Legal aid for bike crash - how?

[Patrick]

It doesn't particularly matter what tickets have been issued.

Because small claims frequently does not rule on points of law - as lawyers are not permitted to represent you - it attempts to get parties to agree on a settlement. If the parties do not agree, frequently it awards half of what both parties want, or something close to it.

Won't need a lawyer....

Just an up to date copy of the road code, showing HE did NOTHING wrong, but SHE did EVERYTHING wrong.

[CookMySock]

Won't need a lawyer.... Just an up to date copy of the road code, showing HE did NOTHING wrong, but SHE did EVERYTHING wrong.

Pretty much, and tell her the 80% offer is declined, and since she is cheeky enough to ask it, you would like to talk about 120%.

I bet the dumb pig broad is reading this online.. if she smart enough to be able to open a door at all then she can probably find this forum, so a big "HI" to you huh, and you can go to hell in a handcart for all we care. Next time you do that to a biker we will nail you to the fucking wall and take your career off you. Sharpen up! There is a big difference between a "mistake" and a "stupid, irresponsible and dangerous mistake."

nb. speaking for myself this time.

Steve

[p.dath]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Don't aim for the "just" outcome when going to court - aim for the best outcome possible.

So let us know in six months what the actual award given is. I really hope they at least award you some money, as opposed to deciding that both parties share some fault and awarding you nothing.

But I strongly suspect you'll come away disillusioned with the whole process - most people do.

[CookMySock]

So let us know in six months what the actual award given is. I really hope they at least award you some money, as opposed to deciding that both parties share some fault and awarding you nothing.

There is no basis in law or commonsense for your projected outcome. He should be able to have the SCC rule in his favour in about ten minutes flat, if he chooses that route.

Steve

[CookMySock]

Okay, door opener's insurance company settled him outside court. And since he bought he bike significantly cheaper than "market value" from a private seller, he's made a fair amount of coin off the settlement which has made all this worthwhile.

The fact that he was on a restricted licence on a 1000cc bike (bike had reg and wof) made no difference to this at all.

---

Steve

[CookMySock]

My Personal comments ;

All this has really fueled my anger about just how ordinary citizens are mistreated by the police. Weekly, there is some new thing on KB or National news, whereby some member of the NZP is done some stupid thing and wronged the public yet again. My son clipped someone elses bumper some months ago (left a small paint mark) and gets a careless use conviction and a $900 fine.

I can't see it being sustainable. The hatred towards them increases daily.

I am surprised some pressure group has not brought action against them in the form of an activists website or similar.

I will use the police to get what I want when I can, other than that I do not trust them whatsoever.

Steve

[jono035]

Okay, door opener's insurance company settled him outside court. And since he bought he bike significantly cheaper than "market value" from a private seller, he's made a fair amount of coin off the settlement which has made all this worthwhile.

The fact that he was on a restricted licence on a 1000cc bike (bike had reg and wof) made no difference to this at all.

---

Steve

Awesome, pretty damn good result!

[Patrick]

My Personal comments ;

All this has really fueled my anger about just how ordinary citizens are mistreated by the police. Weekly, there is some new thing on KB or National news, whereby some member of the NZP is done some stupid thing and wronged the public yet again.

So someone didn't understand, the error was corrected and all is sorted.... as it should be. Goes to show the system actually works, I thought............

My son clipped someone elses bumper some months ago (left a small paint mark) and gets a careless use conviction and a $900 fine.

And this is the Police's fault, how????????????????? At a guess.... he drove off without leaving details, but was seen by someone else.....? That, or he has an absolutely shocking driving history..... But I could be wrong. $900 for careless must be a record....... and the court imposed that fine, not the Police......

I can't see it being sustainable. The hatred towards them increases daily.

Mostly from the ones who break the rules..... still.......

I am surprised some pressure group has not brought action against them in the form of an activists website or similar.

Geez you can be a drama queen sometimes.......

I will use the police to get what I want when I can, other than that I do not trust them whatsoever.

Steve

What a user. I wonder how your mate feels.

[avgas]

The fact that he was on a restricted licence on a 1000cc bike (bike had reg and wof) made no difference to this at all.

What the frack - how does 1 have insurance for a bike he is legally not entitled to ride?
Fuck this I am buying a tracked tank (T72 sounds nice) and going to see what happens when I get hit and claim for insurance.
Welcome to NZ - land of the long fluffy safety net

[Patrick]

What the frack - how does 1 have insurance for a bike he is legally not entitled to ride?
Fuck this I am buying a tracked tank (T72 sounds nice) and going to see what happens when I get hit and claim for insurance.
Welcome to NZ - land of the long fluffy safety net

But that wasn't the cause of the crash. The "cause" was the door opener who didn't look.

[breakaway]

What the frack - how does 1 have insurance for a bike he is legally not entitled to ride?
Fuck this I am buying a tracked tank (T72 sounds nice) and going to see what happens when I get hit and claim for insurance.
Welcome to NZ - land of the long fluffy safety net

What Patrick said, and, he wasn't insured. HER insurance co paid him out.

[jono035]

But that wasn't the cause of the crash. The "cause" was the door opener who didn't look.

Yeah, and insurance isn't just for 'in case your stuff gets damaged' it is also for 'in case you damage other peoples stuff'.

[CookMySock]

@Patrick, you are always going to defend your industry, and that is not surprising.

You don't have all the facts about the aforementioned teenage driver whatsoever, but you make sweeping generalisations about his general ability, poor attitude, and previous driving convictions. On this forums that means that means nothing, but you reveal quite a lot about how a police officers' mind works, and this is exactly the problem we are referring to. People like you with a small amount of authority who already know everything but actually know nothing, usually proceed to court on that basis, and don't want to hear anything other than what they believe. If we have anything to do with it, it will be at least egg on your face, but if it comes to blood on the floor then we are up for that.

Best to shut up, I think, when you don't know the history or the person.

Steve

[Hiflyer]

But that wasn't the cause of the crash. The "cause" was the door opener who didn't look.

Yup, It's like excesses as well,

Cos my bike was stolen, my excess is $250 as opposed to $1200 or whatever it is, cos the fact I'm not on my full and under 25 doesn't contribute to the loss.

[CookMySock]

What the frack - how does 1 have insurance for a bike he is legally not entitled to ride?t

Her insurance company paid him out, as he was a valid third party.

Her insurance policy makes no mention of, and places no restrictions on, whether he was riding a trike, a gixxer thou, or a fucking 747.. It just says that they will cover her 3rd party expenses if there are any.

Since there were 3rd party expenses, then they have a contractual and legal obligation to her to cover these costs, they paid him out. There is no provision for them to argue whether he was in the right or wrong.

It is the curious situation where the uninsured has more rights and better cover, than the insured. Certainly, had the insured be riding or driving outside their license conditions, they wouldn't have got a cent, where the 3rd party (who didn't contribute a dollar to the premium) was fully covered. Quite funny really.

Steve