Legal help needed from lane splitting accident

[The Pastor]

Car drivers do not expect motorcyclists to appear out of nowhere, from a position within a lane that they've identified another vehicle legally occupying.

If you're going to lane split, wear the consequences if things turn to shit.

And, as has already been said, since the motorcyclist hit the car in the rear side window the turn was well under way before the motorcyclist happened along.

naaa i'd agree its an accepted risk for lane splitting, but its legally the car drivers fault.

[scumdog]

Yup,
A hard lesson, but at least you walked away from this one.....

Not totally sure, as in your words the drawing is rubbish, but I'm guessing the car drivers had a communication thing going on with the car turning right.
Then you come along and stuff up their little act of kindness....
OR, they realised it would be a little arrogant to block a drive way somebody might want to use.... like that car with it's indicator on.

Yes, be careful when splitting. You have to ride for BOTH lanes you are splitting, not just ride the while line.....

Ride safe.

This guy summed it up perfectly --- just be alert.

The world need more lerts..

[marty]

it's not 'riding in an unavailable lane', but imho, you're screwed. I doubt whether you'd get sympathy from a JP, you should have been eyes up and looking for ANYTHING moving or possibly a threat (a car sitting in the cross-hatched centre lane would be a clue they are going to turn across). I think you're lucky to get away without Careless Driving. I doubt the car driver would wear fault - all she needs to say is 'there was 2 lanes of traffic, stopped, they both waved me through - I looked and could not see anything coming so I crossed. I did not expect to see a bike coming through undertaking (no pun intended) a marginally legal manouvre'

• Contents
• › Part 2 Roads

2.6 General requirements about passing other vehicles

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction unless—

• (a) the movement can be made with safety; and

• (b) the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; and

• (c) sufficient clear road is visible to the driver for the passing movement to be completed without impeding or being likely to impede any possible opposing traffic; and

(d) until the passing movement is completed, the driver has a clear view of the road and any traffic on the road for at least 100 m in the direction in which the driver is travelling





.8 Passing on left

• (1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the left of another vehicle moving in the same direction except in accordance with this clause.
  
  (2) In any case in which the movement referred to subclause (1) may be made,—
  
  • (a) the 2 vehicles must be in different lanes; or
  
  
  
  • (b) the overtaken vehicle must be stationary or its driver must have given or be giving the prescribed signal of that driver's intention to turn right; or
  
  
  
  • (c) if the overtaken vehicle is a light rail vehicle moving in the same direction, the light rail vehicle must not be—
    
    • (i) signalling an intention to turn left or to stop; or
    
    
    
    • (ii) stationary for the purposes of allowing passengers to alight or board.
    
    
  
  
  (3) If the roadway is marked in lanes, the driver may make the movement referred in subclause (1) only if the driver's vehicle does not encroach on a lane that is unavailable to a driver.
  

• Contents
• › Part 5 Limits

5.9 Stopping and following distances

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.

[Max Preload]

EDIT: On second thought, they might ping you for "failure to stop in the length of road visable" too if you argue it.

No, that doesn't apply when the vehicle you hit should have given way.

This might be a little picky but if you hit her "back" window, it sounds like you hit her. It would seem to place the onus on you to avoid a vehicle that would have assumed right of way as the 2 vehicles she could see were giving way.

The other vehicles were not giving way - they were just doing what they're obligated to do - not entering an intersection when their path across it or exit from it is blocked by stationary vehicles.

How was it possable for the turning cage to have knowen you were there? the last thing they would have expected was a 3rd vehical in two lanes.

It wasn't possible - and that's the point. She couldn't see, she shouldn't have gone.

One of the points I'm trying to make is that when she entered the area, the way was clear. The rider hit the rear of the car.

No, she ASSUMED there were no vehicles coming. She should not have gone if she could not see.

While technically correct... 90% of cagers would not consider a bike splitting, hence it is most likely to end in tears, so if ya have to do it, expect the worse, and pay the price.

The only person that need pay any price is the person who went despite not being able to see if there were any vehicles coming. Maybe then they'll learn to consider more possibilities and become better drivers.

[scumdog]

you fucked up, wana split... then pay the price. How was it possable for the turning cage to have knowen you were there?..

True.

"I couldn't see a bike comeing - so there couldn't have been one eh??"

SOMEBODY is going to end up in tears if they follow that line of thought.

[Max Preload]

2.6 General requirements about passing other vehicles

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction unless—

• (a) the movement can be made with safety; and

• (b) the movement is made with due consideration for other users of the road; and

• (c) sufficient clear road is visible to the driver for the passing movement to be completed without impeding or being likely to impede any possible opposing traffic; and

(d) until the passing movement is completed, the driver has a clear view of the road and any traffic on the road for at least 100 m in the direction in which the driver is travelling

The vehicles being passed were not moving.

[Eng_dave]

I would be wary about admitting anything. Next thing her insurance company will be all over you for the full cost of repairs.
And whats this driving in an unavailable lane bs?
It must have been available, you were in it and so was a car.
From a motorcycling perspective I would say its your fault for not keeping your eyes open and wondering why the cars around you werent moving when the ones in front had moved. But this is about the law. She has obviously turned across the lanes without ensuring the way is clear. Saying she didnt see you because her view was blocked by the car to your right is no defence.
I would ask a lawyer.
Maybe she could blame the cars that stopped for allowing her to turn?

All right so i haven't done anything yet but i know she has no insurance and im fully comp so if i do pay up do i still get charged.

[dangerous]

naaa i'd agree its an accepted risk for lane splitting, but its legally the car drivers fault.

only if they were NOT indercating and ONLY if Eng_dave WAS on the left of the line AND indercating.

The only person that need pay any price is the person who went despite not being able to see if there were any vehicles coming. Maybe then they'll learn to consider more possibilities and become better drivers.

correct... you are talking about Eng_dave... right.

[marty]

The vehicles being passed were not moving.

actually, he said lights turned green ahead of me and traffic started to move . that was a clue for me

i was cut and pasting the legislation so others could be properly informed (a concept many on here are unfamiliar with)

there's always this if the cars were stopped at a pedestrian crossing >>>

Passing at school crossing point or pedestrian crossings

• A driver must not pass or attempt to pass a vehicle that has stopped or slowed down at a school crossing point or pedestrian crossing in order to comply with clause 3.9 or subclause 10.1(1).
  
  Compare: SR 1976/227 r 12(2)

[MarkH]

Attachment 207948

I don't believe it is illegal to filter passed stationary traffic but from reading this thread all the way through it is my opinion that both drivers were at fault. Lane splitting without taking enough care, especially when going passed a bus which restricts your visibility - that would be the mistake you made. Turning without being able to see passed the bus to be sure that there were no other vehicles to give way to would be here mistake.

So yeah, both at fault.

[Eng_dave]

nope no pedestrian crossing in sight or intersection, was private driveway.

[marty]

yeah your picture indicated that. was there a crossing at the front of the cars? how far was the front of the que? how fast were the cars that you were overtaking going? which lane were you actually in? overtaking on the left or overtaking on the right? what would you have done if, while you were overtaking, a dog or child ran through a gap in the traffic, and you were going too fast to stop in time? who's fault would that have been?

[Eng_dave]

yeah your picture indicated that. was there a crossing at the front of the cars? how far was the front of the que? how fast were the cars that you were overtaking going? which lane were you actually in? overtaking on the left or overtaking on the right? what would you have done if, while you were overtaking, a dog or child ran through a gap in the traffic, and you were going too fast to stop in time? who's fault would that have been?

I was only going 20k max, about 10 meters to the lights. I'm not saying moraly I'm not at fault and everything. But the police on the scene and both my self and the other driver realised we were both to blame. But I find it harsh that its been one week after the fat with no other consultation or forward i recieve a fine and notice. So im wondering what my legal stand point is.

[Mom]

Pay the fine and be grateful you were not more badly injured and or charged for your behaviour. In your opening post you say...

"So about a week ago had a bit of a ding whilest lane splitting on great Nrth rd, cars were stationary, lights turned green ahead of me and traffic started to move..."

Sure, filter to the head of the queue when the traffic is stopped, but once it starts moving you should be joining back into the flow, not cruising up the middle.

[Eng_dave]

yes, but not the veichles i was next to usually i use the flow of traffic to mearge back into a lane which is hard to do with stationary vehicles. I have no problem paying the fine and of cause am very aware of how lucky i'am to get out of that with hardly any injury.