Hardcore Biker
If it was a blind or tight corner I don't see it being the ute drivers fault. If the situation was reversed - the ute had veered off the road due to a puncture and was facing oncomming traffic, bike enters the corner and hits the ute or takes overly evasive action and has a head on collision would you think it was the riders fault?
I love the smell of twin V16's in the morning..
Forum whore
Interesting that the general concensus seems to be that the ute driver was obligated to stop within the distance he could see.
Buller Gorge anyone?
It's time...
OK. I'll bite.Originally Posted by Katman
It is a rule that you must drive or ride in such a way that we can stop in the clear distance ahead, as you know.
Do you know the riders who hit the U-turning police car in the Buller Gorge were failing to follow this rule? The fact that they hit the police car does not, on its own, prove this.
Forum whore
I would have said first rider wears the lot had the boat been secured to the trailer.
I am aware of a previous case that established the the requirement to stop in the distance of clear road in front has not been enforced where a similar sudden and unexpected event has occurred.
BUT in this case I would also think that the ute driver should get done for insecure load.
I doubt the council would be liable unless the road damage had been reported and they had been given a reasonable time to repair it.
Costs.
First rider's costs are his.
Ute - well I think in this case, even though he would have probably crashed anyway the insecure load was such a significant contribution that I would have thought he would wear the rest.
It was possible that the second bike parked in a silly position, however I don't think it would likely be considered from a legal liability angle
Last edited by The Stranger; 15th February 2009 at 17:57.
Forum whore
Shirley, you're not serious?
How does that work then?
I'ma get medieval on your ass!
Gotta smile. The automatic response has been - "the ute driver is at fault". Yet I'd wager most people here go around corners expecting them to be clear. Yes, Buller Gorge comes to mind.
There is a good argument here that the first bike has caused this cascade of collisions by crossing the centre line. Not deliberately of course, but when you are on the road you are responsible for your vehicle. The ute driver cannot be expected to anticipate this.
As a matter of civil law ie. who pays - if the boat being unsecured has contributed to the jack-knifing then there is contributory negligence. In fact probably a high degree, maybe 80%. The negligence of the first bike is low given the catastrophic wheel collapse.
As to prosecutions, well the ute has a problem but thats got nothing to do with who pays. Entirely separate.
Forum whore
I must admit, I hadn't considered the rear wheel collapse relavent as I assumed this only came to light post crash (else why was it being ridden). Was there anything to suggest it happend prior to the crash as opposed to as a result of the crash please Frosty?
Better Red then Dead...
From what I would believe is 1st bike his own costs...
Rest are the ute drivers responsibility.
Unless the crashed bike happened to be in such a position (ie still on the road) that he had to take evasive action to miss him or if he hadn't he would of hit the 1st bike then the blame is on the ute for damage that he has caused.
It would be the same as rubber neckers that crash... thats not the fault of the original crash victims if a rubber necker crashes looking at there crash
Forum whore
If I were a snake, I'd be handing out a careless use ticket to the first bike, and an insecure load ticket to the ute. "Able to stop " etc doesn't cover the case when something is catapulted in front of you. Otherwise you'd never be able to drive along the road legally in case an oncoming vehicle swerved in front of you.
Oh, and anyone on Eytalian or Bosche machinery gets a ticket for consorting with the enemy and unpatriotic motorcycling.
Hardcore Biker
Should be classed - as an "accident" - no one was completely to blame. Seems the word accident has turned into "who to blame". Sometimes shit happens.
I love the smell of twin V16's in the morning..
It's time...
The U-turning vehicle may have moved into their path after they first saw it, Shirley.
It's time...
Indeed. Perhaps you could explain this to Katman. However the original post in this thread says...
"A second or two later a ute towing a boat on a boat trailer came from the oposite direction, saw bike/rider in the clay bank and took evasive action."
...implying that the bike was stationary when first seen by the ute driver.
Forum whore
True . I'm not clear whether the bike shot across in front of the ute (in which case the 'able to stop' doesn't apply) or whether the bike was already in the bank before the ute came round a blind bend (in which case he could qualify for another ticket). But figuring that one out would probably be argumentative.
Forum whore
I must confess, I may have been a little hasty in my assesment.
Given the second bike had time to stop and the rider alight I would tend to agree with BJ. The ute should have been able to stop in time and I think should have one for failing to stop.
salty dog
Thought if I hit something it would naturaly be my fault.....
Doesn't matter why whatever I hit stopped suddenly for whatever sort of reason....
Up to me to be able to avoid it.....
If I got no WOF, then my car shoud not be on the road....Which woul still be my problem...
If I got no licence , or the wrong one, then I should not be on the road either....
Oh...and where does it say that it is ok to run over vehicles after they broke down....?
Opinions are like arseholes: Everybody has got one, but that doesn't mean you got to air it in public all the time....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks