Lane splitting accident

[Crasherfromwayback]

If that's how it really happened...I'd have to say the rider is a twat and is lucky they weren't badly hurt.

[Ratez]

I can see why he gave you the fine.

Though in the other hand personally I think he should have slowed down and been more aware, we may be in the right- but we're still the ones who get hurt.


More importantly was the bike ok?????

I agree, I felt really bad for him and I am sure the pain he feels is worst than the fine I am getting.

Funny you ask if his bike is fine because cosmetically only one side of the handle got scrapped which I presume is where his sprained hand was. Whereas my car door is slammed in. I hope him and the bike is fine! I got a fright when I saw him lying on the floor.

Third party insurance should be compulsory as demonstrated by me... no matter how careful you think you are, there are always chances for the wrong turn (pun).

[Katman]

It is the motorcyclist who should be getting the fine for careless riding.

I'd fight it.

[Juniper]

Hey just having a look at the google maps pic you put on geek zone. I can see why he would be "undertaking on the left" as right in front of the gap that was left the road turns into 3 lanes. I could see that in rush hour those 2 lanes would turn into 3 before the road actually turns into 3 lanes.


Yea as the other guy said on GZ, cudoes for posting in "enemy territory"

Now you will be more aware of bikes, and he will be more aware of cars.

[bosslady]

Copied and pasted from that other website.

http:///www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/40.0/DLM303050.html

2.8Passing 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; or

• (c) if the overtaken vehicle is a light rail vehicle moving in the same direction, the light rail vehicle must not be—
  
  • (i) signalling an intention to turn left or to stop; or
  
  
  
  • (ii) stationary for the purposes of allowing passengers to alight or aboard.

(3) If the roadway is marked in lanes, the driver may make the movement referred in subclause (1) only if the driver's vehicle does not encroach on a lane that is unavailable to a driver

.......

If it's legal to lane share so long as there is enough room for both vehicles and it's legal to pass on the left if the overtaken vehicle is stationary then apart from the fact the motorcyclist should have exercised more caution, then why is he in the wrong?

[Ratez]

Copied and pasted from that other website.

http:///www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/40.0/DLM303050.html

2.8Passing 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; or

• (c) if the overtaken vehicle is a light rail vehicle moving in the same direction, the light rail vehicle must not be—
  
  • (i) signalling an intention to turn left or to stop; or
  
  
  
  • (ii) stationary for the purposes of allowing passengers to alight or aboard.

(3) If the roadway is marked in lanes, the driver may make the movement referred in subclause (1) only if the driver's vehicle does not encroach on a lane that is unavailable to a driver

.......

If it's legal to lane share so long as there is enough room for both vehicles and it's legal to pass on the left if the overtaken vehicle is stationary then apart from the fact the motorcyclist should have exercised more caution, then why is he in the wrong?

I understand that part, but what does the third clause mean?

Hey just having a look at the google maps pic you put on geek zone. I can see why he would be "undertaking on the left" as right in front of the gap that was left the road turns into 3 lanes. I could see that in rush hour those 2 lanes would turn into 3 before the road actually turns into 3 lanes.


Yea as the other guy said on GZ, cudoes for posting in "enemy territory"

Now you will be more aware of bikes, and he will be more aware of cars.

Yeah I didn't remember about the lane splitting at the end. That could be the case. If I was him, I would probably have done it as well. But if I was myself, I would have done the turning as well. I am sure we both learnt something out of this.

[blue rider]

Don't want to be a dick to motorcyclists but overtaking on the left is illegal- pretty sure he should've been on the other side of the van unless he wasn't actually lane splitting and the van invaded his stopping space. Just my knowledge on it.. bring on the flaming

i was just told (in the reverse) by a judge that one can overtake on the left hand side of the road.
I kid you not.
However the party overtaking on the left has to take due care. ( in my case it was I that got hit and recevied a fine 'for not being enough to the left", cause being in the middle of the road in front of a car is not enough to the left. This was a residential road, one line both ways, with a foot path, bus stops and what nots - which means the road code saying you should position yourself safely in the middle of the road or to the right hand side of the car to be "seen" does not count either)

so really it does not matter where you (in your car or bike ) overtake, you just have to take good care - according to the judge in my case and I got that in writing.

And no, i did not go to court over this.....the other party did to establish liability....but thats another story

[bogan]

As far as I know its fine to overtake on left within a lane as long as the traffic is stopped. Pretty fucking stupid to do so without checking gaps, but unfortunately stupid is rarely against the law. I'm not sure how it relates to right of way, but one would assume straight still has right of way over turning. I guess from the cops comments the law doesn't make the distinction between van and say a low slung sports car in which you would have been able to see the rider coming.

[slofox]

Is stupidity against the law?

I thought stupidity was mandatory under the law...

[iYRe]

He had the right to be there.. from the bus stop onwards is considered three lanes. So he wasnt "splitting" he was just getting in the left hand lane earlier than most cars could.

I've done it myself, and know it to be so. Also, I agree, he should have been a bit more careful getting in there.

Its amazing how many people do exactly what you did, on dominion rd. They dont appear to realise that the bus lane is a "lane" and think they only have to worry about the lane that has stationary vehicles in it. Nearly saw a buss collect an idiot in a beemer, and had to do a few emergency stops myself. I tend to slow and sit up for each one and go left a bit so there is more chance I can be seen (and I have had to emergency turn left to avoid a car before.. )

edit: also, it makes your picture very misleading.. he was in a "lane" not going up the shoulder of the road.

[Ratez]

He had the right to be there.. from the bus stop onwards is considered three lanes. So he wasnt "splitting" he was just getting in the left hand lane earlier than most cars could.

I've done it myself, and know it to be so. Also, I agree, he should have been a bit more careful getting in there.

Its amazing how many people do exactly what you did, on dominion rd. They dont appear to realise that the bus lane is a "lane" and think they only have to worry about the lane that has stationary vehicles in it. Nearly saw a buss collect an idiot in a beemer, and had to do a few emergency stops myself. I tend to slow and sit up for each one and go left a bit so there is more chance I can be seen (and I have had to emergency turn left to avoid a car before.. )

Haha maybe if I stopped driving a beemer I would be more attentive! There it is, its the beemers fault definitely. The bike and the car were both BMWs .

Yeah I accept whatever the insurance throws at me, just didn't think the cops would slap me too.

[Gremlin]

A lot has been mentioned already, so I'll probably end up repeating bits.

From your point of view, you did not have right of way to make the turn. The drivers can leave a gap to help you get through, but the onus is still on you to give way. It's tricky on roads with 2+ lanes, ie, 2 lanes and a cycle way, or 3 lanes etc, but again, you have to give way.

From the motorcyclists point of view, he can only lane split on the left if traffic is stationary (applicable laws are in previous posts). While this is legal, I'd tell anyone they're asking for trouble by being there, ESPECIALLY if there is an intersection and cars are leaving a gap. Such a common way to get nailed, but the advice is more about keeping yourself safe. This would include 3 lane roads. The lane may be clear, while the other 2 are blocked, but don't barrel down it, as a car might try to go through a gap etc.

As for the charge of careless driving. The test (in layman's terms) is did you do what any other safe and prudent driver would do? Did you ease through the gap and kept looking for traffic? Who stopped first? Bike or you? Bear in mind, it could easily have been a cyclist in the same position. It can be a catch all charge where you didn't specifically break any other laws but an accident occurred. Police tend to always charge people over an incident, then it's up to you to defend. Careless driving will carry 35 demerits. If you have a clean history, look up diversion.

As I've mentioned, this a common intersection issue, where incidents can happen. Often people don't realise the risk until involved in something like this, or witness. Spread the experience to those you know, to try and prevent this happening to other drivers and riders.

[Katman]

I would suggest the fact that the motorcycle hit the rear door (as opposed to the front guard) indicates that they had more than enough time to safely react to the turning vehicle.

[Ratez]

A lot has been mentioned already, so I'll probably end up repeating bits.

From your point of view, you did not have right of way to make the turn. The drivers can leave a gap to help you get through, but the onus is still on you to give way. It's tricky on roads with 2+ lanes, ie, 2 lanes and a cycle way, or 3 lanes etc, but again, you have to give way.

From the motorcyclists point of view, he can only lane split on the left if traffic is stationary (applicable laws are in previous posts). While this is legal, I'd tell anyone they're asking for trouble by being there, ESPECIALLY if there is an intersection and cars are leaving a gap. Such a common way to get nailed, but the advice is more about keeping yourself safe. This would include 3 lane roads. The lane may be clear, while the other 2 are blocked, but don't barrel down it, as a car might try to go through a gap etc.

As for the charge of careless driving. The test (in layman's terms) is did you do what any other safe and prudent driver would do? Did you ease through the gap and kept looking for traffic? Who stopped first? Bike or you? Bear in mind, it could easily have been a cyclist in the same position. It can be a catch all charge where you didn't specifically break any other laws but an accident occurred. Police tend to always charge people over an incident, then it's up to you to defend. Careless driving will carry 35 demerits. If you have a clean history, look up diversion.

As I've mentioned, this a common intersection issue, where incidents can happen. Often people don't realise the risk until involved in something like this, or witness. Spread the experience to those you know, to try and prevent this happening to other drivers and riders.

Definitely. That is part of the reason why I posted here in addition to Geekzone. I am sure this is a common occurrence and I had to learn it the harsh way. I am thankful the biker is not injured seriously and I have no problem if the insurance points at me as I am already prepared for that. Just didn't think I would've gotten a fine but I guess that is their way of cautioning me.

On the other forum someone mentioned the cyclist analogy and I accept it. I am not one to admit fault unless I am at fault and I can see I could have been more attentive i.e. not crossing when I can't see the lane fully and I should've expected a cyclist or biker. I wasn't trying to argue who was at fault but merely if the fine is harsh or is it justified based on the scenario. I do feel terribly sorry for the biker and apologised.

I swear I saw the creepy old man spinning the wheel of misfortune!

http://imgur.com/5KuzK4r - My car damage. You can't really see it but the side fender is flopping around.

[Drew]

I would suggest the fact that the motorcycle hit the rear door (as opposed to the front guard) indicates that they had more than enough time to safely react to the turning vehicle.

Shit, there's a good point.