First crash, I need advice

[MarkH]

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

Or a pedestrian, or a woman pushing a pushchair, or an invalid on a mobility scooter, or . . .

I'm pretty sure that you are not allowed to just drive into a driveway without ensuring it is safe to do so - checking that no one is coming along the footpath would be legally mandatory I would think.

[Tazz]

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

The Firetruck bowling down the median strip might disagree with you're view too as you pull out in front of it without looking...

Both the OP and the car are at fault, but the car more so because they didn't check and caused the accident. It's like that argument about rocks on the road a while back. Rocks shouldn't be on the road hiding around corners, but if they are, it is your fault for hitting them.
People shouldn't be overtaking you if you've indicated for 3 seconds to overtake a vehicle in front of you, but if they do and you pull out and hit them, it's your fault...

People shouldn't be driving down the medium strip legally speaking apparently, but if they are and you pull out in front of them, it is your fault...
Anything that comes after that against the rider is a separate issue.

That footpath thing (where all foot traffic has right of way) makes me think of zebra crossings as well where if you're inside the diamond you have right of way and the pedestrian is supposed to wait...but guess whose fault it is if you run them over...yeah, yours.

[Katman]

Both the OP and the car are at fault, but the car more so because they didn't check and caused the accident.

The motorcycle was performing an illegal overtaking manoeuvre - that is where fault will be placed.

[FJRider]

The motorcycle was performing an illegal overtaking manoeuvre - that is where fault will be placed.

The car was using the flush median strip for the purpose it was intended ... as written in legislation.

The Bike was not (As written in legislation).

The Bike rider was not even aware it WAS illegal to use it for the purpose of overtaking. Had he known ... the accident would not have happened .. surely .. ??

[Tazz]

The motorcycle was performing an illegal overtaking manoeuvre - that is where fault will be placed.

I'd agree if he had rear ended the car instead of hitting the side. We'll see I guess.

[Katman]

I'd agree if he had rear ended the car instead of hitting the side. We'll see I guess.

You just keep sounding more and more clueless.

[Tazz]

You just keep sounding more and more clueless.

Awesome. Does that mean I'm part of your club now?

Going by your logic I can bowl into anything 'illegally' in my way through carelessness or a misplaced sense of righteousness and come out smelling like roses. World doesn't work like that. Use your mirrors

[MarkH]

The car was using the flush median strip for the purpose it was intended ... as written in legislation.

The legislation says you may pull onto the flush median strip in front of another vehicle, causing an accident?
That doesn't sound right to me.

The law also says that you can't park a car in the middle of the road, but that doesn't mean that other cars aren't legally obliged to try their best to avoid hitting it if you do.
"why did you drive into that parked car?"
"I was allowed because it shouldn't have been there!"
Yeah, that is not how the law works!

[pritch]

Pity that the person seemingly most qualified to advise us all of the likely legalities just chose to post an irrelevant comment.

Whatever, the OP needs to work on his survival skills. That the manoeuvre he was undertaking was unsafe is borne out by the result. Don't want to come across like another Katman, but the OP could best use this experience as a learning opportunity.

[Katman]

Don't want to come across like another Katman.....

You say it like it's a bad thing.

Don't worry, there's always room for more Katmen.

[FJRider]

The Firetruck bowling down the median strip might disagree with you're view too as you pull out in front of it without looking...

Any Emergency vehicles using the median strip will have all the lights and sirens on (pretty hard to not see/hear THEM coming) ... and THEY are legally allowed to use it ... for emergency purposes only.

Both the OP and the car are at fault, but the car more so because they didn't check and caused the accident.

The car was performing a legal turn .... a legally allowed to be on the median strip to turn. The bike was overtaking illegally ... and no action of ANY OTHER person can, or will ... change (or lessen) that.

It's like that argument about rocks on the road a while back. Rocks shouldn't be on the road hiding around corners, but if they are, it is your fault for hitting them.

I have never seen or heard of ANYTHING written in Legislation ... forbidding the hitting of rocks on the road. Your insurance company will pay out if you DO hit some. But ... I cannot recall any person ever being prosecuted for hitting rocks on the road.

You ARE forbidden from PLACING rocks on the road for others to hit though. I have even heard of prosecutions for trying to avoid rocks on the road ... and hitting other vehicles in the process. Which is entirely different to what YOU suggest.

People shouldn't be overtaking you if you've indicated for 3 seconds to overtake a vehicle in front of you, but if they do and you pull out and hit them, it's your fault...

Indicating for the minimum of time (or more) makes it a legal turn. The bike rider will not see the car driver looking when the driver started indicating 3 (or more) seconds previous ... when the rider was 50 meters back. The rider did notice the car indicating but continued.

That footpath thing (where all foot traffic has right of way) makes me think of zebra crossings as well where if you're inside the diamond you have right of way and the pedestrian is supposed to wait...but guess whose fault it is if you run them over...yeah, yours.

Not so much fault ... but a responsibility NOT to hit any person using a pedestrian crossing. It is the responsibility of the pedestrian to use the crossing safely. Just being on a crossing is not an automatic immunity or protection from prosecution ... OR .. INJURY.

Any person approaching a pedestrian crossing at 50 km/hr and intends passing over it at that speed ... without ensuring it IS absolutely safe to do so .... must accept some responsibility for possibly hitting some person. Irresponsible actions of the pedestrians may negate any prosecution if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle. I have known of several case of "No charges laid" at such times.

Children/adults crossing the pedestrian crossing on a bicycle are actually doing so illegally.

[DR650gary]

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.

What he said

[FJRider]

The legislation says you may pull onto the flush median strip in front of another vehicle, causing an accident?
That doesn't sound right to me.

The car driver wont be prosecuted. The bike rider will. You figure it out.

The law also says that you can't park a car in the middle of the road, but that doesn't mean that other cars aren't legally obliged to try their best to avoid hitting it if you do.
"why did you drive into that parked car?"
"I was allowed because it shouldn't have been there!"
Yeah, that is not how the law works!

It may surprise you how often that actually happens ...

The charge is not for hitting that car ... but Driving without due care and intention. (or Intentional Damage) Driving without due care (etc) springs to mind.

Prosecution and subsequent penalties ... depend on circumstance. And by no means is always an automatic due process for the latter. If the cops DO have ANY doubts about who is at fault ... it is left for the judge to decide (Often the latter) ... as BOTH (all) parties have the right to due process of law. Those whose actions were illegal usually come off worst. Careless use is secondary and is a lesser offense to dangerous use.

Such is the legislation.

[MarkH]

The car driver wont be prosecuted. The bike rider will. You figure it out.



It may surprise you how often that actually happens ...

The charge is not for hitting that car ... but Driving without due care and intention. (or Intentional Damage) Driving without due care (etc) springs to mind.

Prosecution and subsequent penalties ... depend on circumstance. And by no means is always an automatic due process for the latter. If the cops DO have ANY doubts about who is at fault ... it is left for the judge to decide (Often the latter) ... as BOTH (all) parties have the right to due process of law. Those whose actions were illegal usually come off worst. Careless use is secondary and is a lesser offense to dangerous use.

Such is the legislation.

This is probably why in the OP's situation I'd be reluctant to admit to using the flush median as an overtaking lane.
It is certainly NOT illegal to be travelling along the flush median but it IS illegal for a car to pull into your path causing an accident.
I'd go with "I was travelling along the flush median and the other car pulled out in front of me leaving me insufficient time to stop", why volunteer the information that you were using it as an overtaking lane?

[Tazz]

Any Emergency vehicles using the median strip will have all the lights and sirens on (pretty hard to not see/hear THEM coming) ... and THEY are legally allowed to use it ... for emergency purposes only.



The car was performing a legal turn .... a legally allowed to be on the median strip to turn. The bike was overtaking illegally ... and no action of ANY OTHER person can, or will ... change (or lessen) that.



I have never seen or heard of ANYTHING written in Legislation ... forbidding the hitting of rocks on the road. Your insurance company will pay out if you DO hit some. But ... I cannot recall any person ever being prosecuted for hitting rocks on the road.

You ARE forbidden from PLACING rocks on the road for others to hit though. I have even heard of prosecutions for trying to avoid rocks on the road ... and hitting other vehicles in the process. Which is entirely different to what YOU suggest.



Indicating for the minimum of time (or more) makes it a legal turn. The bike rider will not see the car driver looking when the driver started indicating 3 (or more) seconds previous ... when the rider was 50 meters back. The rider did notice the car indicating but continued.



Not so much fault ... but a responsibility NOT to hit any person using a pedestrian crossing. It is the responsibility of the pedestrian to use the crossing safely. Just being on a crossing is not an automatic immunity or protection from prosecution ... OR .. INJURY.

Any person approaching a pedestrian crossing at 50 km/hr and intends passing over it at that speed ... without ensuring it IS absolutely safe to do so .... must accept some responsibility for possibly hitting some person. Irresponsible actions of the pedestrians may negate any prosecution if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle. I have known of several case of "No charges laid" at such times.

Children/adults crossing the pedestrian crossing on a bicycle are actually doing so illegally.

Most of that is getting away from the topic but it's not legal for them to rock down the medians like they do, it's just common sense to not kick up a stink about it and get out of the way. Even at intersections with sirens blazing if they (they being an emergency vehicle) hit someone who has a green light they are at fault. This is straight from a professional firefighters mouth. They can bowl down specific lanes (like bus and possible bike?) legally though, but since the median isn't actually a lane...

The rock thing was done to death. The 'rule' was being able to see a certain distance in front of you or some such. I thought you or Katman were quoting some stuff from the road code about visible distance or something. Meh.

The legal turn thing is just going to go around in circles. Indicating for 3 (not 2 :P) seconds doesn't give you the right to turn whenever you want once those seconds have passed...

You could argue it is your "responsibility" to check for hazards whether they are legally supposed to be there or not.

Pedestrians are legally not supposed to step out in front of you when you're inside the diamond but it is your 'responsibility' to check and stop if they do.
Traffic is legally not supposed to treat the median strip as a lane, but as a driver it is your 'responsibility' to check for hazards in front and behind you before making a turn.
I don't see how you can argue the difference between those two things. There is even probably something written about the requirements/checking from a driver before making a turn.

Anyway, I disagree with you and Kat(have a whinge when someone doesn't agree )man, so we'll just have to see what happens... I'll be surprised if the outcome is different to what I think it will be, but life would be boring if everything was predictable.