Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Low speed accident. Who's fault? [nsw]

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Bigjula, Mar 22, 2009.

  1. I had a low speed accident on the way to work the other day and I was wondering who's fault it is. I have attached an image of the event. The white cars were all banked up and not moving. They opened up a little to let her through.
    Anyway she has contacted NRMA and they have rung me. No witnesses are involved and the police weren't called.
    How does this work? Does it come down to my word against hers. If she says that it is my fault and I produce this diagram. Who ends up paying?

  2. Its a 50 50 one with both of you at fault.
    Were the cars you passed on the left waiting with their right indicators on? If so you were allowed to pass on the left. If not you passed illegally.
    She made an unsafe turn.

    Impatience carry's a big stick sometimes.

    If you're both insured let the companies work it out and get on with life.
  3. I think that 2wheels is correct.

    What is the insurance situation?
  4. there are laws in victoria which allow for two lanes of traffic within the one marked lane if it is wide enough for that, when traffic is heavy/busy.

    looking at the image you provided, there seems to be a parking/bicycle lane or something along the road you were travelling, which then terminates for the intersection thus leaving more space for a possibility of two lanes.

    assuming you have similar laws in NSW that apply, you could argue you simply formed a separate line of traffic within the lane, as you were exiting at a different point to the other cars in your lane.

    the way i see it is the car who turned across has the least right of way, she must only cross traffic when safe to do so.

    while writing this im also remembering someone else posted somewhere recently, that i think NSW has some amended/extended law that allows bikes to pass on the left of stationary traffic, im not 100% about this though. if this is the case, you were clearly not at fault however.

    go look up your state's traffic laws mate!!
    read every one, it helps to know 'em ;)
  5. by the diagram it looks like you were already in the intersection making a turn. I'd be spewing if i got told i was at fault
  6. I've seen the same accident happen on Pennant Hills Rd.

    You split/filter, you need to be damn careful of where the cars aren't queuing across an intersection.
    They just see cars giving way to them and the notion that a motorcycle might come out from between those cars never even enters their skull.
  7. if you are sure the cars were stationary when you were passing on the left, then you are NOT at fault, 100% i believe.


    you have right of way over the car who wanted to turn through traffic.
    it doesnt matter if the other cars were polite to let her through, polite does not = legal. she legally was not allowed to turn there until safe to do so, and obviously it was not safe if you were passing the cars on the left as you are entitled to do.

    are you insured? if not, at least get third party insurance, so you dont have to bother with this shit. anyway i suggest you talk to a lawyer or something, check what i have jsut told you with them, and if im correct, she is at fault and thus liable for any damage to your bike etc.

    back to reality, and i hope you have learnt a good lesson. just because you are in the right, doesnt mean you are safe. be careful passing stationary traffic or filtering between traffic, often cars will pass through, pedestrians walk through, etc.

    let me know how this goes :)
  8. Nibs, you have taken (c) out of context.
  9. Interested to know how you think he has taken that particular part of the rule out of context; makes sense to me - cars are stationary and he is passing on the left?
  10. They will argue that it was patently unsafe to overtake a stationary vehicle to the left as a collision occurred.

    The other driver would be found similarly responsible, as they turned into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

    Unless there are witness statements to the contrary, lie.
  11. sorry this doesn't answer your question at all but i've been through that intersection a number of times and have had a close call similar to what happened to you.. not sure if its the angle of the rd or whatever but its a pretty hard one to get across cleanly with traffic in both directions pretty much all the time.

    hope you're okay!
  12. looks like an extremely badly designed intersection. If ever there was an intersection that deserved a roundabout, surely this would be it.
  13. pfft. thats like getting hit y a head-on car that was turning right across you, as you drive straight through an intersection, and saying its unsafe to drive straight through an intersection.

    there is an order of right of way, at all times. here in Vic at least, u-turn gives way to pretty much everything. and so on and up until you have clear right of way. clearly a straight ahead/left turn has right of way over a right turn across an oncoming lane, when there are no signs/lights to the contrary.

    gonig from the aerial view, you could also say at the point of impact, the OP was still travelling directly ahead in their lane. according to the road angle that veers off and the line markings, i would say that the OP didnt need to make the left turn until a couple of metres after the point of impact. in this case the OP definately has right of way over the other car.

    2WA, how did i take it out of context? i quoted it in its entirety, and explained how it fits in with my arguement. i really cant see how unless you would like to clarify :?
  14. You are going straight, she is turning so you have right of way as a start. So if your (yellow) path is a legal maneouver, she is at fault. However if your path isn't legal then I'd say it would be just 'an accident' legally so neither would be held solely liable.

    Laws aside, when filtering like that you need to looking for gaps in traffic as it often indicates that someone is letting someone in/through.
  15. It sucks, but I believe the rider is at fault.

    Please update us on what the insurance company decides.

    I'm not sure how relevant it is, but what is the contact point on the car? Did her front bumper hit you of did you run into her side?
  16. Nibs, the way I read the regulation is that passing on the left is implicitly forbidden, unless it is safe to do so. Passing on the left, between the car and the kerb isn't a normal move and as such is regulated. They allowed for a situation where a car or line of cars are stationary (and the definition of stationary might be needed as well) and traffic needs to pass. They've permitted passing in this situation 'where safe to do so'. The OP had an accident, so it could be argued that it obviously wasn't safe to do so.

    I'm not saying I agree with this, but it's been argued here before.

    Any rider, riding to the left of stationary traffic approaching a junction should be aware that they are very well hidden from any traffic that may turn across their path. With the best will in the world, a car driver may not see you before you are upon them. They have every right to make that turn, as long as they take appropriate care. After all, if traffic didn't cooperate then we'd be in deadlock.

    If the bike is travelling at any speed, a collision will occur. Whenever you are in that situation, you must take care.
  17. Agree 100% with you CJ.

    All accounts of how the accident happened is taken into account.

    Provide the illustration of what happened as shown in OP & I'm
    confident you've guaranteed yourself a hefty bill in the mail.

    You obviously another sucker riding around with no third party cover? [-X

    Let us know the outcome.
  18. I don't even know why you're asking. You filtered left INTO the mouth of one intersection with the intention of riding down the second fork of that intersection. You should not have done so until you were at least level with the position of Marie's car before she turned.

    If Marcus Einfeld couldn't beat a $75 fine with all the legal clout HE had, you, my friend, are dead meat.
  19. Thanks for all the replys and opinions.
    Yeah no third party. :oops: $200 buck premium + $800 excess seemed a bit steep at the time. If I do have to pay it will probably cost about $1000 anyway and whatever to fix my bike. So I end up about the same as if I had insurance. Having said that I will get some now. Never had an accident in 18 years of driving thought riding would be the same.
    I hit the brakes and slid into her front bumper knocking it off, Honda Jazz. I'm fine, Jacket and jeans. Helmet hit the deck and bike is a bit dinged up.
    I don't know what she has told the insurance company so I guess I'll wait and see. I'll be a lot more careful in the future. I think I was getting a little to comfortable with the road as it is my route to work everyday. Lesson learnt.
    Cheers again will post the outcome when it occurs.
    Would everyone else wait to be level with Marie's car?
  20. Probably not if the traffic was stopped, but I'd be crawling, buffering and watching for suss GAPS :)