You Auckland dwellers sure seem to get some mad traffic-related stuff compared to us and I thought it was bad enough round here!

Geektastic:

 

You Auckland dwellers sure seem to get some mad traffic-related stuff compared to us and I thought it was bad enough round here!

 

As an Aucklander, I was thinking the same thing about Wellington. They're everywhere. Be careful out there!

Just had a guy get all road ragey on me coming back from M10 with essential landscape supplies. I was driving at the speed limit, correctly indicating, etc, but he decided he needed to be somewhere in a hurry so at the next set of lights he wound down his window a yelled abuse. So much for the PM’s call to be kind to each other.

If he’s like that now I pity his family after being cooped up for a month.

@Linuxluver any update on your car/insurance?

freitasm:

@Linuxluver any update on your car/insurance?

Here's a nominee for muppet of the year:

Two in hospital after car flips on closed Manawatū Gorge highway

Pity there ain't a pic of what's left of the car.

This is an interesting one because I had to read over the detail several times to picture the sequence of events. Plus police attempted to prosecute the driver, even though to my mind clearly the motorcyclist was clearly / majorly at fault.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/122715941/woman-accused-of-causing-death-of-speeding-motorcyclist-has-charge-thrown-out
  
Both are heading south, him coming up fast behind her at over 100kph in a 50kph zone.
She indicates and does a U turn, but he hits her near the drivers door IN THE NORTHBOUND LANE AFTER SHE HAS CROSSED THE CENTRELINE.

So was he behind her in the southbound lane and moved into the north at the last minute trying to steer around her? Or had he been on the north bound lane all along (i.e. the wrong side of the road) 
Given the defence's statement: “who would anticipate a vehicle going 100kph down the wrong side of the road?” it seems to imply the latter.
I'm curious and would really like to know what was going through his thoughts in those last moments. 

A fatal split second decision in a moment of speed induced recklessness? or an inevitable tragedy?
Just glad she had the charge dismissed, many drivers are involved in accidents through no fault of their own but to have a fatality and have police attempt to prosecute you - double whammy.

ShiroHagen:

 

This is an interesting one because I had to read over the detail several times to picture the sequence of events. Plus police attempted to prosecute the driver, even though to my mind clearly the motorcyclist was clearly / majorly at fault.

 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/122715941/woman-accused-of-causing-death-of-speeding-motorcyclist-has-charge-thrown-out
  
Both are heading south, him coming up fast behind her at over 100kph in a 50kph zone.
She indicates and does a U turn, but he hits her near the drivers door IN THE NORTHBOUND LANE AFTER SHE HAS CROSSED THE CENTRELINE.

 

So was he behind her in the southbound lane and moved into the north at the last minute trying to steer around her? Or had he been on the north bound lane all along (i.e. the wrong side of the road) 
Given the defence's statement: “who would anticipate a vehicle going 100kph down the wrong side of the road?” it seems to imply the latter.
I'm curious and would really like to know what was going through his thoughts in those last moments. 

 

A fatal split second decision in a moment of speed induced recklessness? or an inevitable tragedy?
Just glad she had the charge dismissed, many drivers are involved in accidents through no fault of their own but to have a fatality and have police attempt to prosecute you - double whammy.

 

It seems strange that they tried to prosecute.  Looking at the photo/streetview, he was either using the flush median as his private overtaking lane, or had crossed this in order to overtake on the opposite side of the road.

Should a driver be held accountable for someone else doing something totally unpredictable and illegal?  Good question.  This seems more like Darwinism by the biker than carelessness by the car driver

It must be very difficult to spot a motorcycle moving at 100kmh behind you, even looking in all your mirrors and over your shoulder. He would've been covering a lot of ground very quickly (27 meters a second!) and he may not have been visible when she checked.

Here's the thing though: if you're doing a u-turn on a road with one lane in each direction and you see a vehicle behind you - are you supposed to give way to that vehicle? I'm pretty sure you're not. That vehicle should slow down or stop. 

An argument could be made that the woman should have pulled over to the left before making the turn, to allow traffic to pass her. But I'm not certain that is actually in the law and in what circurmstances that would be required.

edit

Just to add to that: the motorcyclist shouldn't have been anywhere but in the same lane and behind her. He clearly wasn't using the median to turn, given he was travelling at 100kmh. He shouldn't have been overtaking. He should have been travelling at no more than 50kmh at a safe distance behind her. He was travelling too fast to stop safely. 

Journeyman:

 

 

 

Here's the thing though: if you're doing a u-turn on a road with one lane in each direction and you see a vehicle behind you - are you supposed to give way to that vehicle? I'm pretty sure you're not. That vehicle should slow down or stop. 

 

An argument could be made that the woman should have pulled over to the left before making the turn, to allow traffic to pass her. But I'm not certain that is actually in the law and in what circurmstances that would be required.

 

 

 

According to the roadcode guide:

• Check your mirrors, indicate left and pull in as close to the kerb as you can.
• Check your mirrors.
• Indicate right for at least three seconds.
• Do one last check of your mirrors and over your shoulder.
• Pull out and turn onto the other side of the road so you are now facing in the opposite direction.
• Before you accelerate back into your lane, do a quick mirror and shoulder check to make sure no one is trying to pass you.

Handsomedan:

 

Journeyman:

 

 

 

Here's the thing though: if you're doing a u-turn on a road with one lane in each direction and you see a vehicle behind you - are you supposed to give way to that vehicle? I'm pretty sure you're not. That vehicle should slow down or stop. 

 

An argument could be made that the woman should have pulled over to the left before making the turn, to allow traffic to pass her. But I'm not certain that is actually in the law and in what circurmstances that would be required.

 

 

 

 

According to the roadcode guide:

 

To do the U-turn:

 

• Check your mirrors, indicate left and pull in as close to the kerb as you can.

Fair enough. Personally, I always pull over to the left out of caution. I wouldn't just pull straight across - maybe that was what Police based their decision to proscute on. But if you think you're the only vehicle on an otherwise empty road, I can see why you might not pull over.

Journeyman:

 

Handsomedan:

 

 

 

According to the roadcode guide:

 

To do the U-turn:

 

• Check your mirrors, indicate left and pull in as close to the kerb as you can.

 

Fair enough. Personally, I always pull over to the left out of caution. I wouldn't just pull straight across - maybe that was what Police based their decision to proscute on. But if you think you're the only vehicle on an otherwise empty road, I can see why you might not pull over.

 

Completely agree - I'd be the first one to not pull left if the road was apparently completely clear

ShiroHagen: ...... She indicates and does a U turn, but he hits her near the drivers door IN THE NORTHBOUND LANE AFTER SHE HAS CROSSED THE CENTRELINE.... 

I know a few people who don't indicate and say that they've checked that there was no one around to indicate for (which seems like more work than just indicating so I don't buy it). My counter argument is that you're not only indicating for the people you see, but for those you didn't. Not saying the lady is at fault of course, but when you're indicating your intentions it gives the inevitable hoons a better chance of avoiding you - ie go up the left side of a right turning car instead of assuming its going straight and passing on the right. The evidence suggests that either she wasn't indicating or that the hoon never saw it.

tripper1000:

 

ShiroHagen: ...... She indicates and does a U turn, but he hits her near the drivers door IN THE NORTHBOUND LANE AFTER SHE HAS CROSSED THE CENTRELINE.... 

 

I know a few people who don't indicate and say that they've checked that there was no one around to indicate for (which seems like more work than just indicating so I don't buy it). My counter argument is that you're not only indicating for the people you see, but for those you didn't. Not saying the lady is at fault of course, but when you're indicating your intentions it gives the inevitable hoons a better chance of avoiding you - ie go up the left side of a right turning car instead of assuming its going straight and passing on the right. The evidence suggests that either she wasn't indicating or that the hoon never saw it.

 

I have been overtaken when stopping for pedestrian crossings and over taken when indicating a righthand turn. I would say that the bike rider was too busy riding like a complete idiot with no regard to the safety of anyone around him. Doing 100Kmh in a 50Kmh zone is absolute stupidity.

tripper1000:

 

I know a few people who don't indicate and say that they've checked that there was no one around to indicate for (which seems like more work than just indicating so I don't buy it). My counter argument is that you're not only indicating for the people you see, but for those you didn't. Not saying the lady is at fault of course, but when you're indicating your intentions it gives the inevitable hoons a better chance of avoiding you - ie go up the left side of a right turning car instead of assuming its going straight and passing on the right. The evidence suggests that either she wasn't indicating or that the hoon never saw it.

 

I wonder if her vehicle had a blind spot which was probably where he was when she checked.

Anyway, whatever the actual situation, indicating gives a valuable warning to other people ... as I keep telling other drivers who don't indicate very often.

We're supposed to indicate in a lot of situations. Many people don't even realise that you are required to indicate in car parks, even private car parks.

https://drive.govt.nz/get-your-restricted/skills/driving-on-the-road/when-you-need-to-indicate

 

Indicating at the right time, in the right situations will tell everyone where you're heading.

 

...

 

Situations when you need to indicate

 

• Pulling out from, or returning to, the kerb
• Entering or leaving a parking space
• Turning
• Changing lanes
• At a roundabout
• Crossing the centreline
• Merging when your lane ends (like when you’re entering a motorway)
• Whenever you have to move further than the width of your car (like when you’re passing a parked car or cyclist on a narrow road).

At the other end of the spectrum is people who indicate when they don't need to and actually use the wrong indicator. So many drivers still indicate that they are continuing to turn right on a roundabout when they are actually turning left out of the roundabout.