Legal aid for bike crash - how?

[jono035]

and his reply to that was "There's more to the law than there is printed in the road code".

Incredibly few people have any idea what the law says they can and cannot do beyond a kind of ephemeral 'well I thought you could because I'd never heard of anyone getting done for it'.

I am not usually this cynical, but the way that laws are written and attitudes like that towards the law really makes me think that it's all a giant cup and ball game where the people writing and enforcing the laws don't want the people subject to them to be able to actually understand them.

Pisses me off really, surely there should be more emphasis placed on either 1) providing resources for people to educate themselves on the law (the actual laws, not just a pamphlet outlining the normal, middle of the road cases) or 2) rewriting the laws so that they are more accessible to the 'average' New Zealander...

If the average kiwi can't understand it then you've got 2 choices, make the average kiwi 'smarter' or make the laws easier to understand. Seems like a good approach to me, might even reduce our dependence on lawyers...

[p.dath]

Police just showed up at his door and dropped this off ;

He said that since they've cancelled the ticket, they won't re-issue it, however they will not give me a letter for insurance purposes since they have "found me at fault" (WHAT???). I showed him the road code page ...
Yay! More paperwork and stalling!

I bet this will take at least 6 more months.

You have probably got the best outcome you can hope for now. It might be worthwhile deciding if it is worth continuing. If you succeed at finding the other driver at fault what do you gain (apart from personal satisfaction)? A reduction in the excess?

When it comes to court, never try for the "just" outcome, go for the "best" outcome.

[jono035]

I bet this will take at least 6 more months.

You have probably got the best outcome you can hope for now. It might be worthwhile deciding if it is worth continuing. If you succeed at finding the other driver at fault what do you gain (apart from personal satisfaction)? A reduction in the excess?

When it comes to court, never try for the "just" outcome, go for the "best" outcome.

If they find the other party at fault then that would be a waiving of the excess I would think. Depends on what the excess is to begin with really.

[CookMySock]

I bet this will take at least 6 more months.

Which is why we are not going to wait for it.

You have probably got the best outcome you can hope for now. It might be worthwhile deciding if it is worth continuing. If you succeed at finding the other driver at fault what do you gain (apart from personal satisfaction)? A reduction in the excess?

Hmm, let be think about that for a millisecond - um, Yes, we will continue with it.

If that is the best outcome you can think of, then best you sit back and watch the flames.

Steve

[Winston001]

He said that since they've cancelled the ticket, they won't re-issue it, however they will not give me a letter for insurance purposes since they have "found me at fault" (WHAT???)......

You don't need a letter. You already have one saying to ignore the infringement notice. Innocent until proven guilty. In terms of the law, you have not committed an offence.

Relax.

[CookMySock]

Relax.

Yeah but without that letter, he is liable for damage to both the careless door opener and the other car that was damaged.

What's going to happen is the car door opener's insurance will get a hold of the police file, which will state that he's at fault, and try to get the money for damage to the car door opener's car out of him.

[Winston001]

Incredibly few people have any idea what the law says they can and cannot do beyond a kind of ephemeral 'well I thought you could because I'd never heard of anyone getting done for it'.

Pisses me off really, surely there should be more emphasis placed on either 1) providing resources for people to educate themselves on the law (the actual laws, not just a pamphlet outlining the normal, middle of the road cases) or 2) rewriting the laws so that they are more accessible to the 'average' New Zealander...

There are resources. The same ones the Police and Judges use. For example, Becroft and Hall's Transport Law (NZ). You can buy the two volume set for about $1200 and then the annual updates for $600.

Make the law simple? I wish. Here's a challenge - define "Careless use" which falls between minor traffic offences (failure to keep left etc) and Dangerous Driving. Your definition needs to cover every possible eventuality to meet your wish for clear understanding.

Careless use covers everything from opening a car door into traffic, to snaking a vehicle, to running off the road.

I predict your definition will be the size of a small novel.......which is why the law does not even attempt to try. Each case depends upon its facts and the particular events discussed here are a good example.

[Mom]

Forgive me if I have the wrong end of the stick here but...

This person was ticketed for a manouver that turned out to be legal after you kicked up a fuss and made them investigate the accident? They have received a letter saying that the infringement notice has been cancelled as it was a legal manouver. End of story.

I would leave all the arguments to the insurance companies, assuming there is actually insurance on the bike that was involved. If no insurance then yes, fight tooth and nail or there is a likelyhood the other insurance companies involved will look to this person to reimburse them for the damge repairs.

If insured, worse case scenario here is this person will have to pay the excess on the repair to his vehicle only.

[jono035]

There are resources. The same ones the Police and Judges use. For example, Becroft and Hall's Transport Law (NZ). You can buy the two volume set for about $1200 and then the annual updates for $600.

Make the law simple? I wish. Here's a challenge - define "Careless use" which falls between minor traffic offences (failure to keep left etc) and Dangerous Driving. Your definition needs to cover every possible eventuality to meet your wish for clear understanding.

Careless use covers everything from opening a car door into traffic, to snaking a vehicle, to running off the road.

I predict your definition will be the size of a small novel.......which is why the law does not even attempt to try. Each case depends upon its facts and the particular events discussed here are a good example.

I think you are talking about defining 'things that are illegal' whereas I am talking about the body of law itself. If it was written clearer or there were more resources available (that don't cost $1200 for a single subsection of law, that isn't even vaguely close to what I mean) to understand these laws then the judgement calls and the criteria used to define those boundaries.

[jono035]

Forgive me if I have the wrong end of the stick here but...

This person was ticketed for a manouver that turned out to be legal after you kicked up a fuss and made them investigate the accident? They have received a letter saying that the infringement notice has been cancelled as it was a legal manouver. End of story.

I would leave all the arguments to the insurance companies, assuming there is actually insurance on the bike that was involved. If no insurance then yes, fight tooth and nail or there is a likelyhood the other insurance companies involved will look to this person to reimburse them for the damge repairs.

If insured, worse case scenario here is this person will have to pay the excess on the repair to his vehicle only.

I guess it comes down to whether the police are actually saying he was in the right or simply stating that the infringement notice has been cancelled because they can't conclude that he was in the wrong. Depending on the insurance company and the excess, this may not be a particularly trivial matter (mine while on my 6L is $1200 with Swann).

[Mom]

I guess it comes down to whether the police are actually saying he was in the right or simply stating that the infringement notice has been cancelled because they can't conclude that he was in the wrong. Depending on the insurance company and the excess, this may not be a particularly trivial matter (mine while on my 6L is $1200 with Swann).

I hear you about the excess value, it is tough for a youngster these days.

The cause of this damage though must go to the door opener? The police have withdrawn the ticket to the passing on the left vehicle, so no blame can be attached surely. Like I said insurance companies will argue this out on your behalf.

[jono035]

I hear you about the excess value, it is tough for a youngster these days.

The cause of this damage though must go to the door opener? The police have withdrawn the ticket to the passing on the left vehicle, so no blame can be attached surely. Like I said insurance companies will argue this out on your behalf.

Sorry, I misunderstood your first comment.

Last incident I had was someone backing out of a carpark and hitting my car. I was about to pull into the space next to them, saw their reversing lights come on and stopped, they reversed while only looking behind them and swung the front of their car into mine. I were stopped at the time but the other party claimed it was my fault with the end result that the insurance companies agreed that they couldn't determine who was at fault and thus we would both have to pay excess...

Avoiding that situation could be a good enough reason to have the police follow through on the situation.

Edit: I'm 26 so that depends on your definition of youngster, but even working full time $1200 would sting me...

[Mom]

Sorry, I misunderstood your first comment.

Last incident I had was someone backing out of a carpark and hitting my car. I was about to pull into the space next to them, saw their reversing lights come on and stopped, they reversed while only looking behind them and swung the front of their car into mine. I were stopped at the time but the other party claimed it was my fault with the end result that the insurance companies agreed that they couldn't determine who was at fault and thus we would both have to pay excess...

Avoiding that situation could be a good enough reason to have the police follow through on the situation.

True dat!

[Winston001]

I think you are talking about defining 'things that are illegal' whereas I am talking about the body of law itself. If it was written clearer or there were more resources available (that don't cost $1200 for a single subsection of law, that isn't even vaguely close to what I mean) to understand these laws then the judgement calls and the criteria used to define those boundaries.

Fair enough although I don't understand. Could you illustrate with an example of what is wrong and how it could be fixed?

[jono035]

Fair enough although I don't understand. Could you illustrate with an example of what is wrong and how it could be fixed?

Well the laws that I was looking at when a co-worker and I came to this conclusion were the arms act, the education act (the part dealing with student allowances) and for my co-workers part the crimes act, privacy act, official information act and whatever act it is that deals with your rights when renting property.

I understand that the laws must sometimes be written in a particularly verbose manner to avoid them being twisted but a lot of the sections contained within these laws use specific terminology without it being defined, or defined in such a way as to be inaccessible.

The education act, for instance, when dealing with the student allowance section offloads a lot of the definitions and the ability to make extra regulations to the Secretary without there being any resources to find out what those current definitions are. It took a lot of chasing studylink to find out what their definition is and even then it was hardly clear (misuse of legal terminology such as 'de facto relationship' for instance).

The sheer volume of material doesn't help matters either (EDIT: in terms of verbosity rather than the number of laws).

I'm not necessarily saying throw out the laws and start again with ones in plain english, but some form of freely available reference which goes through the laws step by step, using plain english and enough extra references to easily find the additional information required should surely be a priority. It took me many hours of hard slog to get through this stuff and as someone who has completed a Bachelor of Engineering degree and am now back doing a Masters level degree in the same field I wouldn't think that I'm necessarily a good indicator of the 'average kiwi' when it comes to research ability.

There are some areas where this is pretty good with lots of easy information supplied, but too many others that are a complete minefield.

Edit: The government legislation website is an incredibly good reference allowing quick and easy access to the main body of law itself, I just feel that it isn't really enough on its own for anyone who doesn't have training or a peculiar interest in it to follow. There are enough minefields in the law itself (different subsections cross-applying to the same circumstance or other specific regulations overriding general ones with no transparency to the process) that self-access may not even necessarily be a good thing, as a faulty understanding of the law is probably more dangerous than no understanding. It doesn't seem right to me that the default method for gaining knowledge or legal opinion on a situation is to pay for it, this is something that should be more open to every citizen.