Legal help needed from lane splitting accident

[Max Preload]

correct... you are talking about Eng_dave... right.

Nope. Eng_dave had right of way regardless of whether he was visible to the other vehicle or not. If you're meant to give way, as the car was, and can't see, and cut someone off as a result, you're in the wrong.

actually, he said lights turned green ahead of me and traffic started to move . that was a clue for me

Except that if the cars he was passing moved then they'd have hit the car that was supposed to give way too... or the car would have stopped.

what would you have done if, while you were overtaking, a dog or child ran through a gap in the traffic, and you were going too fast to stop in time? who's fault would that have been?

It still wouldn't have been eng_dave's fault. Dogs and children don't have right of way over him either.

Bike is at fault. both other vehicles have given way to the car crossing your path. Its hard to accept, but it is your responsibility to be safe if you are doing "grey area" maneuvres.

Absolutely wrong. The other vehicles weren't giving way. They were leaving a gap to permit the car to proceed if it was safe to do so. It wasn't safe - the car driver couldn't see if there were vehicles they must give way to approaching.

Obviously the car driver was very surprised to see the bike there, and doubly so for the biker, but the car was on the wrong side of the road and did fail to give way. It's pretty clear.

Exactly. Like I said, I'd fight it. What eng_dave did was silly, but not strictly illegal. The only person that should be issued a ION or TON is the car driver that failed to give way.

[dangerous]

Nope. Eng_dave had right of way regardless of whether he was visible to the other vehicle or not. If you're meant to give way, as the car was, and can't see, and cut someone off as a result, you're in the wrong.

I KNOW... i was taking the piss from your post, you left it wide open.
My point being...
how awesome would it be to end up dead but knowing you were in the right... why take the risk?

[marty]

I KNOW... i was taking the piss from your post, you left it wide open.
My point being...
how awesome would it be to end up dead but knowing you were in the right... why take the risk?

and that's it in a nutshell folks. it's like a pedestrian stepping out onto a crossing - he has right of way - but fuck trying to prove it.

[CookMySock]

Case solved then?

What is your opinion?

Steve

[Katman]

It's like the argument where a car turns in front of a speeding bike. The bike's breaking the law speeding, however the car's breaking the law by not giving way... Who's to blame?

What if a vehicle pulls out of a driveway a certain distance down the road from a blind corner that, if taken at 100kph would allow sufficient time to slow or stop safely but instead, the corner is taken at 160kph?

[CookMySock]

What if a vehicle pulls out of a driveway a certain distance down the road from a blind corner that, if taken at 100kph would allow sufficient time to slow or stop safely but instead, the corner is taken at 160kph?

The nature of NZ roads is that it's nearly impossible to 100% be able to stop everywhere. NZ road users seem to have this unwritten understanding that they should not put anything on the road at the critical exit of a corner, as eventually (if not very quickly) some unsuspecting motorist will pop around the corner at or around the legal speed limit and collect said obstacle on the full.

Yeah yeah, the law says you must be able to stop, but I suggest the reality is actually quite different, where the habit of out-driving our stopping distance is now part of our road culture.

I agree that at 160km/hr all bets are off, and so they should be. That is just asking for trouble. But at the legal speedlimit the risks are still there. I do not see a tenable solution for it - not everyone is going to slow down so they are 100% safe on every blind corner - they just wont do that. Some already do, and that's what they do. Others insist on outriding their corners and providing another safety net should they have an issue - and that is being able to take massive evasive action.

Horses for courses. Do as you like. It's a free country.


Steve

[meteor]

I reckon that she's at fault. Road code says she has to give way to all oncoming traffic if she wishes to turn across it. You are legally allowed to overtake stationary traffic so long as you don't exceed the speed limit or go over the centreline without 100 mtrs clear visability throughout the movement. I'd write into the Police Infringement Bureau and refer them to the relevant sections of the road code and Road User Rule in relation to turning. Also have a look at some case law online at brookers and you might find that the lane you were using was in fact available.

Next step is the insurance issue... she'll be asking you to pay... fight it! Did she get a ticket too for failing to Give way when turning (other vehicle not turning)

[Max Preload]

I KNOW... i was taking the piss from your post, you left it wide open.
My point being...
how awesome would it be to end up dead but knowing you were in the right... why take the risk?

I've already conceded eng_dave could have done things differently from a self-preservation aspect, but that doesn't negate the car driver's responsibility, in law, for the crash.

[Jonno.]

The police found no one at fault and gave you a fine.

Don't make this poor lady pay for your lack of awareness.

[RUSS]

Ha, they used the wrong offence becuase they couldn'r be bothered doing a prosecution file for careless driving.

[Pixie]

My understanding of "lane not available for use" is it applies to painted medians, emergency lanes and shoulders.
You were in a lane that was in use and were passing on the right of stopped vehicles which is allowed,you did nothing wrong.Fight the infringement notice.
Write a letter stating what I have written in this post.

[Pixie]

you fucked up, wana split... then pay the price. How was it possable for the turning cage to have knowen you were there? the last thing they would have expected was a 3rd vehical in two lanes.

Now splitting is ONLY legal if A) riding on the left of a deviding line
B) if right indercator is on.

Im a southern red neck ok, so down here there is no need to split, but I have done many a km up north and do relise why you do split.
IMO is not a good thing to do, but if you do you shuld be crewling at the fastest, which means no chance of going over the bars.
It wont be long before it is made ilegal due to those abusing the splitting rule.

flame away...

I don't flame illiterates

[Maha]

You failed to stop...end of story.
Unless you want to write in and explain exactly (in your own words) what you were doing/why you beleive you should not pay a cent and the cop got it wrong.
Worked for me.

[scumdog]

I don't flame illiterates

He's not illiterate, it's Dangerese, learn to use it and get with the times..

[marty]

My understanding of "lane not available for use" is it applies to painted medians, emergency lanes and shoulders.
You were in a lane that was in use and were passing on the right of stopped vehicles which is allowed,you did nothing wrong.Fight the infringement notice.
Write a letter stating what I have written in this post.

as i said 32 pages ago.

he has not however, confirmed if the traffic was moving (i suspect it was) - except for the the cars stopping to let the lady across the road - and whether he was undertaking on the left, or overtaking on the right (i suspect undertaking on the left)

i believe she was entitled to move across the lane, given the room given by the other drivers. she could hardly give way to someone/something that she could not see, nor should expect to see.

the OP is not guilty of 'driving in an unavailable lane' there is no doubt of that. possibly of careless driving, or overtaking without 100m clear viz, or overtaking on the left (same lane) though.