Legal advice.

[Hopeful Bastard]

However, If she was turning into a driveway, Was it her own? Or was she U-turning? If she was doing a U-turn, It is illegal to do one within a certain Distance of a Pedestrian Crossing

[Magua]

However, If she was turning into a driveway, Was it her own? Or was she U-turning? If she was doing a U-turn, It is illegal to do one within a certain Distance of a Pedestrian Crossing

It was a u-turn to avoid the traffic and lights.

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.

There was no oncoming traffic, nothing at the lights ahead either.

[crazyhorse]

Sure hope you find a solution and are not out of pocket with the insurance

[Hopeful Bastard]

It was a u-turn to avoid the traffic and lights.

If thats the case, She was in the wrong as it is Illegal to U turn within 100m of a Pedestrian Crossing

[Magua]

If thats the case, She was in the wrong as it is Illegal to U turn within 100m of a Pedestrian Crossing

Do you have a link to any relevant legislation or section of the rode code? Thanks.

[The Pastor]

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.

Road code is not law, wont stack up in court (be ok if you are infront of a JP - they have no formal law training).

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.

JP's can go either way.

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.

I disagree, the law clearly states you are not allowed to over take at a pedestrian crossing, and this IS where it happened. Law over rides road code.

This accident was 100% the car drivers fault. No question about it. Failure to look before pulling out its simple, and defined in law. DISREGARD the fact that magua was also performing an illegal maneuver.

This is the same situation if you are totally pissed behind the wheel, waiting at the lights and someone runs up the back of you.

This is why I tried to get him to get her done with a careless/dangerous driving charge - but no one ever listens to my experience.

IMO Magua should of got a ticket for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the car driver should have been given full liability of the accident.

A similar situation would be someone is speeding and someone pulled out in front of them. Whos at fault?

At any rate, if this were to go to court, it would require a lawyer to get 100% liability put on the car driver, that will cost more than the excess.

[Hopeful Bastard]

Bugger it.. I cant find anything.. Maybe it isnt law

But i remember being told by my driving instructor that it was illegal to U-Turn with that distance of a crossing

[discotex]

No. I'm being objective.

Ok then lets get some facts on the table?

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...DLM302188.html

I can't find a legal requirement that says passing requires 100m. That's just a road code convention as far as I can see.

The law for passing on the right is:

Passing on right
A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the right of another vehicle moving in the same direction when—

(a) approaching or crossing an intersection unless—

(i) the roadway is marked in lanes and the driver can make the movement without the driver's vehicle encroaching on a lane available for opposing traffic; or

(ii) in any other case, the driver can make the movement with safety and with due consideration for users of the intersecting road; or

(b) approaching or passing a flush median, unless the driver—

(i) intends to turn right from the road marked with the flush median into another road or vehicle entrance; or

(ii) has turned right onto the road marked with the flush median; or

(iii) can make the entire movement without encroaching on the flush median

However RM is on the money about this bit...

I disagree, the law clearly states you are not allowed to over take at a pedestrian crossing, and this IS where it happened. Law over rides road code.

Passing at school crossing point or pedestrian crossings
A driver must not pass or attempt to pass a vehicle that has stopped or slowed down at a school crossing point or pedestrian crossing in order to comply with clause 3.9 or subclause 10.1(1).

I checked out the definition of a "pedestrian crossing" and although this is controlled by lights it's marked correctly (checked StreetView for the signs etc) to be considered a pedestrian crossing.

So sorry Magua you're basically screwed. Passing at a pedestrian crossing carries a 20 demerit point penalty so maybe consider yourself lucky?

[kwaka_crasher]

There was no oncoming traffic, nothing at the lights ahead either.

On a Thursday at 1pm on Gillies Ave? Having lived on Owens Road, I find that very difficult to believe. By your account, there was enough traffic heading towards Epsom to make her want to turn around to avoid it.

Either way, what you did was a bit dumb.

[kwaka_crasher]

I can't find a legal requirement that says passing requires 100m. That's just a road code convention as far as I can see.

No. See here.

[jono035]

No. See here.

He was breaking the law. It's obvious. There are about 4 different ways that this could be argued. This doesn't actually matter.

The question is whether what he was doing caused the accident. This is the only question that is relevant to finding out who was at fault thereby figuring out who should be the one paying the insurance excess. This could also go either way.

In my opinion you cannot assume that everyone else is following the law at all times, therefore you still have to carry out due diligence when making a maneuvre like that, which should have consisted of indicating for 3 seconds and checking to make sure that there was noone coming up along side you. This is what actually caused the accident.

[p.dath]

Ok then lets get some facts on the table?

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...DLM302188.html

I can't find a legal requirement that says passing requires 100m. That's just a road code convention as far as I can see.

...

There is plenty of info in the Wiki about this:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/Cate...otorcycle_Laws

Specifically:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/Passing_other_vehicles

This is covered in clause 1(d) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (SR 2004/427), section 2.6.

[GOONR]

There is plenty of info in the Wiki about this:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/Cate...otorcycle_Laws

Specifically:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/wiki/Passing_other_vehicles






This is covered in clause 1(d) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (SR 2004/427), section 2.6.

Isn't the law different if the cars have come to a halt (as mentioned in OP) , ie parked.