NZ Police public image

[Lou Girardin]

So what some people are saying is that really tight twisty's have to be negotiated at, say, 5 km/h?
That'll kill the Coromandel loop among others.

[spudchucka]

C'mon Spud, that little beauty would see all parties charged in every accident. Failed to stop when someone fails to give way?

It was a nose to tail. In the least the driver should get a ticket for failing to stop short. Depending on the circumstances it would be careless use.

[Ixion]

So what some people are saying is that really tight twisty's have to be negotiated at, say, 5 km/h?
That'll kill the Coromandel loop among others.

[Shrug]. If that's what it takes, though I don't think I've ever found one THAT tight and blind. "Able to stop safely in the clear distance of road ahead" is what the Road Code says. Seems pretty simple to me. If you can't stop before you run out of visibility, slow down.

[Wolf]

[Shrug]. If that's what it takes, though I don't think I've ever found one THAT tight and blind. "Able to stop safely in the clear distance of road ahead" is what the Road Code says. Seems pretty simple to me. If you can't stop before you run out of visibility, slow down.

I always slow on blind corners and near hill crests - even the ones that I know what the road does on the other side, more so if I don't know the road and have no idea if the road makes a sharp turn with a reverse camber and banked gravel just over the crest.

Simple enough really. I really have no desire to come flying over a crest or around a blind turn and lose the road or collide with something on the other side.

I know of a lot of sharp blind corners that have driveways just around them - makes me think "WTF were they thinking?" We're talking rural, here - what, their farm's so small they couldn't put the sodding driveway a bit further down the road where anyone coming out of it has a good view and people coming around the corner have a chance to see there's a car/tractor/tanker/stock truck about to pull out? Whatever the demented reason, the driveways are there and pose a hazard - for which I slow down, having no super-human X-ray vision capabilities or precognition to tell me whether or not a car is about to pull out in front of me just around the bend.

Choosing the right lines also helps with visibility and on corners with good visibility you can travel at 100km/h without a worry or see that there are kids playing or cars waiting at side roads or driveways and prepare accordingly.

Still have to slow down when the visibility is reduced, though - assuming that the road is clear of hazards or that you have some super-human ability to react to a hazard three metres away at 100+ km/h is careless. Dad had a term for motorcyclists who behaved in that fashion - "Temporary New Zealanders." He didn't figure they'd be around for long at that rate...

[Rainbow Wizard]

It was a nose to tail. In the least the driver should get a ticket for failing to stop short. Depending on the circumstances it would be careless use.

Surely in the rider's position for that scenario any two-bit navigator would have simply pulled out & passed, even if it would have meant crossing the double yellow lines.

I must admit to not having the vehicle contact clearly defined but my first impression was that the truck was doing a U turn, and later had it explained that it was turning onto the highway. Because of the first impression I assumed the truck was across the path, not in line with it. Maybe you have access to information from another source?

In view of my comments do you still come to the same apportioning of blame?

[Lou Girardin]

It was a nose to tail. In the least the driver should get a ticket for failing to stop short. Depending on the circumstances it would be careless use.

Kindly explain how you know this or is it an assumption?
Regardless, I still say it'll be laughed out of court.

[spudchucka]

Kindly explain how you know this or is it an assumption?
Regardless, I still say it'll be laughed out of court.

it seems as a truck was turning onto the road in an area of double yellow lines, out of view on the other side of a crest

you're going along the road, clear view as much as the road permits, someone pulls out onto the road immediately in front of you and you hit them

I read this as being a nose to tail situation. The truck has pulled out onto the road, in the same lane but ahead of the M/C and on the other side of a blind crest, the M/C has failed to stop in the visible distance ahead.

How steep was the crest? Was it a virtual cliff that could fully conceal a god damned truck from 50 - 100 metres away? Lets then assume that the M/C flew through the air all Evil Kennevally because it must have been a fucken jump ramp, not a section of road. Either that or the rider was travelling at a great rate of knots or was riding along in a daze, either way he was careless and failed to see the truck.

If it wasn't a nose to tail then please correct me but I don't think it makes much difference. If people want more detailed assessments then they should supply full details. Otherwise I'll comment on the information provided and you can winge and moan like normal.

[spudchucka]

Maybe you have access to information from another source?

No. Thats just as it sounded to me from your post. If you find out the actual details in full I'll be happy to re-think my response.

[Ixion]

I read this as being a nose to tail situation. The truck has pulled out onto the road, in the same lane but ahead of the M/C and on the other side of a blind crest, the M/C has failed to stop in the visible distance ahead.
..

I assumed it was a T-boner, the truck across the road. Don't see it makes any difference. Either way, there was an obstacle on the road. The rider was unable to stop in time once he saw the obstacle. Could not stop in the clear road visible. End of story. Had he been cautious and come more slowly over the hill, he could have stopped in time.

[scumdog]

Kindly explain how you know this or is it an assumption?
Regardless, I still say it'll be laughed out of court.

I'll let you know when my first similar case gets 'laughed out of court', done heaps of them, either Fails to Stop Short or in more severe cases, Careless Use, either way they all have pleaded/found guilty.

[MikeL]

Surely it would depend on the exact circumstances of the particular accident (road configuration, visibility, unpredictable actions by other road users etc) as to whether charges would be laid? Or is there some suggestion that inability to stop in the available distance is either automatically a fault or a prima facie case?

In the case where a vehicle cuts in front of me then jams on the brakes suddenly before I have time to drop back would it be reasonable to prosecute me?

Or if another vehicle suddenly does a U-turn in front of me?

If you expect me to ride at such a speed that I can safely stop in the event of ANY unforeseen contingency I'll be reduced to 20 km/h.

Or better still, let's go back to the 5 mph limit with someone walking ahead with a red flag...

[Ixion]

Surely it would depend on the exact circumstances of the particular accident (road configuration, visibility, unpredictable actions by other road users etc) as to whether charges would be laid? Or is there some suggestion that inability to stop in the available distance is either automatically a fault or a prima facie case?

In the case where a vehicle cuts in front of me then jams on the brakes suddenly before I have time to drop back would it be reasonable to prosecute me?

Or if another vehicle suddenly does a U-turn in front of me?

If you expect me to ride at such a speed that I can safely stop in the event of ANY unforeseen contingency I'll be reduced to 20 km/h.

Or better still, let's go back to the 5 mph limit with someone walking ahead with a red flag...

Hm. The Road Code says ride so you can stop safely in the visible distance ahead.

Obviously , that distance can change, sometimes suddenly. In which case you must adjust to the new distance. Which we all do.

If the illegal or carelss/reckless/inconsiderate/dangerous acts of another mean that it is not possible for you to adjust to the new (now very short!) visible distance, then that is not your fault. You were not careless (assuming that there was nothing that could have reasonably indicated to you that it was going to happen thus).

It is similar to giving way. If turning you must give way to straight through traffic. But if I am turning on a green traffic light and someone runs the red light going straight through, I can hardly be deemed careless (per se) if I hit him.

But this is not the situation of the original post. There the lack of visibility was due to a hill crest. Those do not often suddenly appear.

After all, the word is "careless". Is zooming over a hill crest (or through a blind bend) so fast that you can't stop on the other side without hitting something "careful". I think not.

Whereas the examples you give, the rider could well be riding very carefully. It is the careless actions of another that cause the problem.

The Road Code offers advice not law. So the question becomes "You hit something. Were you being careful. Let us see what the Road Code says and consider your actions in the light of it's advice. Then we may decide if you were riding carefully or not"

(Incidentally in theory I think you could get a ticket even if there wasn't an accident, though it would be hard to prove)

[Wolf]

Whereas the examples you give, the rider could well be riding very carefully. It is the careless actions of another that cause the problem.

Problem is in one instance MikeL was talking about - dork cuts you off after a stupid passing manouevre and slams on his brakes in front of you - because you hit the rear of his vehicle, you will automatically be assumed to be at fault - by both the police and the insurance companies involved.

"The wanker rocketed past me, swung in front - missing me by three inches - then promptly slammed on the brakes" doesn't seem to register - all they see is the damage to the arse-end of his vehicle and assume you were the dick. You'll wind up liable for all damages incurred.

I've had dicks sitting at intersections stare at me approaching and then decide - when I'm only a few metres away - that they can get their car out in time - had some extremely hairy braking experiences out of those. Haven't hit any yet but one day they'll leave too little a margin and I won't have time to brake even though I am prepared to do so (I always assume the person stopped at the intersection staring at me is a moron who is going to suddenly drop the clutch and attempt to floor-it out of the side road, so my hand is poised over the brake lever and I'm mentally prepared for extreme braking.)

[scumdog]

Not always as bad as you think Wolf, I have seen somebody done for careless use after doing much what you said - pulling in front then slamming on the brakes.

Second car got off scot-free. (except for the panel damage of course - but the offender paid for that!)

[Ixion]

Problem is in one instance MikeL was talking about - dork cuts you off after a stupid passing manouevre and slams on his brakes in front of you - because you hit the rear of his vehicle, you will automatically be assumed to be at fault - by both the police and the insurance companies involved.

"The wanker rocketed past me, swung in front - missing me by three inches - then promptly slammed on the brakes" doesn't seem to register - all they see is the damage to the arse-end of his vehicle and assume you were the dick. You'll wind up liable for all damages incurred.

I've had dicks sitting at intersections stare at me approaching and then decide - when I'm only a few metres away - that they can get their car out in time - had some extremely hairy braking experiences out of those. Haven't hit any yet but one day they'll leave too little a margin and I won't have time to brake even though I am prepared to do so (I always assume the person stopped at the intersection staring at me is a moron who is going to suddenly drop the clutch and attempt to floor-it out of the side road, so my hand is poised over the brake lever and I'm mentally prepared for extreme braking.)

Granted. Proving that it was the other idiot that was careless can be tricky. In the case you instance it would (presumably) only be a problem if his brakes were better than yours ? If cut-in-on I'm usually hauling on the brakes fairly hard as soon as I see idiot coming in. Even if he doesn't slam on the brakes, odds are he'll do SOMETHING stupid. My observation is that if you see someone do something inconsiderate and stupid, they'll do something else inconsiderate and stupid.

The approaching-intersection-idiot-in-waiting one is tricky. I've never quite decided what's best. See idiot waiting , assume he may do something silly and back off just in case? Problem is , he sees you slow down and immediately decides that's a good reason to zoom out . Keep on at same speed, and like as not he *still* decides to zoom out - just when you cna't stop in time without heroics. (WHY do they wait until it's too late to do it safely, instead of earlier. What are their tiny little minds THINKING)