Took down a biker

[The Pastor]

Police were called. They declined to write any tickets for either parties.
.

ok now i KNOW you're lying!

[Scouse]

Sorry to differ from most of you, but I think you were in the wrong here forest, as you turned into the bike riders path. Turning traffic should give way to oncomming traffic and as a biker you should be looking out for other bikers. I think the spliting is irrelevent, and I think deep down you know you are in the wrong.

[MSTRS:Me]

Sorry to differ from most of you, but I think you were in the wrong here forest, as you turned into the bike riders path. Turning traffic should give way to oncomming traffic and as a biker you should be looking out for other bikers. I think the spliting is irrelevent, and I think deep down you know you are in the wrong.

It's been stated that splitting on the left is a no no in Oz. That makes it the biker's primary fault

[Mikkel]

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.

Are you 100% certain of this? I seem to recall - having read the road code recently - something like this:

Passing a vehicle within the same lane:

-On the right; at any time provided that it is safe to do so.
-On the left; if the vehicle is stationary, indicating to turn right or performing a right-hand turn.

I could be wrong, but it isn't that long ago that I read the roadcode...

[Max Preload]

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)

Nice diagram!

[MSTRS:Me]

Are you 100% certain of this? I seem to recall - having read the road code recently - something like this:

Passing a vehicle within the same lane:

-On the right; at any time provided that it is safe to do so.
-On the left; if the vehicle is stationary, indicating to turn right or performing a right-hand turn.

I could be wrong, but it isn't that long ago that I read the roadcode...

You may very well be right. The devil is in the details. For the 'on the left' situation, I would not trust that right-turn-indicator if the vehicle was still moving straight forwards. So, stationary it is (for me, at least)

[awayatc]

Yep - agree with you about the underspliting comment but can't see how oncoming traffic comes into the equation. Biker was in the wrong place (overtaking on the left) and moving at a speed which didn't allow him time to react.

True scenario:
Car drives through an intersection controlled by traffic lights.
Lights are green.
From his right a car comes blasting through a red traffic light and the collide.
Cops come.
My mate who went to the green light is guilty of causing the accident, since he didn't give way to the car on his right...
Car that went through the red light got ticketed for doing so.....

Ok it was in a country far far away,
and it was a f**king long time ago....

[klingon]

The biker needs to realise that he is virtually invisible to other traffic when he is between vehicles. The only part visible to an oncoming driver would have been his helmet - doesn't matter if he had lights on or whatever, because the only bit you can see is the bit that sticks up above the cars. If there are trucks, vans or 4-wheel drives in the queue, then there will be times when he is genuinely invisible to oncoming traffic.

The driver of the turning van (especially being a biker himself) should also be aware of exactly the same factors. He should have actively looked for motorbikes and pushbikes coming towards him between the lanes, and been prepared to stop. Just as the bike rider should have looked for turning traffic and been prepared to stop.

So I say they are both at fault.

I split between lanes virtually every day. I have had many times where a vehicle has turned across in front of me, and (so far) I have always been able to stop. As a rider, if you're splitting and see the lanes of cars leaving a gap to let another vehicle through, you'd have to be pretty thick not to expect a vehicle to turn across in front of you at that point.

One of the most frightening incidents (and the best lesson) for me was when I was splitting behind another bike. The front bike was much noisier than mine, so to a certain extent I felt safer because it was "clearing the way" for me and I thought car drivers would be more alert looking for bikes after the noisy bike had passed.

The noisy bike passed one car, and a little kid (maybe 3 or 4 years old) suddenly stuck his head out of the car window to look at the noisy bike. His head was DIRECTLY in front of me, facing away from me. I stopped centimetres away from the back of his head.

No matter who had been in the 'right' or 'wrong' in that situation, if I had slammed into the back of that kid's head, I would never have forgiven myself. Every time I'm lane splitting, my margin for safety is based on that one incident. If I smashed into a turning vehicle I would probably be sore and my bike wrecked. If I smashed into a little kid's head I would be scarred for life.

[MSTRS:Me]

And that's why the onus is always on the biker to do it safely (whatever that is)

[Mikkel]

And that's why the onus is always on the biker to do it safely (whatever that is)

Safely on a bike... at least they've got humour!

[Patch]

I had a similar thing happen except it was a cyclist. The cyclist tried passing between my ute and trailer while I was entering the driveway.

The police gave him a ticket - can't remember what it was for tho.

His mistake earnt him a trip to the horse piddle and the expense of replacing his boss' road bike.

[CookMySock]

Seriously, NZ law is full of grey areas like this one.

Fuck yeah, aint it grand.

Interesting to hear splitting is legal on the left past stationary cars.

If the cop on the scene has no issues with either party... why should we. Let the insurance companys sort it.

Hell yeah. Though, if you argue long enough with him, he can write you a ticket if you really want one.

If cars can't see the biker then he's going to get dead. And when you are dead, you are wrong. The law is irrelevant.

Steve

[NOWOOL]

Sounds like a case of natural selection in progress. You were totally in the right.

[CookMySock]

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.

It seems a little odd to have something compulsory when its that difficult to enforce. A one-in-four chance? One-in-ten? I bet the insurance company is giggling all the way to the bank. Not only do you have to prove the guilty party is guilty, you have to then prove that to the insurance company.

Steve

[mujambee]

The noisy bike passed one car, and a little kid (maybe 3 or 4 years old) suddenly stuck his head out of the car window to look at the noisy bike. His head was DIRECTLY in front of me, facing away from me. I stopped centimetres away from the back of his head.

Pfeew. That must have been frightening.

It seems a little odd to have something compulsory when its that difficult to enforce. A one-in-four chance? One-in-ten? I bet the insurance company is giggling all the way to the bank. Not only do you have to prove the guilty party is guilty, you have to then prove that to the insurance company.

Steve

Remember that, if everyone has third party insurance, there is always one company that has to pay, be it your's or the other's. So it is a one in two to start. Then, if you are in the right, YOUR insurance company will be the one to battle for you, since they'll have to pay for the other's damage.