Accountability for an accident--feedback please

[Max Preload]

Breaking the law (eg. no WOF)

Since you've mentioned civil & criminal, lets also clarify that having no WoF is not breaking any law - it's an infringement on a regulation. Regulations are made by authorised agencies under powers conferred upon them by Acts.

[The Stranger:Me]

Sorry guys I thought It was clear. Several motorcycles had negotiated the same corner with no more issue than a bit of a wallop through the suspension. This bike however hit the corrogations and was suddenly unable to turn, it also continued being unable to turn right up untill impact with the wall.

I asked previously, is there something to lead you to believe the wheel failed prior to the accident?
You note it collapsed. How? A bearing? Can we have a photo of the collapsed wheel please?

You seem to be trying very hard to guides us to a conclusion, yet we don't have all the information you have. If indeed we can take it as read that the wheel failed prior to the accident and caused the accident then I guess liability would be dependent on the nature of the failure, therefore how could we comment without the above information.

[Winston001]

It seems a bit harsh slating the driver for failure to stop, when he actually DID stop safely, and maybe saved the biker's life? Though not stop *safely* perhaps?

The insecure load charge is the only clear cut one. Can't argue round that, it wasn't secure.

Well said Ix. However I think the core issue is who is liable to pay for the damage? It won't help, but this is why we have civil courts. To decide liability in situations like this.

[Winston001]

Since you've mentioned civil & criminal, lets also clarify that having no WoF is not breaking any law - it's an infringement on a regulation. Regulations are made by authorised agencies under powers conferred upon them by Acts.

Oh my oh my......constitutional law and interpretation of laws........overlaid by the morality of law and the dark arts of jurisprudential theory...just what exactly is a law, a fiat, a prerogative command...can either of us be bothered........??






Nah.

[Badjelly]

Well said Ix. However I think the core issue is who is liable to pay for the damage? It won't help, but this is why we have Kiwibiker. To decide liability in situations like this.

Yes, isn't it lucky we have Kiwibiker!

[Ixion]

Hm. Civil liability .Lotsa arguments. probably about things not mentioned here.

But. On the presumption , implied here, that the first bikes wheel collapsed without warning. Well maintained, being ridden carefully and sensibly, WoF etc.

So, if everyone had been prudent and careful, ie no negligence, what would have happened.

First bike would still have crashed. Act of God , no negligence (unless a claim would lie against the manufacturer). Not likely to succeed suing road authority because there was a bump.

Ute stopped OK. No damage there . And if the boat had been properly tied down, that would have been the end of it. First biker pays his own damage. But the boat wasn't secured. That's negligent. And the boat is what caused the damage to the second bike. So I'd argue that the ute driver is responsible for the second bike damage . Not to the first bike, that's not down to him. But the damage to the boat is against the ute driver too. Should have tied it down.

But if the first biker was contributory (knew the wheel was dodgy, riding irresponsibly , whatever) then he might cop part of the damage to the second bike, maybe even part of the damage to the boat. That's a big 'if'.

[Renegade]

my veiw:

first bike is liable for his mess unless it could be found that the collasped wheel caused the steering fault leading to the crash in which case the wheel people or bike manufacturer pays for first bike.

Ute may have been taking evasive action on a blind corner but he is obligated to stay within his own lane, when he chooses to steer and leaves his lane anything he hits i.e second bike he is liable for including his boat,

IF he had of stayed in his own lane and braked hard and still hit the crashed bike he couldnt have been found liable for any further first bike damage resulting from his collision if it was found his actions were reasonable in the circumstances and the actions of a prudent driver in this situation, i.e came round blind corner at speed limit,crashed bike in my lane, hit brakes and skid into it.

Ute should have stayed in own lane, if he had then the first bike would have been liable and second bike not damaged.

Just my take.

[awayatc]

The road code states that you have to be able to stop in half of the clear distance ahead.....

Ute obviously failed to do so.

But I forgot, we are getting realy good at making simple issues realy complicated......
Never accept responsibilities for your actions, just blame it on something else..Anything.....

[The Stranger:Me]

The road code states that you have to be able to stop in half of the clear distance ahead.....

Ute obviously failed to do so.

But I forgot, we are getting realy good at making simple issues realy complicated......
Never accept responsibilities for your actions, just blame it on something else..Anything.....

Of course if that distance is suddenly and unexpectedly reduced then that doesn't apply. A common one is trucks leaving a big gap ahead and a car taking that big gap whilst the traffic in front stops suddenly. The car manages to stop and the truck parks on top of them.

I must admit I thought it was a simple concept too, but apparently there are those that can't grasp it.

Yes, the car would be responsible in such a circumstance, though probably try and blame the truck.

[Mikkel]

The road code states that you have to be able to stop in half of the clear distance ahead.....

That's when there's no centerline / only one lane.

Otherwise it's just the clear distance ahead.

[Winston001]

The road code states that you have to be able to stop in half of the clear distance ahead.....

I have to confess this rule bothers me. It is sensible. But.....but.....if it was literally construed then there would be no need for no-passing lines. You'd never pass unless you could stop in half the clear distance ahead.....and if such a clear distance wasn't available....well no need for bold yellow lines to tell you that.

So - the road markings and the law regarding crossing such lines contradicts the stop-in-half-the-clear-distance rule. The lines imply you may and will pass elsewhere. In other words its expected that drivers will not always be able to see twice the clear distance ahead.

All of which says the stop in half is nothing more than a general safety concept. I've never come across anyone prosecuted for breaching it.

[jrandom]

I've never come across anyone prosecuted for breaching it.

Note that the 'half the visible distance' rule only applies to roads without marked lanes. When there are marked lanes, you just have to be able to stop within the visible distance.

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, s5.9:

Stopping and following distances

(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.

(2) A driver must not drive a vehicle on a road that is not marked in lanes at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in half the length of roadway that is visible to the driver.

(3) A driver must not drive on a road a vehicle following behind another vehicle so that the driver cannot stop the driver's vehicle short of the vehicle ahead if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly.

You can be issued a $150 infringement notice for:

- Exceed speed for stopping distance in lane
- Exceed speed for stopping distance on road not marked in lanes
- Drive too close to vehicle in front
- Drive at less than minimum stopping distance for speed

(see http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...DLM280158.html)

I got a ticket for 'drive at less than minimum stopping distance for speed' while driving a car several years ago after I noodled my way into someone else's rear bumper in heavy motorway traffic.

Presumably something similar could be issued for breaches of the other stopping distance rules, although it'd be difficult to do with 'exceed speed for stopping distance...' in the absence of a crash, I imagine.

[awayatc]

I have to confess this rule bothers me. It is sensible. But.....but.....if it was literally construed then there would be no need for no-passing lines. You'd never pass unless you could stop in half the clear distance ahead.....and if such a clear distance wasn't available....well no need for bold yellow lines to tell you that.

those lines are to inform you that you do not have a clear view ahead of you , like before lefthand turns, dips in the road, or anything else that would prevent you from asessing the road ahead properly.....

So - the road markings and the law regarding crossing such lines contradicts the stop-in-half-the-clear-distance rule. The lines imply you may and will pass elsewhere. In other words its expected that drivers will not always be able to see twice the clear distance ahead.

It may in certain circumstances be quite safe to pass a 30 km/h tractor on a ashort stretch of unmarked road,but not safe to pass a line of 90 km/h trucks and trailers... You can't count on lines and signs alone, there used to be a time when people had to rely on common sense.....

All of which says the stop in half is nothing more than a general safety concept. I've never come across anyone prosecuted for breaching it

Lots of people who breach this "safety" concept can be visited in a cemetery
and hospital near you......

Speed doesn't kill, but speeding into somebody or something else on the wrong side of the road will definitely do some very serious damage.....

[awayatc]

Note that the 'half the visible distance' rule only applies to roads without marked lanes. When there are marked lanes, you just have to be able to stop within the visible distance.

that rule, like most was once dictated by commonsense....
Unmarked lanes, mean traffic going either way....therefor if 2 vehicles close into each other in the same lane, by being able to stop in Half the distance they would both come to a standstill just before annihilation....

On marked lanes(2 lanes going one direction...) you only have to stop in the distance you can see, because the car in front of you is/or was going in the same direction then you...i.e it is not coming towards you.....
Simple isn't it?

Everytime you barrel into a blind corner with a speed that would not enable you to stop should there be anything in your way, you are playing russian roulette with your life.
That is fine, but unfortunately you are also playing russian roulette with other people's lives.....and I resent that. Could be somebody dear to me you are so carelessly prepared to wipe out.....

[Winston001]

Everytime you barrel into a blind corner with a speed that would not enable you to stop should there be anything in your way, you are playing russian roulette with your life.

That is fine, but unfortunately you are also playing russian roulette with other people's lives.....and I resent that. Could be somebody dear to me you are so carelessly prepared to wipe out.....

Yeah I've discussed that here before. A good friend and very experienced biker rides like that. He expects corners to be clear. He also considers he has the skills to stop if necessary.

As for me - I'll continue to ride like a nana around blind corners.

The stop-in-half-the-clear-distance rule looks like a catch-all law to cover situations where accidents happen and there is no other clear reason. Fair enough, it is common sense.