Who would be to blame? - NZ Herald crash article

**The End** · 25th December 2014, 07:12

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11378832

Having a look at the statistics for Motorcyclists, I see this one:

The motorcyclist lost control due to road conditions.
The road was slippery as the surface was bleeding or defective.

Is there anyway the motorcyclist involved in this incident could make a claim against the local governing body in charge of roading/road safety?

Or are the local councils/road safety folks exempt from liability?

**unstuck** · 25th December 2014, 07:24

Originally Posted by The End

Is there anyway the motorcyclist involved in this incident could make a claim against the local governing body in charge of roading/road safety?

Or are the local councils/road safety folks exempt from liability?

Fuck this place cracks me up.

**Oakie** · 25th December 2014, 07:44

Ride to the conditions. Including the road conditions.

**Tazz** · 25th December 2014, 08:33

Legitimate question, fully legal overseas as roading contractors/the council are paid to get it right.
I'd love to see it happen here so some of the half arse jobs they do have repercussions other than just to road users.

In that particular case the bleed doesn't look to be in a position where it can jump out at anyone though.

**Robbo** · 25th December 2014, 09:14

The road is what the road is..... It will always throw different challenges at you like wet and slippery, bleeding tar, loose gravel, pot holes and corners, just to name a few.
It is your responsibility as a rider or driver to be 100% aware at all times and ride/drive to the road conditions. If you can't manage to do this and come unstuck then it is your own bloody fault.

**Tazz** · 25th December 2014, 09:26

Wow if you apply the sentiment here to the 1kph over the limit thread it would be a lot shorter

Essentially the same situation from that point of view, you're in control so it's your complete fault right?

Or not

**R650R** · 25th December 2014, 09:38

Those reports are fairly basic but interesting. Also those images are google streetview so not necessarily as bad/good as at time of crash, not fully suitable for keyboard detectives.
I looked up a fatal truck crash of recent times and it said (among other causes) that the truck had a defective brake. This is quite common as if even one hub is out of adjustment when they check it afterwards it means the brakes are as a whole, techinically defective even if no real world drop in performance.

You would have trouble with arguing the road caused your crash unless it was a sudden failure of the tarmac like what happens around Wairakei with pumice base that causes pothole outbreaks in heavy rain. And by outbreaks I mean dozens over several hours. So you'd have to have something like that and multiple crashes, other wise if no one else is crashing how can you blame the road? (from a legal argument angle). Tar bleed is well known and a prudent driver/rider is expected to be aware of the risk, perhaps transit/ltsa could swallow their pride and put it in the roadcode as something to look out for.

BTW on of the trucking advocacy groups served an OSH notice on transit to fix certain bits of road that were causing trucks traction/safety issues. Within 24hrs by law they were required to act on the problem. In the short term this meant warning signs but eventually flowed on to the govt having to budget to fix road X as they are now all liable in chain of responsibility about a problem.

**haydes55** · 25th December 2014, 10:32

Anecdote from USA. Speedway racing in the US doesn't have scrutineering at many tracks. If a car crashes because of a mechanical fault, the driver could sue the track for not ensuring their race car was safe. A lot of tracks still scrutineer over there, but with legal disclaimers etc.

What they usually never check though, is helmets being done up and correctly fastened. If they usually check a helmet is fastened and fits correctly, then forget just one, and that person has an accident. The track is liable and can be sued to oblivion.

Usually the drivers medical insurance will sue as they are the ones out of pocket from the crash.

**breakaway** · 25th December 2014, 18:20

In the USA you can sue gun manufacturers for accidents arising from user negligence and sue mcdonalds when you spill hot coffee on your minge.

Not sure I'd be using their legal system to make any sort of point.

**Oakie** · 25th December 2014, 18:58

Woman in the States a few years back sued a supermarket because a kid who was running up and down the aisles crashed into her and broke her leg. Yes, it was her own child.

**Tazz** · 25th December 2014, 22:43

Yeah I would be avoiding US laws, they were not even slightly on my mind when I said overseas

Originally Posted by breakaway

sue mcdonalds when you spill hot coffee on your minge.

That was called for though. Was pretty shoddily (as we can expect) reported/exaggerated. She wasn't after that much (it was a days worth of earnings for hot drinks by maccas in the US and the courts call in the end). They refused to settle for less and the drink was like almost 90 degrees. 70 degrees is already a 'too hot to drink coffee'. 90 degress is melt your face (or genetials).

In summary fawk McDonalds and fawk the US

**skippa1** · 26th December 2014, 05:19

Ahhhhh the old blame game.....something bad happened to "joe" someone must be to blame as "joe" was just going about his business.

Nothing about "joe" not riding to the conditions, no personal responsibility.....just who do we blame other than "joe".....

**bsasuper** · 26th December 2014, 05:40

Originally Posted by The End

Is there anyway the motorcyclist involved in this incident could make a claim against the local governing body in charge of roading/road safety?

Or are the local councils/road safety folks exempt from liability?

Maybe when ACC stops covering motor vehicle accidents.

**jasonu** · 26th December 2014, 08:22

Originally Posted by breakaway

In the USA you can sue gun manufacturers for accidents arising from user negligence and sue mcdonalds when you spill hot coffee on your minge.

Not sure I'd be using their legal system to make any sort of point.

Originally Posted by Oakie

Woman in the States a few years back sued a supermarket because a kid who was running up and down the aisles crashed into her and broke her leg. Yes, it was her own child.

Originally Posted by Tazz

Yeah I would be avoiding US laws, they were not even slightly on my mind when I said overseas

That was called for though. Was pretty shoddily (as we can expect) reported/exaggerated. She wasn't after that much (it was a days worth of earnings for hot drinks by maccas in the US and the courts call in the end). They refused to settle for less and the drink was like almost 90 degrees. 70 degrees is already a 'too hot to drink coffee'. 90 degress is melt your face (or genetials).

In summary fawk McDonalds and fawk the US

Do you cunts really believe everything you see in the news?