Lane splitting accident

**Gremlin** · 15th July 2013, 12:36

Originally Posted by Katman

I would suggest the fact that the motorcycle hit the rear door (as opposed to the front guard) indicates that they had more than enough time to safely react to the turning vehicle.

Read the whole post (and thread) and missed that

Would depend on drivers speed I think. If you're slowly going through, then yes, you wouldn't have seen the motorcyclist as you drove across and had almost completed the turn before being hit. If hauling ass through the gap then it doesn't exactly meet the test of a prudent driver.

**imdying** · 15th July 2013, 12:39

Regardless of the law, the motorcyclist got what he deserved. You don't get much more of danger area than that, and given he is soft and squishy, he should damn well be making sure there's not traffic turning across.

**Banditbandit** · 15th July 2013, 12:43

Originally Posted by bosslady

[LIST][*](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[/LIST]

(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 aboard.

(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

.......

If it's legal to lane share so long as there is enough room for both vehicles and it's legal to pass on the left if the overtaken vehicle is stationary then apart from the fact the motorcyclist should have exercised more caution, then why is he in the wrong?

The car that was passed on the left was not signalling a right turn .. as above .. that's what puts the motorcyclist in the wrong .. as well s being a suicidal dickhead ...

I'm with the majority - a stupid move because the rider was blind from the cars ... it was an intersection .. any car on the insidelanes that he pased on the left may well have turned left and taken out the bike ...

FIght it mate .. the rider stuffed up - why should you pay ...

**bogan** · 15th July 2013, 12:48

Originally Posted by Katman

I would suggest the fact that the motorcycle hit the rear door (as opposed to the front guard) indicates that they had more than enough time to safely react to the turning vehicle.

They should have, had they been riding cautiously. Hitting the rear door in itself doesn't show much in terms of reaction time when his l.o.s. was blocked by a van, chances are even at 30kmhr he wouldn't have had time to stop.

**Voltaire** · 15th July 2013, 12:51

Back in the 80's had exactly the same scenario as the diagram but instead of a motorcycle it was a cyclist.
I turned saw the cyclist and stopped, the cyclist got such a fright that they fell off.
I picked her up and made sure she was all right, the ACC cop arrived heard the story took a few notes, and that I thought was that.....
Well no it wasn't trip to court on Careless Use of Vehicle. I got off as the cop didn't turn up.
As soon as your cross the centre line you are in the wrong I was told.

Ratez · 15th July 2013, 12:52

Originally Posted by bogan

They should have, had they been riding cautiously. Hitting the rear door in itself doesn't show much in terms of reaction time when his l.o.s. was blocked by a van, chances are even at 30kmhr he wouldn't have had time to stop.

I guess if the road wasn't 60km/h limit, I could use that argument. I guess they weighed it out and ultimately 'failing to give way to oncoming traffic' sounds worse between me and him.

**bosslady** · 15th July 2013, 13:03

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

The car that was passed on the left was not signalling a right turn .. as above .. that's what puts the motorcyclist in the wrong .. as well s being a suicidal dickhead ...

I'm with the majority - a stupid move because the rider was blind from the cars ... it was an intersection .. any car on the insidelanes that he pased on the left may well have turned left and taken out the bike ...

FIght it mate .. the rider stuffed up - why should you pay ...[/COLOR]

But you forget it also says even if the vehicle is stationary and not indicating, merely stationary, that it can be passed on the left. Sounds to me the motorcyclist did nothing illegal but did not take enough care when he pulled out in front of the van. He should have slowed down, approached the gap with caution and made sure it was clear before proceeding.

**Katman** · 15th July 2013, 13:03

Originally Posted by iYRe

He had the right to be there.. from the bus stop onwards is considered three lanes. So he wasnt "splitting" he was just getting in the left hand lane earlier than most cars could.

Actually, no.

At the point of impact the road was still only marked as two lanes.

**Banditbandit** · 15th July 2013, 13:07

Originally Posted by bosslady

But you forget it also says even if the vehicle is stationary and not indicating, merely stationary, that it can be passed on the left. Sounds to me the motorcyclist did nothing illegal but did not take enough care when he pulled out in front of the van. He should have slowed down, approached the gap with caution and made sure it was clear before proceeding.

Hmm ... you may be right ... but don't go looking for excuses to pass on the inside like that -it's a pretty suicidal move on a bike .. and if the car is NOT indicating right, if it is stationary it may move left .. then you're fucked ..

**Swoop** · 15th July 2013, 13:08

Turning traffic always gives way to straight-through traffic.

**bosslady** · 15th July 2013, 13:17

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

Hmm ... you may be right ... but don't go looking for excuses to pass on the inside like that -it's a pretty suicidal move on a bike .. and if the car is NOT indicating right, if it is stationary it may move left .. then you're fucked ..

Totally agree. Personally im incredibly wary even if the car IS indicating right. So many people change their minds at the last minute especially if they don't know where they are I.e. they're looking for an address.

**iYRe** · 15th July 2013, 13:17

Originally Posted by Ratez

Haha maybe if I stopped driving a beemer I would be more attentive! There it is, its the beemers fault definitely. The bike and the car were both BMWs

.

Yeah I accept whatever the insurance throws at me, just didn't think the cops would slap me too.

I was hit by a beemer driver on dominion rd, because he was trying to turn right between me and a bicycle.. he clipped my exhaust. Luckily I stayed upright.

Katman,

Its not marked because its a driveway and they start the marking just after it (the driveway). Its still considered 3 lanes. I lived 1km up the road from it for 8 years..

**Katman** · 15th July 2013, 13:23

Originally Posted by iYRe

Katman,

Its not marked because its a driveway and they start the marking just after it (the driveway). Its still considered 3 lanes. I lived 1km up the road from it for 8 years..

Doesn't really matter what you 'consider' it to be.

The road is marked at that point as two lanes.

The third lane starts just beyond the driveway entrance.

**iYRe** · 15th July 2013, 13:25

Originally Posted by Katman

Doesn't really matter what you 'consider' it to be.

The road is marked at that point as two lanes.

The third lane starts just beyond the driveway entrance.

its more important what the police consider it to be.. which pretty much makes your argument invalid.