First crash, I need advice

[russd7]

The median strip is not a lane ... and not to be used as such. And it is still not legal to overtake on the right of that vehicle lawfully in its lane. There is no 50/50 at fault ... as a vehicle colliding with a vehicle in front is almost always at fault. More so it the collision occurs with a vehicle legally turning on/across a flush median strip.



See above about colliding with a vehicle in front of you.

Overtaking on roadway ... that is illegal to be used for the purpose of overtaking is ... ummm ... Illegal. So ... how could the vehicle in front (legally turning) be any way at fault .. ???

quite simple, they didn't check the way was clear which is also illegal, unfortunately i have been to small claims with my daughter for a situation where even our insurance co beleived that she was in no way at fault but the adjudicator rule 50/50 just because she was driving on an icy road and was not able to stop in time to avoid hitting the vehicle pulling out of a car park, (note if the conditions were dry she would have been able to avoid the accident)
on your logic then driving a vehicle that has an out of date warrant makes you automatically at fault if in an accident as the vehicle should not be on the road.

[haydes55]

As much as I believe it takes 2 people to crash, and both parties could have done something simple to avoid the accident. I vote biker 99% at fault. Simple really, no car driver will ever check before pulling into a median strip (ok maybe 3 people will) and you shouldn't be there anyway. You should know that a car will pull into the median strip.... Because that's what it's for. Start thinking about what every other road user is going to do or could do.

[FJRider]

quite simple, they didn't check the way was clear which is also illegal

BULLSHIT. ... It was illegal for the OP to be where he was ... End of story. The OP collided with another vehicle from behind. We ALL know THAT is a big no no ...

Stop grasping at straws ... the OP fucked up.

unfortunately i have been to small claims with my daughter for a situation where even our insurance co beleived that she was in no way at fault but the adjudicator rule 50/50 just because she was driving on an icy road and was not able to stop in time to avoid hitting the vehicle pulling out of a car park, (note if the conditions were dry she would have been able to avoid the accident)

The OP reported NO ice. Therefore all that bit is both irrelevant and of no point in this thread.

DIFFERENT situations in DIFFERENT conditions. NO similarity to the OP's incident whatsoever ...

on your logic then driving a vehicle that has an out of date warrant makes you automatically at fault if in an accident as the vehicle should not be on the road.

It DOES indeed. I think you ARE now starting to understand ...

Get over it. You can't break the law then claim innocence.

[DR650gary]

BULLSHIT. ... It was illegal for the OP to be where he was ... End of story. The OP collided with another vehicle from behind. We ALL know THAT is a big no no ...

Stop grasping at straws ... the OP fucked up.



The OP reported NO ice. Therefore all that bit is both irrelevant and of no point in this thread.

DIFFERENT situations in DIFFERENT conditions. NO similarity to the OP's incident whatsoever ...



It DOES indeed. I think you ARE now starting to understand ...

Get over it. You can't break the law then claim innocence.

Passionate but not entirely correct. There are 2 issues, legality and liability. I am unaware whether being in the flush lane is an offense. I think not but for what purposes I cannot say.

The liability side is more clear. Both parties have a responsibility to drive safely as well as legally (they can be different I imagine) so in this particular case both parties bear some liability and their respective insurance companies will sort that out, or it will end up at the Disputes Tribunal (unlikely). Having an accident with a vehicle without a wof does not make you liable for the accident unless the reason there is no wof in a "contributory factor" in the accident. ie no brakes, bald tyres etc. If you park a vehicle on a clearway (illegally) and another vehicle crashes into it because they did not look or assumed it was moving or whatever dumb reason, they will be held liable for the accident, not you. You may get a ticket but unlikely to be held "liable". Park in legal park without a wof, no issue, not your fault.

If you see a pedestrian on the motorway without a rego plate on their bum, can you run them over because they are breaking the law?

Cheers

[R650R]

Back to reality. There has been no evidence presented and unlikely there is that the car moved to turn right in a careless manner, even the original poster say the car was indicating.
It is an offence to pass on a median strip, confusion arises as some places with high crash rate like near Horotiu actually have it signposted as such to remind people.
Crossing a solid white line such as approaching or leaving an intersection is also an offence but rarely tickted/enforced.
I know a truck driver that was fined for careless use/leaving the roadway after hitting an abandoned car with no lights parked left of the fogline at nightime on a state highway.
All that is at stake here is both parties excess fee a mere $200. No one is going to waste half a day in small claims court over that.
Insurance co is only going to chase for costs from other party if there is strong evidence of fraud or negligence.

[Berries]

There are 2 issues, legality and liability. I am unaware whether being in the flush lane is an offense. I think not but for what purposes I cannot say.

It is fairly clear and should be basic knowledge for anyone with a licence -

Road User Rule

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—
(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 has turned right onto the road marked with the flush median; or
(iii) can make the entire movement without encroaching on the flush median.

Car drivers will not look over their shoulder for you as you should not be there unless about to turn right yourself. Cars will leave gaps for others to pull through who won't look for you, pedestrians will walk through stationary traffic in to your path without looking as well. People need to know the rules, and if you are going to bend them a little, or ignore them completely, ride accordingly. Even more so in the wet.

[DR650gary]

Nice to know that. I must admit to still using the margins to progress, but always on the right

I still think you have to look though before making the movement.

Hopefully the OP drops a note in here after the 2 insurance companies have sorted it all out but I think the excess comment is probably on the button.

Cheers

[russd7]

Passionate but not entirely correct. There are 2 issues, legality and liability. I am unaware whether being in the flush lane is an offense. I think not but for what purposes I cannot say.

The liability side is more clear. Both parties have a responsibility to drive safely as well as legally (they can be different I imagine) so in this particular case both parties bear some liability and their respective insurance companies will sort that out, or it will end up at the Disputes Tribunal (unlikely). Having an accident with a vehicle without a wof does not make you liable for the accident unless the reason there is no wof in a "contributory factor" in the accident. ie no brakes, bald tyres etc. If you park a vehicle on a clearway (illegally) and another vehicle crashes into it because they did not look or assumed it was moving or whatever dumb reason, they will be held liable for the accident, not you. You may get a ticket but unlikely to be held "liable". Park in legal park without a wof, no issue, not your fault.

If you see a pedestrian on the motorway without a rego plate on their bum, can you run them over because they are breaking the law?

Cheers

well put, my point exactly

[Katman]

well put, my point exactly

Yes, but this site has no shortage of fucking idiots. You seem to be fitting in nicely.

The OP was at fault - end of story.

[FJRider]

All that is at stake here is both parties excess fee a mere $200. No one is going to waste half a day in small claims court over that.

In MOST cases ... the excess is charged to the client regardless. Different policies may vary.

Insurance co is only going to chase for costs from other party if there is strong evidence of fraud or negligence.

Their primary responsibility is to fulfilling their clients policy requirements (with little outlay). If there is/was a chance of "The other party" paying the costs ... that will be their aim.

The OP WAS at fault ... and may be prudent to expect a premium increase after this episode.

[FJRider]

Passionate but not entirely correct. There are 2 issues, legality and liability. I am unaware whether being in the flush lane is an offense. I think not but for what purposes I cannot say.

Being there is NOT an offense. Overtaking IN THAT AREA IS ...

The liability side is more clear. Both parties have a responsibility to drive safely as well as legally (they can be different I imagine) so in this particular case both parties bear some liability and their respective insurance companies will sort that out, or it will end up at the Disputes Tribunal (unlikely).

Driving safely is advised ... and if you don't adhere to to the provisions of the Land Transport act ... you can be prosecuted. THAT ... is NOT the same thing.

Having an accident with a vehicle without a wof does not make you liable for the accident unless the reason there is no wof in a "contributory factor" in the accident. ie no brakes, bald tyres etc. If you park a vehicle on a clearway (illegally) and another vehicle crashes into it because they did not look or assumed it was moving or whatever dumb reason, they will be held liable for the accident, not you. You may get a ticket but unlikely to be held "liable". Park in legal park without a wof, no issue, not your fault.

No mention the OP did not have a WOF ...

He was not "Parked in a clearway ...

NOBODY crashed into HIM ...

The OP was the dumb one ... as he was NOT aware the Flush median is NOT for overtaking ...

The OP was not parked.

The OP WAS AT FAULT. End of story.

If you see a pedestrian on the motorway without a rego plate on their bum, can you run them over because they are breaking the law?

Cheers

Pedestrians on the motorway won't live long ... even if they have a rego plate on their bum ...

[awayatc]

Bike is riding in a straight line

Car turns into bike riding in straight line......

Makes no fucking difference who painted what on tarseal.........

Car driver caused accident.

Bikerider could no doubt get fined for breaking traffic rules,

(if one could find a cop capable of getting unstuck from his speedcamera that is)

[haydes55]

Bike is riding in a straight line



Car turns into bike riding in straight line......



Makes no fucking difference who painted what on tarseal.........



Car driver caused accident.



Bikerider could no doubt get fined for breaking traffic rules,



(if one could find a cop capable of getting unstuck from his speedcamera that is)

So lets say you're driving a car, indicate left then pull into a driveway. Ban hit in the side if your car by a motorbike who was riding down the footpath. Is the car driver at fault?

The bike shouldn't be there and the car driver legally doesn't have to check if the foot path is clear. Just like the bike shouldn't be in the median strip and the car driver doesn't have to check the median strip is clear

[Katman]

The bike shouldn't be there and the car driver legally doesn't have to check if the foot path is clear.

A kid on a push bike might disagree with you there.

[MarkH]

Bike is riding in a straight line

Car turns into bike riding in straight line......

Makes no fucking difference who painted what on tarseal.........

Car driver caused accident.

Bikerider could no doubt get fined for breaking traffic rules,

(if one could find a cop capable of getting unstuck from his speedcamera that is)

Refreshing to see some truth in this thread!
Seriously, so much BS about the biker being legally at fault because he should not have been there. A car driver is NOT legally entitled to pull into the path of another vehicle, regardless of whether they have been indicating for 3 seconds or not.

Of course a sensible rider seeing a car driver indicating would endeavour to avoid being hit in the off chance that the driver will be careless and not ensure the way is clear before turning, but that doesn't make the car drivers actions legal.

Vehicles are legally allowed to drive along the flush median for a limited distance in certain circumstances, no one is entitled to turn onto it without ensuring it is safe to do so. My guess would be that the car driver in this case is the liable party.

Certainly the rider could give an account of riding along the flush median so that he could turn right on a side street ahead, or could be honest, regardless the car driver was at fault for not ensuring the way was clear. If the rider wanted to avoid disclosing that he was illegally using the flush median to overtake then it would be a good idea to do that from the start, changing your story looks really bad.
One way of doing things would be to give an account like "I was riding along the flush median when this car pulled into my path of travel and I did not have the room to stop", with no mention whatsoever of why you were on the flush median. Really does it actually matter why for the purposes of assessing liability? The advantage of this approach is that you are not lying. Leaving out irrelevant information is not a big no-no as far as I'm aware.