course. To a cop a motorcyclist is ALWAYS at fault.

TUI moment....

Probably lose her job. Sounds like the force looking after its own.

TUI....TUI.... See above.

... DB, what did the rider's insurance company say about it? Seems to me they may be keen to argue the Police conclusion (therefore clearing the way for the rider to piggyback on their argument) in order to reduce their liability.

(*Disclaimer, this opinion is based on the information as provided being correct and unbiased. I reserve the right to flip-flop on this case as it takes my fancy. Rinse and repeat. For best results, use regularly. Your home may be at risk if you do not make your mortgage payments. Do not drink paint, unless advised by your Doctor. If your Doctor advises drinking paint, seek an alternate Doctor.)

Seek a review by another independant NCO.
.

There are situations where both parties are separately prosecuted. I think this could be one of them.

The twist in this tale is the car driver "might" be a police officer so there is a perfectly reasonable suspicion she's being let off.

So a complaint to the police should sort this out. Ask any police officer - internal investigations are the one thing they hate. That's because the investigators are zealous and tend to think the officer is wrong from the get-go. I have a mate who is a police legal advisor and they go after blood.

Beat me to it... again. Only just been alerted to this by the ticket receiver....

Who was at fault is still important - it's the staggering amount of handwringing and woe-is-me that is going on over a ticket that hasn't even been issued yet (and imho, won't be).

Get some facts, deal with it.

Ticket sighted. Ticket definitely issued.

[CookMySock]

@Patrick, many thanks for your input. I am sure he is relieved to have you assisting.

It will be interesting to see it all unfold. Curious to see her resisting, when it could, and should, go really pear-shaped, with nothing for her to gain and a whole lot to lose.

Steve