First crash, I need advice

[discotex]

NO ... you said they may not pay out if you admit fault.

YES ... you admit liability when it was actually the other party at fault, and many policies will not pay out...

Simple innit?

[russd7]

As the flush median strip is illegal to use for overtaking ... there should be no need to look. The two seconds of legally required indicating doesn't take long to go .. if you're not looking. Many never use their right side mirror (at ANY time) anyway ... and just rely on the mid mounted interior one (and miss seeing you).

It is not illegal to cross the median strip at right angles (nor even U turns) ... but as the flush median strip can be (legally) used by vehicles traveling in both directions .. care must be taken when using them. (as you have already found)

actually, regardless of whether there is a median strip or not there is always a need to look, what if a vehicle was right turning in to the median strip from across the road, i would think if it went to small claims then the adjudicator would rule 50/50 fault.

as far as i am aware the road code still states that you should always do a shoulder check as well as use your mirrors and yes i do because it is amazing what can fit in to a blind spot

[FJRider]

actually, regardless of whether there is a median strip or not there is always a need to look, what if a vehicle was right turning in to the median strip from across the road, i would think if it went to small claims then the adjudicator would rule 50/50 fault.

The median strip is not a lane ... and not to be used as such. And it is still not legal to overtake on the right of that vehicle lawfully in its lane. There is no 50/50 at fault ... as a vehicle colliding with a vehicle in front is almost always at fault. More so it the collision occurs with a vehicle legally turning on/across a flush median strip.

as far as i am aware the road code still states that you should always do a shoulder check as well as use your mirrors and yes i do because it is amazing what can fit in to a blind spot

See above about colliding with a vehicle in front of you.

Overtaking on roadway ... that is illegal to be used for the purpose of overtaking is ... ummm ... Illegal. So ... how could the vehicle in front (legally turning) be any way at fault .. ???

[roy.nz]

Don't admit fault though as your insurance company may then deny to pay out. Just accurately describe what happened and let them sort it out on your behalf. If the police came they will want a copy of the incident report.

Police will not disclose their incident Report. It's for Police use only. But guessing by what you said happened you are at fault. Police could possibly deal with you in two ways.

Summons you to court for careless driving. But they most likely give you a ticket for overtaking on a flush medium and failing to stop short.

Don't change your story be and keep honest.

[roy.nz]

Police will not disclose their incident Report. It's for Police use only. But guessing by what you said happened you are at fault. Police could possibly deal with you in two ways.

Summons you to court for careless driving. But they most likely give you a ticket for overtaking on a flush medium and failing to stop short.

Don't change your story be and keep honest.

Been in similar position. Got paid out though.

[DR650gary]

actually, regardless of whether there is a median strip or not there is always a need to look, what if a vehicle was right turning in to the median strip from across the road, i would think if it went to small claims then the adjudicator would rule 50/50 fault.

as far as i am aware the road code still states that you should always do a shoulder check as well as use your mirrors and yes i do because it is amazing what can fit in to a blind spot

What that man said.

There are a number of factors at play. Liability for the accident and legality of the manoeuvre.

If you had your indicator on and were riding in a safe manner your liability for the accident may be minimal as the car driver is still legally obligated to ensure that their manoeuvre is safe to carry out. That is the rear view mirror looking thing. I would suggest that you claim on your insurance and let them sort it out as you do not want to be facing the "hold liable" letter you will almost certainly get from the driver's insurance company on your own.

Whether your manoeuvre is legal is above my pay grade.

Because someone's action is illegal you do not have the right to drive into them or their way. For example, crashing into an illegally parked car, running over a pedestrian on the motorway or a cyclist in the middle of the lane restricting the traffic flow. The onus is always on the driver to obey the road rules and avoid the collision if possible.

So, go claim, you may be surprised.

Cheers

[DR650gary]

Forgot to add that the "no admission of Liability " clause does not mean that the claim will/can be declined if you admit liability, it is designed to protect you from yourself. If you, in a state of panic or guilt, admit liability at the time of the crash and then later either the insurance company or Disputes Tribunal deem you to "not" be liable, your policy will not cover you for any costs that the third party may have incurred based on your admission of liability.

For example, " Oh I am so sorry it was all my fault. Please get the car fixed and my insurance will fix you up for the costs and also get a rental car, take a holiday to recover from the shock................."

Get the idea?

Cheers

[discotex]

Forgot to add that the "no admission of Liability " clause does not mean that the claim will/can be declined if you admit liability, it is designed to protect you from yourself. If you, in a state of panic or guilt, admit liability at the time of the crash and then later either the insurance company or Disputes Tribunal deem you to "not" be liable, your policy will not cover you for any costs that the third party may have incurred based on your admission of liability.

For example, " Oh I am so sorry it was all my fault. Please get the car fixed and my insurance will fix you up for the costs and also get a rental car, take a holiday to recover from the shock................."

Get the idea?

Cheers

Exactly the scenario OP could find themselves in as they are discussing directly with the third party.

[discotex]

Police will not disclose their incident Report. It's for Police use only. But guessing by what you said happened you are at fault. Police could possibly deal with you in two ways.

When I was taken out I was given a report placing fault with the third party - after being asked to obtain it by my insurance. Perhaps incident report is the wrong term?

[R650R]

I can't believe some of the extrapolations in this thread. The answer is in her second sentance "indicated and turned across the flush into my path of travel".

That means you saw and were aware of the drivers intended actions. Whilst you were clearly breaking the law on median strip the other drivers confirmed use of indicator means you're the one likely deemed at fault.
Absent any reliable witnesses saying she pulled out in a reckless manner I doubt you'll get any other result.
Cops don't like to waste time on these types of failing to stop in time cases and I doubt the courts do either so the status quo is the following vehicle is at fault outside of some decent evidence otherwise.
And the fact that you lost control before the collision from heavy braking (wet road or not) says your riding outside that required in those conditions.

[jasonu]

I do ride those strips myself but only to get into a right turning lane at the lights if the lane is not full.

I heard they teach that in the Iams riding course?

[rastuscat]

just say you pulled into the medium strip to do a u turn when she just pulled out in front of you.

Yeah, always good to tell lies when you are at fault.

It's the KB way.

[DR650gary]

I can't believe some of the extrapolations in this thread. The answer is in her second sentance "indicated and turned across the flush into my path of travel".

That means you saw and were aware of the drivers intended actions. Whilst you were clearly breaking the law on median strip the other drivers confirmed use of indicator means you're the one likely deemed at fault.
Absent any reliable witnesses saying she pulled out in a reckless manner I doubt you'll get any other result.
Cops don't like to waste time on these types of failing to stop in time cases and I doubt the courts do either so the status quo is the following vehicle is at fault outside of some decent evidence otherwise.
And the fact that you lost control before the collision from heavy braking (wet road or not) says your riding outside that required in those conditions.

Not entirely correct. It does depend on the time lapse between indicating and moving right. The requirement is for a 3 second gap between the actions. That may not have happened, we don't know as the OP never stated what the delay was.

Whether either of the driver/rider"s actions are legal is not the entire point in establishing liability. If you pull out in front of a drunk driver in an illegal manner you will still be liable for prosecution. Whether the OP was in the flush lane legally or otherwise, the accident would not have occurred had the driver not pulled out. However, until we know, and we may never know, whether the driver indicated for the required amount of time before pulling across the lane, absolute liability cannot be ascertained.

I would strongly advise the OP to deal with this through his insurance company. If he has full cover there may be no excess for the third party damage and if his damage is below excess he can withdraw the claim and sort his own damage himself if the 2 companies involved agree that he was no fully liable.

Cheers

[DR650gary]

Yeah, always good to tell lies when you are at fault.

It's the KB way.

Is that from experience? From behind the handlebars or under the cap?

[iranana]

Whoa lots of replies here. Looks like there's (kind of) varying opinions on the technicalities, but I just filed a claim so we'll see how it pans out, it's up to the insurance companies now. I have full cover and my excess was actually only $200, so worst case scenario is that I lose a bit of cash. Just pleased I'm intact and that the person I crashed into was nice about it all. Will report back once I know the outcome