Legal aid for bike crash - how?

[breakaway]

this is not an easy situation to assess.

Why not? Even though it says right there in the road code it is legal to pass on the left when all cars are stationary?

Looks to me that this biker happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and even more unlucky as the door opening driver happened to be an off duty police officer.

Reeks of cover up.

[Winston001]

Why not? Even though it says right there in the road code it is legal to pass on the left when all cars are stationary?

Land Transport Regulations 2004:

2.6 General requirements about passing other vehicles

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction unless—


(a) the movement can be made with safety; and


(b) the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; and


(c) sufficient clear road is visible to the driver for the passing movement to be completed without impeding or being likely to impede any possible opposing traffic; and


(d) until the passing movement is completed, the driver has a clear view of the road and any traffic on the road for at least 100 m in the direction in which the driver is travelling.


2.8 Passing on left

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the left of another vehicle moving in the same direction except in accordance with this clause.

(2) In any case in which the movement referred to subclause (1) may be made,—


(a) the 2 vehicles must be in different lanes; or


(b) the overtaken vehicle must be stationary or its driver must have given or be giving the prescribed signal of that driver's intention to turn right;


So, while you are allowed to pass a stationary vehicle on the left, safety is paramount and you need a clear view ahead. By electing to pass close to parked cars - essentially in the blind spot, you decide to take the risk a car door might open. If you move carefully there should be no problem.

Equally the driver of a parked car has a duty to check before opening the door. If it was a passenger.......? Don't know.

[breakaway]

Thanks Winston001,

So, while you are allowed to pass a stationary vehicle on the left, safety is paramount and you need a clear view ahead. By electing to pass close to parked cars - essentially in the blind spot, you decide to take the risk a car door might open. If you move carefully there should be no problem.

So in other words, provided that the story on page 2 of this thread is an accurate account of events, the biker was in the right and the car door opener was wrong? Meaning the accident is 100% the door opener's fault?

[Winston001]

So in other words, provided that the story on page 2 of this thread is an accurate account of events, the biker was in the right and the car door opener was wrong? Meaning the accident is 100% the door opener's fault?

In my opinion - Yes.

[breakaway]

Winston001 you seem to know what you're talking about, so I'm going to adsume you're a police officer or a legal type (sorry if I'm wrong ).

And what do you mean "In my opinion?" I thought the whole point of having laws was to avoid this sort of thing? The law is freely accessible to all, and if the police/you can't interpret them, we're all in trouble!

[jono035]

Winston001 you seem to know what you're talking about, so I'm going to adsume you're a police officer or a legal type (sorry if I'm wrong ).

And what do you mean "In my opinion?" I thought the whole point of having laws was to avoid this sort of thing? The law is freely accessible to all, and if the police/you can't interpret them, we're all in trouble!

There has already been 1 discussion in this thread about that situation

[Winston001]

Winston001 you seem to know what you're talking about, so I'm going to adsume you're a police officer or a legal type (sorry if I'm wrong ).

And what do you mean "In my opinion?" I thought the whole point of having laws was to avoid this sort of thing? The law is freely accessible to all, and if the police/you can't interpret them, we're all in trouble!

LOL I'm a legal type person. The thing about the law is it relies upon facts - and they are often disputed. That is why there is uncertainty in some cases. David Bain.....?

Actually the matter which troubles me is the possibility the car driver was associated with the police and was not considered an offender because of that. This could be incorrect but it will be interesting to see what comes of it.

[breakaway]

LOL I'm a legal type person. The thing about the law is it relies upon facts - and they are often disputed. That is why there is uncertainty in some cases. David Bain.....?

I see where you are coming from, but in this situation, the facts aren't disputed. No one is saying this rider didnt pass on the left, or anything like that.

What's messed up is the fact that the police issued a ticket that seems to directly contradict the stuff you posted earlier (you know, that law stuff). That is why I think this is a cover up to protect he car door opener who is supposedly a police officer.

Guess it won't look good if a police officer gets done for careless use causing injury.

[CookMySock]

Actually the matter which troubles me is the possibility the car driver was associated with the police and was not considered an offender because of that. This could be incorrect but it will be interesting to see what comes of it.

Yes indeed.

But if that turns out to be true, why on earth would they even consider such a thing? There is no benefit to be had (she's fully insured), and when and if it backfired on them the consequences could be enormous. I don't get it.

Steve

[jono035]

I see where you are coming from, but in this situation, the facts aren't disputed. No one is saying this rider didnt pass on the left, or anything like that.

What's messed up is the fact that the police issued a ticket that seems to directly contradict the stuff you posted earlier (you know, that law stuff). That is why I think this is a cover up to protect he car door opener who is supposedly a police officer.

Guess it won't look good if a police officer gets done for careless use causing injury.

If you re-read the law stuff, it says it's only legal if the movement can be made safely and is made with due consideration for other road users. That is plenty of leeway for argument depending on the circumstances such as the size of the gap that was left, the speed at which he was travelling etc.

[Patrick]

Yes its an interesting one alright and your training exercise illustrates this is not an easy situation to assess.

There is no doubt the parked driver has a duty to check the road is clear before opening her door. Cyclists are knocked over every day like this.

On the other hand what if the motorcyclist was moving at 30k? She wouldn't see him until far too late.

I'm not suggesting that happened here, just an added point for your scenario.

Cyclists can move along at 40k plus.... and are harder to see - no headlight and noisy exhaust...

I admit that would make her checks more difficult, but I suggest it would be no defense.

It IS her responsibility to check the way is clear. Steve

In a nutshell, yeah.

Land Transport Regulations 2004:

2.6 General requirements about passing other vehicles

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction unless—


(a) the movement can be made with safety; and


(b) the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; and

So, while you are allowed to pass a stationary vehicle on the left, safety is paramount and you need a clear view ahead. By electing to pass close to parked cars - essentially in the blind spot, you decide to take the risk a car door might open. If you move carefully there should be no problem.

Equally the driver of a parked car has a duty to check before opening the door. If it was a passenger.......? Don't know.

Which is possibly where the problem lies. He was possibly seen by those who attended as not being safe.

Yes indeed.

But if that turns out to be true, why on earth would they even consider such a thing? There is no benefit to be had (she's fully insured), and when and if it backfired on them the consequences could be enormous. I don't get it.

Steve

Which is why the "coverup" claim seems a little absurd.

If you re-read the law stuff, it says it's only legal if the movement can be made safely and is made with due consideration for other road users. That is plenty of leeway for argument depending on the circumstances such as the size of the gap that was left, the speed at which he was travelling etc.

True. But in this case, he was not going fast, was there to be seen if the door opener looked properly and was passing legally on the left in his own lane. The door opener caused it.

[jono035]

True. But in this case, he was not going fast, was there to be seen if the door opener looked properly and was passing legally on the left in his own lane. The door opener caused it.

Yeah, to be honest I'd already forgotten the particulars of this case, but of course that is only one side of the story. All it takes is for her to stand up and say she checked her mirror and there was nothing there so he must have been speeding given that he came up so quickly and you're back to square 1...

[klingon]

[other stuff]

So, while you are allowed to pass a stationary vehicle on the left, safety is paramount and you need a clear view ahead. By electing to pass close to parked cars - essentially in the blind spot, you decide to take the risk a car door might open. If you move carefully there should be no problem.

Equally the driver of a parked car has a duty to check before opening the door. If it was a passenger.......? Don't know.

This is all very interesting. I have only just read this thread, but something very similar happened to us back in April, with a couple of key differences.

We were riding along (I was the pillion), there was a line of stationary traffic and a row of parked cars. We rode (very slowly) between the two lines of stationary vehicles. The back seat passenger in one of the parked cars opened his door an knocked us off. We fell onto the car to our right, damaging it, and then onto the road, damaging the borrowed 2008 DL1000 we were riding!

The police attended only because they were attending another incident just up the road so a patrol car happened to pass by as we were wheeling the bike off the road. The officer spoke to everyone concerned and made it very clear that the door-opener was 100% at fault as we were behaving both legally and cautiously at the time and he had carelessly opened the door without looking.

For some reason the driver confessed to opening the front door (it was definitely the back door that had been opened by the passenger) and admitted liability. The car had no insurance, and the bike alone cost around $8000 to repair. The late-model VW golf we fell on probably cost a similar amount (we had damaged all its side panels and my partner broke its mirror with his head).

So the key differences were:
1) We weren't injured (a few bruises don't count)
2) The person 'at fault' was an 18 year old yoof, not a police officer
3) The officer who attended came to a very different conclusion than the one in the case being discussed in this thread.

Interesting!

[breakaway]

And there we have it. It's a cover up. Plain and simple.

[Patrick]

No it aint... the cops numbers suggest VERY junior staff. They have come to the wrong conclusion.