First crash, I need advice

[FJRider]

This is probably why in the OP's situation I'd be reluctant to admit to using the flush median as an overtaking lane.

Why .... what could possibly go wrong ..

It is certainly NOT illegal to be travelling along the flush median

That being in the flush median is not illegal ... overtaking there is.

but it IS illegal for a car to pull into your path causing an accident.

Get an adult that is an experienced driver ... to explain to you the dangers of overtaking (anywhere ... either side) ... a vehicle indicating to move into your path. (As the OP WAS)

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?

I'm willing to bet ... the cops get a statement from both parties involved (and from a few do-gooder witnesses). As will the insurance companies. The cops (and Courts) get a bit stroppy when you make false statements. Insurance companies can ... and have ... declined claims for such.
But as YOU weren't there ... and YOU won't risk losing any money in this particular incident ... it sounds like pretty dodgy advice to give a learner rider .... that WAS involved. And does have much to lose.

[MarkH]

I'm willing to bet ... the cops get a statement from both parties involved (and from a few do-gooder witnesses). As will the insurance companies. The cops (and Courts) get a bit stroppy when you make false statements. Insurance companies can ... and have ... declined claims for such.
But as YOU weren't there ... and YOU won't risk losing any money in this particular incident ... it sounds like pretty dodgy advice to give a learner rider .... that WAS involved. And does have much to lose.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
I wasn't suggesting lying, just not giving more information than necessary.
I wasn't suggesting saying anything that would conflict with what witnesses would have observed.
I DEFINITELY am NOT suggesting that the OP changes his account in any way from whatever he has already said - changing your story looks very bad.

Get an adult that is an experienced driver ... to explain to you the dangers of overtaking (anywhere ... either side) ... a vehicle indicating to move into your path. (As the OP WAS)

I said NOTHING about the appropriate action prior to the accident that may have helped avoid the accident, I only commented on legalities and what could be said after the accident.
Clearly as the OP admitted, he could have started braking earlier.
Legally - an indicating driver doesn't have a legal right to make the turn just because they are indicating.
Self Preservation wise - riders need to be cautious around indicating drivers because many are careless idiots that don't look properly.

[awayatc]

Blah blah .........

Not sure how you can proclaim such infinite wisdoms about big city traffic issues when you tout about the barrenness of the goat trailsin you neck of the woods.......

Only flush knowledge that comes to mind is the one used after this onslaught of verbal diarrhea.......

[FJRider]

... changing your story looks very bad.

Leaving out important information doesn't look too great either ... when ALL statements of those that WERE there ... are compared ..

I said NOTHING about the appropriate action prior to the accident that may have helped avoid the accident

Appropriate actions that may have prevented the accident you mean ..

Still leaving the important bits out. Like why he was on the flush median in the first place. If you don't mention it ... it didn't happen .. right .. ??

I only commented on legalities and what could be said after the accident.

Clearly as the OP admitted, he could have started braking earlier.[/QUOTE]

Still leaving bits out ... like he shouldn't have been overtaking there. His lack of experience and lack of basic knowledge of inner city road rules bit him in the ass ....

Legally - an indicating driver doesn't have a legal right to make the turn just because they are indicating.

But the following vehicles are required to overtake safely. Overtaking a vehicle that is indicating a turn is not exactly safe .... Would YOU overtake such a vehicle .. ??

Self Preservation wise - riders need to be cautious around indicating drivers because many are careless idiots that don't look properly.

No shit .. !!! The OP wasn't ....

His first crash ended up well ... He survived it. Broken bike bits are better than broken bones.

[FJRider]

Not sure how you can proclaim such infinite wisdoms about big city traffic issues when you tout about the barrenness of the goat trailsin you neck of the woods.......

The mighty Metropolis of Alexandra doesn't have traffic lights ... but it does have Flush medians. In ample quantity.

We have two roundabouts too ... do you need them explained as well .. ??

[awayatc]

The mighty Metropolis of Alexandra doesn't have traffic lights ... but it does have Flush medians. In ample quantity.

We have two roundabouts too ... do you need them explained as well .. ??

No thanks. Not interested in explanations of somebody who thinks its ok to run into people who have broken some sort of rules.

Will only show up there armed to the teeth and defend myself

[FJRider]

No thanks. Not interested in explanations of somebody who thinks its ok to run into people who have broken some sort of rules.

Will only show up there armed to the teeth and defend myself

Do you think the OP is not at fault .. ?? Because you think the driver didn't look .. ???

So ... it's OK to run into the side/rear of a vehicle ahead of you ... and it's not your fault .. ???

Kiwi legislation favours the vehicle in front in such cases. Any proof the driver didn't look ... or just your guess .. ???

The OP admitted he DID see the cars indicator on and continued overtaking (stationary traffic) anyway. But you say the CAR driver is at fault ... ??

Do you think the OP would have overtaken stationary traffic in an area that was not legally allowed for overtaking ... had he known it wasn't legal .. ??? Would you have overtaken vehicles there .. ??

[MarkH]

Leaving out important information doesn't look too great either ... when ALL statements of those that WERE there ... are compared ..

I don't think that you are quite getting what I'm saying and I'm not sure why.
OK, sure, I probably wouldn't be overtaking there as it isn't a good idea in terms of legality as well as safety.
But if I did and ended up in the OP's position then my statement would NOT conflict with ANY witnesses statements.
I would state that I was driving along the flush median - this would be backed up by any witnesses that saw me doing it.
I would state that the car driver moved into my path and that I didn't have time to avoid a collision and so collided.
Why would I need to include my reasoning for driving along the flush median?
No witness could know my motivation although without the accident it would have become apparent.

It is a fact in law that a car isn't entitled to drive into the path of another vehicle even if they indicate first.
Legally the car driver is at fault.

However - motorcycle riders have a duty to themselves ahead of the law to try to avoid dangerous situations and to use caution due to the SMIDSY factor.
The OP has hopefully learned a couple of valuable lessons about not overtaking using the flush median and not exercising more caution upon seeing a car indicating a desire to turn into his path.

Please try to understand that I'm not saying that the OP didn't make mistakes or that his judgement couldn't have been better or that in future he shouldn't change how he rides, just that legally in this case the car driver is at fault. We all have to avoid the risk though of being in the right and also being dead - we shouldn't forget that having the right of way doesn't mean we can't give way and then carry on uninjured.

In my opinion the car driver was at fault in terms of causing an accident, he/she should have checked that the way was clear before moving.
Also the OP was breaking the law by ignoring the road rule about not using the flush median to overtake.
But the OP's rule breaking doesn't excuse the car driver's lack of due care before moving onto the flush median.
Though the OP could have also done more to avoid the accident, including not overtaking on the flush median at all.

[FJRider]

I would state that I was OVERTAKING along the flush median - this would be backed up by any witnesses that saw me doing it.
I would state that the car driver was indicating but I didn't slow down, that I didn't have time to avoid a collision and so collided.
Why would I need to include my reasoning for OVERTAKING along the flush median? .... Perhaps because I was in the wrong ...
Witness's in the cars I overtook reported this their statements ..

It is a fact in law that a car isn't entitled to drive into the path of another vehicle even if they indicate first.
Nor am I entitled to overtake in places I am forbidden to in legislation ...

There ... fixed it for you ...

[MarkH]

There ... fixed it for you ...

Could someone please explain where I am going wrong here with how I'm explaining this?
I'm getting incredibly frustrated that what I'm saying is not being understood.

The OP described travelling on the flush median for 30m, no witnesses would be able to tell that he is breaking the law because they could not tell if he was driving along the flush median legally so he could turn right or illegally so he could just get passed some cars and then pull back in.
The accident prevented his intentions from becoming apparent to witnesses, there could not possibly be witness reports that would back up:

Why would I need to include my reasoning for OVERTAKING along the flush median? .... Perhaps because I was in the wrong ...
Witness's in the cars I overtook reported this their statements ..

The fact is that you can legally pull onto the flush median and drive by some stationary cars, but legally you need to indicate and turn right from the flush median within a short distance. If you collided with another car how could anyone know that you weren't about to turn right?
Without the accident the OP would have pulled back into the lane and thus others would have realised that he wasn't using the flush median correctly, but that never happened.

Just what exactly are you suggesting the witnesses are stating?

[Ender EnZed]

Could someone please explain where I am going wrong here with how I'm explaining this?
I'm getting incredibly frustrated that what I'm saying is not being understood.

99% of readers, riders, human beings will understand exactly what you're saying because it's entirely sensical. They might not agree with it, but they'll understand it.

Unfortunately (and unpleasantly), people like FJRider exist to offer inane commentary on every single thing you will ever post. Have a look at just about any thread on KB. There will be a response, probably by FJRider, that might be relevant, useful, helpful (almost certainly not) but what you can guarantee is that it will be contradictory.

Do not mistake FJRider posts as representative of Kiwibiker readers.

[FJRider]

Could someone please explain where I am going wrong here with how I'm explaining this?
I'm getting incredibly frustrated that what I'm saying is not being understood.

The OP described travelling on the flush median for 30m, no witnesses would be able to tell that he is breaking the law because they could not tell if he was driving along the flush median legally so he could turn right or illegally so he could just get passed some cars and then pull back in.
The accident prevented his intentions from becoming apparent to witnesses, there could not possibly be witness reports that would back up:

I'll let the OP explain it for you as English is obviously your second language ... in bold is the important bits.

Just had my first crash on my way into work this morning and I'm all good (fairly low speed), but not sure about the legalities of it all and I'm just looking for some advice as to who's at fault (legally speaking). I was travelling down a road that had a flush median in the center. Traffic had come to a complete stop, so I moved into the flush and had been travelling for ~30m when a car (which was in the main lane) indicated and turned across the flush into my path of travel. Roads were wet, I got on the brakes and just started sliding and went right into the side of them. In hindsight, I could have started braking earlier, but shit happens. Might have bent forks but I'm not too sure, I'll have to check. Other than that, all is good, just bent handle bars, broken mirrors, a toasted indicator lens and the crash also revealed that my gas tank is full of bog lol (could have fooled me, whoever did that patch up job did it pretty damn well). No damage to me though. I don't think she looked in her mirrors/over her shoulders at all (otherwise she should have seen me), so she's at fault there. But what about my presence in the flush? Is it illegal to ride in the flush when traffic is at a complete stand still?

"Traveled about 30 meters with traffic at a standstill in the flush median. (that's 5 or 6 cars he overtook on a wet road) and was going fast enough to slide into a car in his path.

But no witnesses in those 5 or 6 cars .. ???

He even admits he should have braked earlier ..

If you ride in the flush with traffic at a standstill ... you are overtaking.

Pull back in with all traffic stopped ... ??? where/how .. ???

AND ... has to ask if he was allowed to overtake (legally) in such circumstances ...

The fact is that you can legally pull onto the flush median and drive by some stationary cars,

Pull onto the flush median ... YES ... overtake other vehicles ... NO.

but legally you need to indicate and turn right from the flush median within a short distance. If you collided with another car how could anyone know that you weren't about to turn right?

NOT indicating is a subtle clue ...

Without the accident the OP would have pulled back into the lane and thus others would have realised that he wasn't using the flush median correctly, but that never happened.

Without the accident ... he wouldn't have come online and told us all of HIS first crash. ...

Just what exactly are you suggesting the witnesses are stating?

EXACTLY as HE reported to US ... 5 cars ... 5 witnesses ... but you think the car drivers he overtook didn't see ... or know .. what he was doing .. ?? (As he overtook them)

Even HE didn't know the legality of his actions ... but he WAS right in one respect ... SHIT DOES HAPPEN.

Now we wait to hear the end result of his actions ... if he reports it. (Which I doubt he will .. call me a cynic if you like)

[jasonu]

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

Hello pot, this is kettle calling...

[MarkH]

Pull onto the flush median ... YES ... overtake other vehicles ... NO.

Do you really not understand what I'm saying or are you just trying to ignore my point for some reason?
You CAN pull onto the flush median and drive along for a short distance (passing other cars) then turn off to the right on a side street - that is allowed.
For all witnesses know that could have been what he was attempting, though he admits to us here it was not.
Of course for someone to choose to pretend that he had been planning to turn right he would want to avoid coming onto a forum and saying he was overtaking, it would also pay to be aware that it is illegal to be using the lane to overtake otherwise you wouldn't know not to admit that you were overtaking.

Maybe you should read up on NZTA's website about flush medians, here is the link: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/fa...h-medians.html

Don't use flush medians as:

overtaking lanes (except for short distances just before the turn or when preparing to turn right and other traffic is occupying the adjacent lane)

Oh look, there is an exception to not using them as overtaking lanes!

[FJRider]

Oh look, there is an exception to not using them as overtaking lanes!

The OP did not intend to turn right at ANY stage. He stated quite clearly he was there to overtake. Therefore no exemption applies.

I think YOU even said he was going to rejoin the traffic in the proper lane ... "later" ...