Legal advice.

[CookMySock]

Hindsight's a wonderful thing.

well yeah, it did occur to me as well - why be on the outside when you could be on the inside.

If cars CAN turn across unimpeded in front of me, then I expect them to. If they are UNABLE to turn - I pass them. Sometimes its safer to split where they CANT pass but you can.

Steve

[BikerDazz]

The same thing happened to me in the 80's - I ended up eating this car driver's window as he suddenly turned right into a driveway while I was overtaking.
Ze pigs blamed me and I went to Court - fucked if I was paying for a lawyer - so I just denied it.
I had to go to 2 hearings but the charge of careless driving was dropped in the end, although I was stuck with the insurance excess, and 2 days off work without pay.
Shit happens.

[Ender EnZed]

I don't know much about the Disputes Tribunal but I can quite readily imagine a bunch of non-motorcycle people taking a dim view of passing cars unless there's some very clear law on your side. If that happened you could end up having to pay her's as well.

[discotex]

I did see this in the road code, however the diagram provided shows a car passing another car at the crossing. I was well back from the crossing, so I don't think this would apply, a grey area perhaps.

I'm not sure if the first rule counts, as it wasn't technically an intersection as they seem to have defined it, as intersecting roads, in any other case, the driver can make the movement with safety and with due consideration for users of the intersecting road; or.

Assuming I've found the right spot with Google Street view there's no doubt it's an intersection as defined by the law.

Link to StreetView

But...

If there was no on-coming traffic you are legally allowed to pass at an intersection according to the road code for motorcycles.

http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roa...g-intersection

Go to the end and it looks like what you were doing to me.

Given she pulled right into the driveway one could assume there was no on-coming cars for at least 100m.

So I believe you are totally in the right (even if it was a stupid place to put yourself for personal safety reasons).

Might pay to provide the above to your insurance company and see if they'll try to prove she's at fault.

[Magua]

So I believe you are totally in the right (even if it was a stupid place to put yourself for personal safety reasons).

Might pay to provide the above to your insurance company and see if they'll try to prove she's at fault.

Thanks, I'll pass it on.

[discotex]

Thanks, I'll pass it on.

Good luck

[st00ji]

yar i'd be tempted to try it out with your insurance first

if you can convince them you were not at fault then they will chase the other person for the excess

[jaykay]

From your diagram and Google street view it looks as if you were over a solid centre line, if so I think that's where your problem lies, at least some of the fault is yours.
It's one of those situations where 99.99% of the time it isn't an issue, but this time it was. The car driver (IMHO) is probably more to blame (an emergency vehicle could have been coming for example) and an indicator may have helped - but at the end of the day I doubt any sort of tribunal or court is going to say the car driver was 100% wrong.

[kwaka_crasher]

...at the end of the day I doubt any sort of tribunal or court is going to say the car driver was 100% wrong.

Looks like mutual fault to me (you shouldn't have been there, but she should have looked & indicated).

I say a 50-50 call on error - your 50% was the 'passing' maneuver, and not being vigilant enough about the possibility of a vehicle pulling out. Her 50% was for not indicating.

I concur - shared responsibility. She turned without indicating and checking for passing vehicles - you overtook crossing the centreline without 100m of clear road (presumably there were cars on the other side of the crossing...). Pay your own excess.

30-40km/h is far too fast for that particular situation IMO - that's 10m/s. Next time split between the lanes of cars.

From your diagram and Google street view it looks as if you were over a solid centre line, if so I think that's where your problem lies, at least some of the fault is yours.

Unless it's yellow and on your side, that's actually irrelevant.

It's one of those situations where 99.99% of the time it isn't an issue, but this time it was. The car driver (IMHO) is probably more to blame (an emergency vehicle could have been coming for example)...

but with lights and sirens...

...and an indicator may have helped

Certainly.

[discotex]

I concur - shared responsibility. She turned without indicating and checking for passing vehicles - you overtook crossing the centreline without 100m of clear road (presumably there were cars on the other side of the crossing...). Pay your own excess.

Actually given the oncoming traffic was stopped at the traffic lights and she pulled out that's probably not relevant. One could argue the road was clear.

It's all technicalities on this one. Worth fighting over as there's nothing to lose.

[mud boy]

look if you wanna grow pot dont tell the cop you have it and if you do make sure its real good skunky shit hah

[mattian]

It's a bloody long time ago, but when I got my licence, overtaking traffic stopped at a pedestrian crossing was a no no

Yes, it still is. As far as I can remember (havent read the road code in a wee while but,) A paedestrian crossing is a place where you are not allowed to filter to the front of the queue or overtake there. I'm sure somebody will check that.

[kwaka_crasher]

Actually given the oncoming traffic was stopped at the traffic lights and she pulled out that's probably not relevant. One could argue the road was clear.

Not for 100m....

[discotex]

Not for 100m....

Are you working for the woman in the cage or something?

If it was a head-on that might matter but it wasn't.

The person who turned in front of the OP clearly felt they had enough clear road to do so safely due to the red light so I'm sure you could get small claims to overlook that technicality.

The point is who is *more* at fault. Being 25-40m short of the 100m requirement (easy to misjudge going by the bus lanes) is a far less of a deal than turning right without a) indicating and b) looking.

[kwaka_crasher]

Are you working for the woman in the cage or something?

No. I'm being objective.

If it was a head-on that might matter but it wasn't.

Now, that's what you call irrelevant. The motorcyclist was somewhere he shouldn't have been.

The person who turned in front of the OP clearly felt they had enough clear road to do so safely due to the red light so I'm sure you could get small claims to overlook that technicality.

You don't need 100m of clear road ahead to perform a turn.

The point is who is *more* at fault. Being 25-40m short of the 100m requirement (easy to misjudge going by the bus lanes) is a far less of a deal than turning right without a) indicating and b) looking.

Her actions do not negate that of the motorcyclist's in being in the wrong position on the road.