Legal help needed from lane splitting accident

[R-Soul]

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!

Again, if the law ALLOWS for a bike to pass a car in the same lane, then she should, as a driver deemed to be aware of the road rules, have accounted for this possibility. And its commonsense that you dont just go, but look before you go.

But does the law allow it? if so, what clauses?

[GOONR]

Again, if the law ALLOWS for a bike to pass a car in the same lane, then she should, as a driver deemed to be aware of the road rules, have accounted for this possibility. And its commonsense that you dont just go, but look before you go.

But does the law allow it? if so, what clauses?

It depends on the lane he was in and / or if the traffic was stationary. Passing on the left is legal if you are in a different lane or if the traffic is stationary.


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.
Compare: SR 1976/227 r 8(1)

[R-Soul]

General passing:

(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.
(2) Subclause (1)(c) and (d) does not apply if the passing vehicle and the vehicle being passed are in different lanes and
are, throughout the passing movement, either on a one-way road or on the same side of the centre line.
(3) A driver must not, when passing another vehicle moving in the same direction, move into the line of passage of that
vehicle until the manoeuvre can be made safely and without impeding the movement of that other vehicle.

To my mind, clause 2 clearly envisages the idea that there can be passing where "the passing vehicle and the vehicle being passed" are NOT in "different lanes". But then sub clauses c) and d) apply. to my mind, this is fine, since you were not impeding opposing traffic - in THEIR LANE. They could argue that you did not have a "clear view of the road and any traffic on the road for at least 100 m in the direction" in which you were travelling. You can argue that you did, but were not expecting the car to pull out ayway.

2.7 Passing on right
A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the right of another vehicle moving in the same direction when—

(a) approaching or crossing an intersection unless—

(i) the roadway is marked in lanes and the driver can make the movement without the driver's vehicle encroaching on a lane available for opposing traffic; or

(ii) in any other case, the driver can make the movement with safety and with due consideration for users of the intersecting road; or

(b) approaching or passing a flush median, unless the driver—

(i) intends to turn right from the road marked with the flush median into another road or vehicle entrance; or

(ii) has turned right onto the road marked with the flush median; or

(iii) can make the entire movement without encroaching on the flush median.

You were not approaching an intersection, nor approaching a flush median. So you were entitkled to pass on the right.


Passing on the 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.


There is a question whther the vehicles were "moving". You can argue that you were in a different lane from the vehicle being opassed on the left (if you were), so 2b) and 2c) dont apply.
The roadway was marked in lanes, so there is aquestion as to whether your vehicle encroached on a lane that was "unavailable" to you.
Going on the general passing rule that apparently passing in the same lane is allowable, you could argue that the labne was not unavailable, and so 3) does not apply.
PS I have not seen any thing about indicators?

[GOONR]

.....PS I have not seen any thing about indicators?....

I guess that would be covered under Drivers Signals. It is vague with regards to splitting, as a motorbike doesn't necessarily need to move to the right to overtake.


A driver who intends to turn or move to the right or to draw out from a kerb on the left side of the vehicle must signal for at least 3 seconds either—
(a) by means of an approved signalling device; or

[MarkH]

The way I see it is the rider should have seen the gap ahead of the bus and the car to its left and slowed right down realising that the gap could be there for a reason and also that the bus represented an obvious vision hazard. The car driver failed to give way to the bike, but that is understandable considering she couldn't see it and with 2 out of 2 lanes giving way to her she could be forgiven for thinking the way was clear to safely turn.

The best result would be for all readers of this thread to learn a lesson from this and use a lot of caution in this sort of situation - looking for and being wary of gaps like the one that the car turned through in the OP. I am guessing that Eng_dave will be very wary of gaps in future, I hope others will also learn from his unfortunate lesson.

[GOONR]

The way I see it is the rider should have seen the gap ahead of the bus and the car to its left and slowed right down realising that the gap could be there for a reason and also that the bus represented an obvious vision hazard. The car driver failed to give way to the bike, but that is understandable considering she couldn't see it and with 2 out of 2 lanes giving way to her she could be forgiven for thinking the way was clear to safely turn.

The best result would be for all readers of this thread to learn a lesson from this and use a lot of caution in this sort of situation - looking for and being wary of gaps like the one that the car turned through in the OP. I am guessing that Eng_dave will be very wary of gaps in future, I hope others will also learn from his unfortunate lesson.

I agree with that, if I'm filtering/splitting alarm bells ring if I see a gap that a car might be able to get through. I used to use the transit lane down Onewa Rd every day, lots of side roads. I would always approach these with caution as sometimes you couldn't tell (cause there was a truck or whatever in the right hand lane) if a car was going to cut across your path heading into one of the side roads.

[MarkH]

I agree with that, if I'm filtering/splitting alarm bells ring if I see a gap that a car might be able to get through. I used to use the transit lane down Onewa Rd every day, lots of side roads. I would always approach these with caution as sometimes you couldn't tell (cause there was a truck or whatever in the right hand lane) if a car was going to cut across your path heading into one of the side roads.

Gaps on the motorway are also potential hazards - sometimes the car in the next lane decides to move over into the gap. They should indicate for at least 3 seconds first, so it shouldn't be a problem, but . .

[GOONR]

Gaps on the motorway are also potential hazards - sometimes the car in the next lane decides to move over into the gap. They should indicate for at least 3 seconds first, so it shouldn't be a problem, but . .

Yeah I watch out for those too, also when moving in to a gap in another lane and a car decides to go for it at the same time.

Anyway this is moving I reckon that Eng_dave would have a hard time proving he was filtering / splitting within the legal definitions of overtaking.

I don't know how the law works on this, if he decided not to pay the fine, take it to court and IF he won could plod then decide to charge him for something else?

[Ixion]

Not normally. In this case the police have made a poor choice of what to charge him with. They always struggle with this, because none of the Road Rules really cover it. They are all based around cars, and we sneak through the little loop holes and interstices. The only thing that really covers it is careless driving (failure to give way is an obvious for her): but careless is rather harsh for the circumstances.

[MarkH]

Anyway this is moving

Hey, if everyone reading this can't use it as an example to learn from so they don't end up in the same situation then what is the point of having this forum? This thread isn't just for the OPs benefit, it is for the benefit of all forum members reading it. Personally I'd rather learn from other peoples experiences than have to go through every misfortune myself!

As far as Eng_dave's current decision - If it were me I would pay the fine and shrug it off, it seems too much work to challenge it just for the sake of $150. Though maybe sending in a well worded letter could be worth trying - I wouldn't want to waste the time fighting this in court so if they replied with "tough titties, pay up" then I probably would just pay the fine.

[Tunahunter]

Good comment - the learning from this incident is that if you are proceeding adjacent to a line of stationery cars (legally or otherwise) and a gap appears - the gap is more likely for someone esle - why would it be for you? - be very watchful.

[MarkH]

Good comment - the learning from this incident is that if you are proceeding adjacent to a line of stationery cars (legally or otherwise) and a gap appears - the gap is more likely for someone esle - why would it be for you? - be very watchful.

That and also be very careful around buses, they are big and tend to obstruct the view of other hazards.

[GOONR]

Hey, if everyone reading this can't use it as an example to learn from so they don't end up in the same situation then what is the point of having this forum? This thread isn't just for the OPs benefit, it is for the benefit of all forum members reading it. Personally I'd rather learn from other peoples experiences than have to go through every misfortune myself!

As far as Eng_dave's current decision - If it were me I would pay the fine and shrug it off, it seems too much work to challenge it just for the sake of $150. Though maybe sending in a well worded letter could be worth trying - I wouldn't want to waste the time fighting this in court so if they replied with "tough titties, pay up" then I probably would just pay the fine.

The only reason that I mentioned it was going off topic is because "off topic" post's can be (not sure if they would be though) removed by the mods, that's all.

[Ducky848]

This is easy.

Fight it.

I got pinged a while back doing EXACTLY the same thing as the car driver in this situation.

I drove my cage in front of a car hurtling up the INSIDE of the stationary traffic in a single lane situation.

I got pinged careless cos I turned right and I did not give way. Made no difference that the straight ahead car should not have been there. Fair cop, I should have looked properly before hitting the gas.

[qwertydog]

Bikers are forced to ride to expect any situation and react accordingly because they dont have as much protection, why should it be any different just because cage drivers most likely won't get injured if they have a minor accident? Bikers have to ride cautiously, the driver should have been cautious and expected the worst