Legal help needed from lane splitting accident

[Max Preload]

as i said 32 pages ago.

he has not however, confirmed if the traffic was moving (i suspect it was) - except for the the cars stopping to let the lady across the road - and whether he was undertaking on the left, or overtaking on the right (i suspect undertaking on the left)

In which case it's a passing when prohibited (but only if the vehicle he was overtaking was moving AND he was in the same lane but to it's left - if it was stopped it's not an offence).

i believe she was entitled to move across the lane, given the room given by the other drivers. she could hardly give way to someone/something that she could not see, nor should expect to see.

No way. Under no circumstances is she is entitled to cross opposing lanes of traffic if she cannot see to make sure the way is clear. Ever.

the OP is not guilty of 'driving in an unavailable lane' there is no doubt of that. possibly of careless driving, or overtaking without 100m clear viz, or overtaking on the left (same lane) though.

Careless would be a stretch. 100m doesn't apply - he never crossed the centreline. But she did... although not in the process of overtaking.

I'd still like to know if she was issued an offence notice. If not, that's completely fucked up.

[marty]

funny thing is, i don't really give a fuck who was at fault. it's not my problem.

[Max Preload]

funny thing is, i don't really give a fuck who was at fault. it's not my problem.

You're doing a lot of posting on it for someone who doesn't give a fuck about it.

I do give a fuck about it because she should be taught it's not ok to turn across opposing lanes if you can't fucking well see. What she did should be a 28-day roadside license suspension and mandatory resitting of her license (theory and practical). Just as with anyone who causes a crash between vehicles.

[dangerous]

He's not illiterate, it's Dangerese, learn to use it and get with the times..

yeah well my reading/spelling ability or there part lack of... really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so I moved on past that wasted post.

You're doing a lot of posting on it for someone who doesn't give a fuck about it.

I do give a fuck about it because she should be taught it's not ok to turn across opposing lanes if you can't fucking well see.

you might find Marty has wiped a few messes up of the road in the past messes that were in the right and wrong, you miss his point.

your second statment is floored aswell... NO one other than 'some' bikers would have considered a 3rd vechical, after all its a TWO lane road. Most accos happen cos drivers AND riders THOUGHT they could see and the way was clear, blind spots and all that.

Seems to me those wanting to hang the cage driver all filter/split and you are defending your actions. those suporting the cage driver like myself DONT split, Im lucky down here we dont have to, other wise I proberly would and even tho legal (if rules are followd) Id expect the worse and consider it my bad, you do have to think for every bastard out there.

[onearmedbandit]

Right or wrong, left or right, illegal or legal, it all doesn't matter at the end of the day. There are lessons to be learnt for both parties. For the driver of the car, never assume that the lane is clear, as there could be cyclists or motorcyclists lane splitting (it happens, deal with it). For the rider, never assume your way is clear when splitting. Spidey sense should be at max when splitting, you should not be thinking of anything else other than environment awareness.

[Max Preload]

yeah well my reading/spelling ability or there part lack of... really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, so I moved on past that wasted post..

No use ignoring the problem.

you might find Marty has wiped a few messes up of the road in the past messes that were in the right and wrong, you miss his point..

That's of very little relevance. Like I've said before, I've already conceded that eng_dave could have done more in terms of self-preservation. More importantly the car driver could have done more with regard obeying the road rules. If turning give way to all traffic not turning.

your second statment is floored aswell... NO one other than 'some' bikers would have considered a 3rd vechical, after all its a TWO lane road. Most accos happen cos drivers AND riders THOUGHT they could see and the way was clear, blind spots and all that..

I think you mean flawed. But I digress. Anyone with a license should have considered that there could be something coming where they couldn't see that they're obliged to give way to. Therein lies the real source of our road toll - poor driving due to non-training and ignorance - not speeding. And I don't give a fuck if they THOUGHT the way was clear of vehicles they're obliged to give way to - that is absolutely no defense.

Just imagine a scenario on the open road at a cross road where she's turning right and an opposing lane logging truck is turning right. She can't see the bike passing the logging truck, on the left, as he is entitled to do, because the truck has indicated a right turn, and she goes and collects the bike in the L/F guard. Would you try to justify that too?

Seems to me those wanting to hang the cage driver all filter/split and you are defending your actions. those suporting the cage driver like myself DONT split, Im lucky down here we dont have to, other wise I proberly would and even tho legal (if rules are followd) Id expect the worse and consider it my bad, you do have to think for every bastard out there.

There's nothing to defend - it's not illegal. I simply believe shes not competent enough to be on the road because she goes even if she can't see. I don't like 'roll of the dice' driving.

[marty]

Just like anyone with a licence (and a lot more to lose than a rear window) should have thought - 'the lights are green - all the traffic's moving, except for these cars stopped here - I wonder what they have stopped for? Being courteous maybe? Nah - I'm in Auckland - that doesn't happen here - I'll just sail right through....'

[Brooke]

Stink, thing is if you were a cyclist on the far left, you probably wouldn't have seen her either being blocked by a car and a bus, what would happen then?

[Ixion]

Just like anyone with a licence (and a lot more to lose than a rear window) should have thought - 'the lights are green - all the traffic's moving, except for these cars stopped here - I wonder what they have stopped for? Being courteous maybe? Nah - I'm in Auckland - that doesn't happen here - I'll just sail right through....'

Very wise. And common sense. But the question was pertaining to the law, and since when ahs the law had anything to do with common sense, or wisdom. And the rider is under no legal obligation to do so

A wise and sensible rider would have thought as you indicate. So, if the question be, who is the greater pratt, or driver or rider, the answer must be 'the rider'. But if the question be (as it was in the OP), who is legally in the right (or wrong), then the answer must be that the rider is (probably- assuming all is as narrated) in the right, and the driver in the wrong.

[marty]

someone's already said it - it's all well and good being in the right - til you try and prove it. personally, i think it's shared responsibility, and as i have already said, it's NOT using an unavailable lane. it's not my place to advise on a course of action - that's what lawyers are for.

[Eng_dave]

Right or wrong, left or right, illegal or legal, it all doesn't matter at the end of the day. There are lessons to be learnt for both parties. For the driver of the car, never assume that the lane is clear, as there could be cyclists or motorcyclists lane splitting (it happens, deal with it). For the rider, never assume your way is clear when splitting. Spidey sense should be at max when splitting, you should not be thinking of anything else other than environment awareness.

I absolutley agree and always try do so, (this is one of those times were even riding with 100% concentrarion didn't help) I honestly believe we are both to blame on both parts, and have no objections to that. I'm not looking to apease my part in this only i find it unfair to be told sitting in the back of an ambulance that the police find neither of us at fault at the time. Only to be sitting at home a week later having been found guilty with no contact or conversation and a fine thrown in. I'm actually now more mad at the police than at my self or the other driver for having written of my baby.

[Max Preload]

I absolutley agree and always try do so, (this is one of those times were even riding with 100% concentrarion didn't help) I honestly believe we are both to blame on both parts, and have no objections to that. I'm not looking to apease my part in this only i find it unfair to be told sitting in the back of an ambulance that the police find neither of us at fault at the time. Only to be sitting at home a week later having been found guilty with no contact or conversation and a fine thrown in. I'm actually now more mad at the police than at my self or the other driver for having written of my baby.

You're not guilty until you pay the fine or lose in a defended hearing. To just pay the fine would be an injustice, especially if she wasn't issued one because she's the only one that actually did something she was not entitled to do.

Up to you if you want to roll over. I wouldn't.

[R-Soul]

Yes didn't leave the bike endoed Up on front wheel the fact i hit her back window was more indicative of her speed cutting across than mine.

No its not- her speed was transverse to yours, and would not have an effect on your forward momentum, nor the speed with which you hit her ewindow. I undertand that you hit her left rear side window, and not her rear window? (for Clivoris's sake?)

I think you are being less than honest about your speed. Having said that, she turned across your path and should have given way. She should not have gone without due caution. She clearly did not use due caution.

The only aspect is whether what you were doing was legal. If it was not, and she was being waved through, then you should never have right of way by breaking the law.

If your filtering was legal, then you have the right of way, and she should have given way.

I have seen explanation on this site that filtering is legal if
a) you were passing to teh right of a car in their lane
b) your indicator was on

I dont know how true these are. Does anybody have any actual refernces to the law here re passing in the same lane? The ones below were not relevant.

[Grubber]

You're doing a lot of posting on it for someone who doesn't give a fuck about it.

I do give a fuck about it because she should be taught it's not ok to turn across opposing lanes if you can't fucking well see. What she did should be a 28-day roadside license suspension and mandatory resitting of her license (theory and practical). Just as with anyone who causes a crash between vehicles.

Think your way off the mark....She turned across a 2 lane road where there was 2 cars allowing her room. That in theory is all she should have to watch for as there is no third lane. If you lane split you need to be aware of these things and take your chances at the time. Me thinks bike is in the wrong as he was in fact not in a lane and between cars where he would not have been easily seen. Simple really!

[R-Soul]

If you pay the fine, you admit you were breaking the law, and leaves a gap for her lawyers to nail you for the costs of the accident. While breaking the law, you have no rights. Your insurance should pay for it (unless they refute the claim on the basis that you were insured on the basis that you road legally). But if they pay for it, you will have to pay the excess (ass its then your fault), and your premium may (read will) go up.

It all hinges on whether what you were doing was legal. Again, I have not seen any actual rules that state it is.