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.

VIC Motorcycle crash - who's at fault?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by rubenastley, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. Hey guys,

    I was involved in a crash at the start of the year. I was entering a two lane main road through a slip lane, i go through the slip lane and stick to the left.. mirror check and head check and started to change lane, once in my lane for about half a second a car hit me from behind. She came through the slip lane at a greater speed and directly entered the right lane.


    Now the damage is towards her left on her front fender which could indicate a unsafe lane change under normal circumstances (which i don't think it is as a result of the slip lane)

    My insurance, due to the damage in the front fender towards the left is the main reason they will claim liability.

    Sure, i studied some law subjects at uni and understand its not who's in the right, but who can prove it..

    What ticks me off is on her version of events, she claims to have entered the slip lane first, (which is utterly bullshit..) complete her turn into the right lane. She outlined that the motorcyclist undertook her then merged to the right lane causing a collision.

    Holy bollocks, i couldn't believe it when she claimed to have been in front of me into the turn.. let alone undertook her


  2. She be lying her titties off, get yourself a witness ;)
    • Like Like x 1
  3. In both her and your version of events, she did not turn into the nearest lane, this is a requirement in the road rules I am fairly sure, but my google fu has forsaken me and I cannot find the actual regulation.

    I would confirm that is a rule and say that the collision would not have occured had this rule been followed.
  4. need a witness? i'm sure i was...that place..where..this thing happened.
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Usually, if somebody hits you from behind , it is they who are at fault.
  6. people lie. dig in and test her nerve. I had one that almost got to court (there is a special court to determine these) but the other side decided the other driver was telling porkies and pulled out. might take 6 months or so to resolve though.

    ps keep a copy of what you said to the insurance and stick to it.
  7. There are so many rules confronting us these days that it’s easy to be confused about what the law actually says about approaching a road where traffic merges, especially when other drivers seem intent on forcing what they believe is their right of way. Drivers turning left must still give way to pedestrians, any vehicle approaching from the right or any vehicle turning right at the intersection into the road the driver is entering. In situations where no line markings exist, or lane lines indicate that your lane is coming to an end – such as entering a freeway – you must indicate your intention to change lanes long enough to give other drivers sufficient warning, and still give way to other vehicles and change lanes only when it is safe to do so. The driver cannot cross into the other lane until the continuous white line ends and it is safe to merge into the traffic flow. If there is no continuous lines (as per rubenastley's diagram), then I see no reason why the driver has to stick to the left lane before moving to the middle, and you will find drivers will readily move straight into a lane other than the left.

    The driver is a shifty, but smart cookie coming up with her version of events! and IMHO, makes it almost certain rubenastley will be at fault for not making sure it was safe to change lanes given there was a faster travelling vehicle already in the lane he was moving into.

    Happy to be proven wrong, but for now, my guess is you will be. Sorry.

  8. One thing with her version of events is that the op was travelling faster, since according to her, the op overtook, so how did she manage to hit a vehicle from the rear that was going faster?

    Overtaking in the slip lane then slamming on the brakes, whilst changing lanes, is that believable?
  9. You are referring to OP's version of what driver said whereas I'm thinking of what a half switched on dodgy driver would say to lay blame on rider.

  10. the vehicle that was hit in the rear is (should be in the right) clear. Well at least that used to be the rules.
  11. I understand that, however the court would decide who was telling the truth based on balance of probabilities. Therefore, lying would only work for her should the lie be more believable than the OPs story.

    If she was a slow driver (enough to be overtaken be a motorcycle on the inside according to her) her actions in overtaking same motorcyclist back by going into the right lane doesnt seem consistent. Additionally as I said abive the rider woukd have to change from being so impatient in the slip lane to then slamming on the brakes whilst changing lanes. An aggressive rider would not do this.

    The Ops story of being ahead all the time seems more probable, but I guess it would depend on the judge, but I dont think it is as hopeless as you suggest.
  12. That rule, although makes sense and is common courtesy was taken out of the Road Rules in Victoria years ago.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. So if the two people on either side of an accident give statements claiming the other is at fault. There is no other evidence and both statements are equally plausible then will one side be given fault or both sides be apportioned blame?
  14. This scenario could go a number of ways. The law states that you can't change lanes and impede another vehicle alreasy in that lane.
    So if the cage was already in the lane, the Op has merged and the cage hasn't had time to slow to avoid a collision then the Op is at fault. (even though he was hit from behind)
    Or we have the OP's version of events where the cage is at fault.
    Now I'm assuming there were no witnesses, so if the collisions reported to the Police the possibilities could be (depending on which department they come from etc), They believe the Op and give the cage a ticket. They believe the cage and give the Op a ticket. If the one who received the ticket disaggree then take it to court and let the Magistrate decide beyond reasonable doubt.
    Or the police may not be able to determine who was at fault (no witnesses, one against one, conflicting stories etc) then they may request No further Police action. It would then be up to the insurance companies to lay blame.
    Or for the conspirisy theorists the police will give them both a ticket and hope they both pay.
  15. Thank you.

    If neither insurer concedes, they both will be charged an excess.

    That's how I read it.

    1. OP was momentarily in left lane 2. Driver travelling at a higher speed went straight to middle lane 3. OP has then moved into lane 2 which driver had occupied first & not checked that it was safe to do so

  16. had another chat to my insurance, they won't budge and are chasing me for excess.. sigh

    They believed her story that i undertook her, drove a while up the road and then changed lane infront of her. Even though i showed them crash marks at the end of the turn that shows he unlikely event that she fully occupied the lane after the turn unless she drove straight and then magically did a 90 degree turn. In my report i argued that she had not occupied that lane when i decided to merge, but they said that because my diagram showed that she was in the lane (even though right bloody next to the diagram i said "Her car was not completely in the lane and was at a angle (due to coming out of a corner) at the time of collision (this can also explains why the damage is to the mid left of her front bumper" .. Claiming my evidence was inconclusive/ambigious and self incriminating

    $1400 excess payed to cover a lying piece of shit
  17. There is no "however" because it'll never go to Court, & I'll repeat myself for your benefit: From what I've read so far, OP will be at fault and if there is any doubt, both parties will simply be charged an excess. Why? Because its the cheapest and quickest way of resolving the matter.

  18. Well there you go! I've only just noticed your post. It turned out as I thought. Sorry to hear.

  19. sucks for the OP, seems like you got reamed (in more than one way) by a shit driver.
  20. I'm just interested in one point here - OP says he head checked, saw the lane was clear, moved fully into right lane before being struck from behind. For that to happen as described, the driver cannot have been in the RH lane before the rider. Aiming for it, probably, but not in it. At worst, they would have moved into the RH lane at the same time.

    If all that is true, what makes the rider 'at fault'?

    (Not arguing about the insurers acting as they have.)