Took down a biker

[YellowDog]

Okay, wel someone needs to teach me how to put a youtube video into my post BUT, i thought this was kinda similar to what your talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU3SzpLfEpw

Ask Q-Moto about the YouTube video stuff. he is now an expert.

BTW: That incident was the impatient drivers fault. He didn't look before attempting to make a U-turn. The biker didn't do anything wrong.

Regarding the Aussie incident on this thread: it is always annoying when you are a biker yourself and you are responsible for taking down a fellow biker. You are well trained at taking all reasonable precautions before making a move and you go out of your way to look for motorcycles.

Glad the guy was alright. I took out a motorcyclist down in central London in the 1980s. I was indicating and looking over my shoulder as I turned left off a main highway. I still don't know where he came from and he would not tell me (yes he was also conscious and unhurt). I don't think I could have done any more than I did to avoid the accident and neither could you.

I do lane split and if I do find myself in a lane in between stationary and moving vehicles, it would have to be at a slow pace. When I am splitting between two lanes, I am always conscious of the cars and their blind spots. I am always ready to move with a car changing lane rather than into one.

I hope he has leart from this incident and will be more careful in future.

[MSTRS:Me]

Sorry but the rider was riding illegally

No. He wasn't. As long as the traffic on his right was stationary. The second they move, tho...

[Conquiztador]

U guys are soo PC!!!

A dick in a cage takes down a biker, surely we all realise that the cagers is at fault!

[Forest]

Sorry for the quick post last night. Here's the missing details regarding the police response.

After both being breathalysed and giving quick statements, the policeman informed me that I was at fault. The reason given was that under Victorian law I have an absolute responsibility to give way to all oncoming traffic at all times.

The rider said "So you're going to give him a ticket!" to which the Policeman replied that no he wouldn't because undertaking was also a prohibited activity on Victorian roads.

After verifying the insurance details, he told us that the matter would be best left in the hands of the insurance companies and left us to exchange details.

I think the outcome was fair, and an example of good policing in action. It also shows the value in having a system of compulsory third party insurance (though that discussion might be best left to another thread).



As an aside. I am technically classified as a tourist here and am driving here in Melbourne on a NZ license. The rider was in Melbourne on a temporary student visa and driving on an Indian issued driving license. As much as I like to think that the Policeman carefully weighed all the evidence and drew on all his wisdom & experience, it could just have been that the corresponding paperwork was all too much to bear.

[Forest]

Okay, wel someone needs to teach me how to put a youtube video into my post BUT, i thought this was kinda similar to what your talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU3SzpLfEpw

No. It wasn't like that situation at all.

Here's a basic diagram

-----------------------------------------
Parked Cars==============================
Van (me) ---->
+++++++++++++++Center Line+++++++++++++++
 <----------------     <----- oncoming traffic (gap opened to let me through)
                          <----- rider (undertaking)
Parked Cars=======     ==================
-----------------------------------------
                  XXXXX (driveway entrance)

Situation:

Oncoming traffic momentarily stalls due to congestion. Gap opens to allow me to turn right and cross over opposing lane into driveway.

Rider is undertaking between oncoming traffic and parked cars.

Rider sees me crossing into driveway, locks wheels, drops bike, slides into the front bumper of my van.

[Marmoot]

Oncoming rider was splitting at ~40 km/h between the stationary traffic and parked cars on his left. I hate to say it, but he really was totally invisible.

How to detect the speed of an invisible thing without using radar?

[Conquiztador]

How to detect the speed of an invisible thing without using radar?

By the time between mobile transmitters as he was clearly texting!

[jaymzw]

No. It wasn't like that situation at all.

Here's a basic diagram

Yeah i didnt really think that one through. Just the similarities of a bike filtering being involved in an accident really.


And then on indianbiker.com theres probably someone posting about how some inconsiderate cage driver pulled out infront of him in Melbourne

Seriously though the compulsory third party insurance laws are great aren't they

[YellowDog]

Yeah i didnt really think that one through. Just the similarities of a bike filtering being involved in an accident really.


And then on indianbiker.com theres probably someone posting about how some inconsiderate cage driver pulled out infront of him in Melbourne

Seriously though the compulsory third party insurance laws are great aren't they

For third party to be of any value, you have to be able to prove that it was the other person's fault.

But yes I do agree that it should be compulsory.

[Forest]

How to detect the speed of an invisible thing without using radar?

That's a good question.

My estimate is based solely on the fact that he laid the bike over and slid it down the road (which I don't think would be possible at low speed).

[gegvasco]

No. He wasn't. As long as the traffic on his right was stationary. The second they move, tho...

Actually, no. He was riding illegally. He was overtaking on the left across a solid line marking the edge of the road. Even if you thought that was OK, he was going too fast for the situation, and an accident resulted. Under Australian law the only time you are allowed to undertake in a lane is if the traffic is turning right or is unusually unable to move (ie. broken down). This exemption doesn't include stopped traffic which is where everyone is supposed to remain in the lane and wait their turn. Splitting on a bike in Oz is technically allowed within a marked lane to the right of other vehicles, not the left. The things the cops may be able to ping riders for while splitting is overtaking on the left or unsafe lane changes(crossing the lane markers without due care) or not indicating a lane change (crossing a lane marker without indicating). It is a nebulous law here and has been the cause of much consternation and thanks to our Federal/State system it still isn't sorted out.

But in the case I witnessed the rider was gone for all money. He had no defence.

[Mikkel]

Picture is he was going down your left - between you and parked cars ... am i right??? Cos I would say he is a twat ... that is not splitting ... that is going down the left beside parked cars.

Sounds to me Nasty is right, he wasn't splitting, he was undertaking!
so he was the wrongest........
However, you still have to give way to oncoming traffic when you turn....
You both have to share in allocation of blame....

There is no graduation of wrong - it is an absolute and you are both exactly that.
You can pass any vehicle within your own lane on the left-hand side if (and only if) the traffic is stationary. MSTRS is quite right about this...

U guys are soo PC!!!

A dick in a cage takes down a biker, surely we all realise that the cagers is at fault!

Surely, this has more to do with a KB member whinging online about being dealt a poor hand by the authorities (or "the powers that be" as BRONZ would have put it).

So long as he wasn't caught speeding, of course he'll get heaps of sympathy.

Sorry for the quick post last night. Here's the missing details regarding the police response.

After both being breathalysed and giving quick statements, the policeman informed me that I was at fault. The reason given was that under Victorian law I have an absolute responsibility to give way to all oncoming traffic at all times.

The rider said "So you're going to give him a ticket!" to which the Policeman replied that no he wouldn't because undertaking was also a prohibited activity on Victorian roads.

After verifying the insurance details, he told us that the matter would be best left in the hands of the insurance companies and left us to exchange details.

I think the outcome was fair, and an example of good policing in action. It also shows the value in having a system of compulsory third party insurance (though that discussion might be best left to another thread).

What you describe is pretty much exactly what I would have expected the police to do... bar the fact they didn't give you a ticket. You could be right about the paperwork - but all in all you were pretty lucky (and so was the biker to be honest).

Enjoy the rest of your "holiday".

My estimate is based solely on the fact that he laid the bike over and slid it down the road (which I don't think would be possible at low speed).

Conservation of momentum dictates that it will slide no matter how fast it is going - the speed only dictates how far

[MSTRS:Me]

It is a nebulous law here and has been the cause of much consternation

As it is here. Sorry, I missed your location, but in NZ splitting is legal in the following circumstances...
Within the marked lane, to the right of any stationary or slow-moving vehicle.
Within the marked lane, to the left of any stationary vehicle.

The nebulous part comes in that 'slow-moving' is not quantified as/under a particular speed, and the speed differential between the 2 vehicles is also not quantified. Every cop seems to have a different idea as to what is acceptable, so you takes your chances when splitting.

[mujambee]

As it is here. Sorry, I missed your location, but in NZ splitting is legal in the following circumstances...
Within the marked lane, to the right of any stationary or slow-moving vehicle.
Within the marked lane, to the left of any stationary vehicle.

The nebulous part comes in that 'slow-moving' is not quantified as/under a particular speed, and the speed differential between the 2 vehicles is also not quantified. Every cop seems to have a different idea as to what is acceptable, so you takes your chances when splitting.

Here it is well defined and there is no doubt: Splitting is not permitted. Period.

As originally posted, that same accident happening here would be the sole responsibility of the bike rider.

[MSTRS:Me]

Here it is well defined and there is no doubt: Splitting is not permitted. Period.

That would be too sensible for NZ. In addition to that, it would seriously impact on their ability to extract 'road tax' from the unwary.
Seriously, NZ law is full of grey areas like this one. Another case in point...we have a statue re assault in all it's forms. There was a section (#59) that referred to physical punishment of one's children. It stated that 'reasonable force' was allowed. Many abusive parents got off a charge of assault using a clever lawyer and this clause. So...instead of clarifying 'reasonable force' (ie open hand on the buttocks, say), our looniest Greenie tried to get the whole section repealed. She only managed to modify the wording to something along the lines of 'minor, inconsequential smack for the purposes of correction'. There's more, but essentially this is still as grey an area as it was before.