Accountability for an accident--feedback please

**The Stranger:Me** · 16th February 2009, 09:23

Originally Posted by awayatc

Thought if I hit something it would naturaly be my fault.....
Doesn't matter why whatever I hit stopped suddenly for whatever sort of reason....
Up to me to be able to avoid it.....
If I got no WOF, then my car shoud not be on the road....Which woul still be my problem...
If I got no licence , or the wrong one, then I should not be on the road either....
Oh...and where does it say that it is ok to run over vehicles after they broke down....?

Take the video recently posted of the car which appears to do a hand brake slide from the 3rd lane of a motorway across the second lane and into the path of a bike. Should the biker be responsible for the accident?

The vehicle in front of you stops from 60kph in 2m.
This would be a sudden and unexpected event.

If you for example rear end a car driven by someone with no license and the car has no WOF or rego you still failed to stop, you will still be charged.

It is fine to run over a vehicle that is broken down if they do so in an inconsiderate place or at an inconvenient time, such as peak hour traffic.

**74 knuckle** · 16th February 2009, 09:36

Interesting case scenario, will indeed like to know the outcome

**Mikkel** · 16th February 2009, 09:37

I'm just a bit curious - how much of the ute's lane was taken up by the motorcycle which was partly embedded into the clay bank?

If it's less than half of the lane I can not see how a roadworthy vehicle could ever be unable to pass the fallen bike without loosing control and hitting other motorists in legal positions.

[offtopic]
I must say I very often get concerned when I see what incredulous constructions - often referred to as trailers - people use for hauling all sorts of heavy loads around NZ. It appears that there are hardly any regulations in place in this regard. It is not uncommon to see trailers where the lights aren't connected during daytime and I've even been told that is supposedly legal.

People hauling big-arse boats over steep twisty hills on home-made trailers with no brakes...
I take great care around trailers.
[/offtopic]

**Patrick** · 16th February 2009, 10:03

Originally Posted by FROSTY

... a bike was going round a left hand corner. the bike hit some of the corrogations apearing where trucks are digging into the tarmac and suddenly the bike wouldn't turn. It goes straight ahead into a clay bank at relatively slow speed. The motorcycle was completely road legal in every way.
A second or two later a ute towing a boat on a boat trailer came from the oposite direction ,saw bie/rider in the clay bank and took evasive action.
As a result of the evasive action the ute got out of control and the trailer jacknifed skidding onto the wrong side of the road. The trailer ran into a motorcycle legally stopped at the side of the road (Ie had it been moving it would have been oncoming traffic to the ute) This caused extensive damage to the stopped motorcycle and some damage to the trailer..
The boat on the back of the trailer was not secured by any tethers,tiedowns etc and had shifted on the trailer. Also relevant or not the trailer itself was not registered and did not have a current WOF -or indeed show sighns of having had one.
On examination the alloy back wheel on the first bike had literally collapsed causing the bike to be unable to turn left or right.

Given the information above is completely true and for the sake of argument insurance is not involved. Who should pay who for damages?
Also again given the information is not "adjusted" which rider/driver should be charged and with what?

Here is my take, on what was presented...

1st motorbike... accident.

Ute "a second or two later" taking evasive action for a sudden and unexpected event, loses control and crosses the centre line into a parked bike...... but with no WOF, reg and an insecure load to start with, crossing the centre line as a result of this load, could be careless use.
Just my 2c worth...

**awayatc** · 16th February 2009, 10:27

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Take the video recently posted of the car which appears to do a hand brake slide from the 3rd lane of a motorway across the second lane and into the path of a bike. Should the biker be responsible for the accident?.

The car doing the handrake is doing the hitting.....NOT the bike...

Originally Posted by The Stranger

The vehicle in front of you stops from 60kph in 2m.
This would be a sudden and unexpected event..

Funny thing is these "unexpected events" are easier to deal with when you leave some distance.....Something which for some inexplicable reason hasn't caught on that much yet around here.....
My responsibility to stay alive....

Originally Posted by The Stranger

If you for example rear end a car driven by someone with no license and the car has no WOF or rego you still failed to stop, you will still be charged..

Scenario as was presented on this thread is different.....sounds like trailer definitely contributed to accident, it was not being stationary as in your scenario

Originally Posted by The Stranger

It is fine to run over a vehicle that is broken down if they do so in an inconsiderate place or at an inconvenient time, such as peak hour traffic.

What is the weather like on your planet?

**Mikkel** · 16th February 2009, 10:44

Originally Posted by awayatc

The car doing the handrake is doing the hitting.....NOT the bike...

Newton's 3rd law.

**FROSTY:Me** · 16th February 2009, 10:48

Sorry guys I thought It was clear. Several motorcycles had negotiated the same corner with no more issue than a bit of a wallop through the suspension. This bike however hit the corrogations and was suddenly unable to turn, it also continued being unable to turn right up untill impact with the wall.It is impossible to go back in time and see at what exact point the wheel collapsed -IE at hitting of corrogations or as a result of hitting the clay bank.However that particular model has a reputation for theit rear wheels to collapse without warning The inability of the bike to steer left back onto the correct side of the road after the corrogations were gone The second motorcycle may/may not have stopped in a dangerous place however only dangerous from the point of view of following traffic certainly not oncoming traffic.Also to give an indication of timelapse the second bike had time to stop completely and turn the ignition off before being hit by the trailer.
Yes the first motorcycle may have been sticking out into the oncoming traffic lane

**klingon** · 16th February 2009, 12:11

Originally Posted by FROSTY

... for the sake of argument insurance is not involved. Who should pay who for damages? ...

If this is the same incident that has been described in another thread at the time it happened, I got the impression that the ute had to take major evasive action to avoid the crashed bike. The rider seemed to think that it was only the quick reactions of the ute driver that saved him.

Assuming there is no insurance involved (which would surprise me) I would say each person would pay for the damage to their own vehicle. If insurance was involved, then it would be up to the insurance company/companies to determine who was liable.

Given it was an accident causing injury, I would expect that the police were notified within 24 hours of the event and would have begun their own investigations if they were intending to lay charges. On the surface it looks like both the rider of the crashed bike and the ute driver could be charged with various things. Only the rider of the second bike sounds like he didn't do anything wrong.

**vifferman** · 16th February 2009, 12:19

Originally Posted by MadDuck

Motorbikes are dangerous dont ride them

They're REALLY dangerous - you shouldn't even look at them the wrong way or they'll totally do you.

**Ixion** · 16th February 2009, 12:20

Sounds a bit dodgy, rear wheel just collapsing. Sure it wasn't electrics? But if it did collapse (*I'm assuming it's a cast alloy wheel BTW), then I'd believe the rider would not be able to steer. When Petal's rear wheel collapsed (progressively) I had very great trouble cornering. hanging off like mad and sawing round a few degrees at a time. So, in that case , I'd revise my earlier statement and call that an "act of God' accident - assuming the bike had a WoF and there was no prior warning.

It seems a bit harsh slating the driver for failure to stop, when he actually DID stop safely, and maybe saved the biker's life? Though not stop *safely* perhaps?

The insecure load charge is the only clear cut one. Can't argue round that, it wasn't secure.

**Ixion** · 16th February 2009, 12:21

Originally Posted by klingon

If this is the same incident that has been described in another thread at the time it happened, ..

Nah, not very likely, riders get taken out by flying boats all the time.

**The Stranger:Me** · 16th February 2009, 12:23

Originally Posted by awayatc

What is the weather like on your planet?

Not sure what planet, but I sure wouldn't mind some of what you're smoking thanks.

**3umph** · 16th February 2009, 13:07

its quite easy to banter back and forwards either way without all the facts or pics of the scene of the accident.

Was the crashed bike still partly on the road when it hit the bank/wall and came to a rest or how far off the road was it??
where was the rider of the crashed bike???

only certain thing that the boat should of been more secure and the trailer should of had a wof and rego

if all the facts are not presented then it is hard to get a mental pic of what really went on and then all have to just guess to what could of happened and then make there mind up from there.

**Winston001** · 16th February 2009, 13:08

It is clear (in this and other threads) that the separation between civil law and criminal law is not understood. Fair enough, it can be confusing.

Civil law = financial liability, insurance, who pays for what, and assessing blame in proportions etc. Many accidents involve fault on both sides but one will often be much higher than the other.

Most people aren't aware of this because both are insured and the two insurance companies sort it out.

Criminal law = prosecution by the police for breaking the law. Fines, disqualification, reparation (compensation) to victims etc.

Breaking the law (eg. no WOF) doesn't make you liable to pay for civil accident damage. If the accident is not your fault why should you be liable? However - not having a warrantable vehicle may mean it contributes to the accident. To that extent, the criminal offence is relevant to the civil argument.