Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4


48 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 8


  Reply # 854524 12-Jul-2013 19:01
Send private message

joker97: there are 2 issues here

1) unfortunately you were in the wrong legally as the cyclist was going straight hence had the right of way. however if the cyclist was in fact speeding past and overtaking the van on the left and knew you were coming, you could say in terms of common sense he was wrong.

2) every one of us would probably have made the turn given the circumstance. I guess defensive driving principles would say do not go if you can't see what's coming behind the van - you did not have line of sight, better safe and sorry. but yes, in the heat of the moment, most of us would have made the turn, including some of those who claim they wouldn't have.

lesson learnt.


Thanks for that.

I should just be glad it wasn't serious for the biker.

5043 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1618


  Reply # 854542 12-Jul-2013 19:19
Send private message

Ratez: So now my question is, is the biker illegal to be lane splitting on the left?


Here's the rule regarding passing on the left.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/40.0/DLM303050.html

2.8Passing on left

(1) A driver must not pass or attempt to pass on the left of another vehicle moving in the same direction except in accordance with this clause.
(2) In any case in which the movement referred to subclause (1) may be made,—
  • (a) the 2 vehicles must be in different lanes; or
  • (b) the overtaken vehicle must be stationary or its driver must have given or be giving the prescribed signal of that driver's intention to turn right; or
  • (c) if the overtaken vehicle is a light rail vehicle moving in the same direction, the light rail vehicle must not be—
    • (i) signalling an intention to turn left or to stop; or
    • (ii) stationary for the purposes of allowing passengers to alight or board.
(3) If the roadway is marked in lanes, the driver may make the movement referred in subclause (1) only if the driver's vehicle does not encroach on a lane that is unavailable to a driver.

5043 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1618


  Reply # 854545 12-Jul-2013 19:23
Send private message

And here's the rule regarding the turning driver giving way to the oncoming traffic.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/40.0/DLM303076.html

Giving way where vehicles are controlled by same type of sign or in absence of signs
  • (1) This clause applies if both the vehicles moving in the direction in which a driver is travelling and the vehicles approaching from another direction—
    • (a) are not controlled by a stop sign or a give-way sign; or
    • (b) are controlled by a stop sign at or near an intersection; or
    • (c) are controlled by a give-way sign at or near an intersection.
    (2) A driver changing lanes or about to change lanes, or turning or about to turn, must give way to any vehicle not changing lanes, or not making a turn.
    (2A) A driver turning or about to turn to his or her right must give way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction and lawfully turning or about to turn to its left.
    (3) A driver approaching or crossing an intersection must give way to any vehicle approaching or crossing the intersection from his or her right unless subclause (2) or (4) applies.
    (4) A driver on a terminating road who is approaching or crossing a T-intersection must give way to a vehicle on the continuing road, including a vehicle turning or about to turn right into the terminating road.
    (5) In subclause (4),—
    continuing road means—
    • (a) the 2 sections of road that meet at a T-intersection and are connected by a marked centre line to indicate the normal flow of traffic; or
    • (b) if no centre line is marked through a T-intersection, the 2 sections of road that continue generally in the same direction
    T-intersection—
    • (a) means the intersection of 3 sections of road where 2 of those sections of road form the continuing road and the other road is the terminating road; and
    • (b) does not include the point at which the exit from a slip lane joins a road
    terminating road means the section of road at a T-intersection that does not form part of a continuing road.



48 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 8


  Reply # 854563 12-Jul-2013 19:39
One person supports this post
Send private message

Thanks for that Running Man. I'll take this as a lesson. Ultimately he was right because he was passing stationary vehicles while I am in the wrong because I did not 'give way' to oncoming traffic. No point arguing on any circumstances :). At least now I will be more careful having experienced something like this.

Abo

73 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 15


  Reply # 854564 12-Jul-2013 19:43
Send private message

Biker is an absolute idiot, don't see how cutting through traffic even if they are 'stationary' (because it's illegal to block the intersection) is legal for a motorcycle.
Though I would say that biker won't be cutting through traffic like that for a wee while now :)

2278 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 370

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 854567 12-Jul-2013 19:47
Send private message

Ratez: Thanks for that Running Man. I'll take this as a lesson. Ultimately he was right because he was passing stationary vehicles while I am in the wrong because I did not 'give way' to oncoming traffic. No point arguing on any circumstances :). At least now I will be more careful having experienced something like this.


At least you have the sense to admit you got it wrong on that occasion and are dealing with it. Others would simply get a bigger car for the next time :)

2082 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 218

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 854570 12-Jul-2013 19:58
Send private message

It's likely to be a ticket for 'failing to give way when turning - other vehicle not turning'. This is a $150 fine.

Careless driving isn't an offence that can be dealt with by way of a ticket given to you on the side of the road or sent to you in the mail. If you were going to be charged with careless driving you'd be going to court.

It's possible you're being warned for careless driving, and will be issued the above fine.




MacBook Pro 13" w/ Touch Bar (Early 2017) | iPad Pro 10.5 Wi-Fi 128GB (Space Grey) | iPhone 8 Plus 64GB (Product RED) | HomePod (Space Grey) | Apple TV 4K | Apple TV (4th Generation) | Apple Watch Series 3 42mm (Space Grey)



48 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 8


  Reply # 854572 12-Jul-2013 19:59
Send private message

Abo: Biker is an absolute idiot, don't see how cutting through traffic even if they are 'stationary' (because it's illegal to block the intersection) is legal for a motorcycle.
Though I would say that biker won't be cutting through traffic like that for a wee while now :)


https://imgur.com/5KuzK4r

When I got off the car I thought he would've been seriously injured.  Surprisingly his bike had no visible damage other then the handle bar.  Really lucky for the both of us..

1241 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 156


  Reply # 854574 12-Jul-2013 20:05
Send private message

Ok, motorcyclist was a nonce for starters, going up the left is perfectly legal (assuming stopped traffic and not a cycle lane) and I do it myself on occasion but they did not do it with anything like enough caution. He should be done for careless too.

But, unfortunately you turned across traffic without ascertaining the the way was clear, that your view was blocked by the truck doesn't matter, you don't get a free pass there. It could have been somebody on a push bike coming up the left.

Sounds like lesson learned anyway, we all make mistakes, keep your eyes peeled for iffy situations and if in doubt, wait.






---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...


3055 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1538


  Reply # 854575 12-Jul-2013 20:07
2 people support this post
Send private message

I don't quite get what you have been charged with. Careless Driving is a court offence, used when you have done something wrong or been 'careless' with your driving. It is not an instant fine. Given the fine was $150 my guess is you were given an instant fine ticket (infringement notice) for "failing to give way when turning" or something similar.

Yes you failed to give way, but the fact the bike was undercutting and could not reasonably have been seen are mitigating factors and you should raise these issues with the Police and write in asking to be let off the fine.

If they say no then your only option is to ask for a court hearing. It may not be worth the time and trouble for $150 however.






Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman, then always be the Batman





48 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 8


  Reply # 854578 12-Jul-2013 20:12
Send private message

scuwp: I don't quite get what you have been charged with. Careless Driving is a court offence, used when you have done something wrong or been 'careless' with your driving. It is not an instant fine. Given the fine was $150 my guess is you were given an instant fine ticket (infringement notice) for "failing to give way when turning" or something similar.

Yes you failed to give way, but the fact the bike was undercutting and could not reasonably have been seen are mitigating factors and you should raise these issues with the Police and write in asking to be let off the fine.

If they say no then your only option is to ask for a court hearing. It may not be worth the time and trouble for $150 however.




Hi there,  no I was not given an instant fine.  I contacted the cop to see if biker was fine etc and he told me over the phone as a pre-warn that I will be getting the fine in my letterbox soon.

I will forego any court hearing as you said, its not worth it for the money and I can now see I am in the wrong for crossing without full view.

Sad thing is that was the first time I went there in the morning to get breakfast, had a 8:00am meeting.  End up not attending meeting and paying $1000 excess (below 25 years old).

1710 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 169

Trusted

  Reply # 854650 12-Jul-2013 22:05
Send private message

freitasm:
blakamin: My ex hit a car that indicated to turn, so she went... the car went straight, she got "careless". 


Don't get me started on idiots who can't indicate when going through roundabouts.



The rules are not that hard - why do people not understand them... and then there are the lazy drivers who just don't indicate!

411 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 6


  Reply # 854668 12-Jul-2013 22:48
Send private message

sleemanj: Ok, motorcyclist was a nonce for starters, going up the left is perfectly legal (assuming stopped traffic and not a cycle lane) and I do it myself on occasion but they did not do it with anything like enough caution. He should be done for careless too.

But, unfortunately you turned across traffic without ascertaining the the way was clear, that your view was blocked by the truck doesn't matter, you don't get a free pass there. It could have been somebody on a push bike coming up the left.

Sounds like lesson learned anyway, we all make mistakes, keep your eyes peeled for iffy situations and if in doubt, wait.



Complete agree.

As a cyclist who commutes everyday by bike, this situation is very common. Whenever I filter on the left I do so with caution (reduced speed, covering brakes, extending my view around the corner). A good thing I remember is that if there is a gap in the traffic, there's usually a reason (as proved with the OP). 

Whilst the motorcyclist was silly for filtering too fast and not being vigilant enough; the responsibility is ultimately up to you to make sure that the road ahead was clear. Given the circumstances, I think the fine was a bit harsh. However, it will hopefully be a lesson learned, both by the motorcyclist, and yourself. 

3722 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1210


  Reply # 854669 12-Jul-2013 22:53
2 people support this post
Send private message

Personally I think you are 50/50 in the wrong, because you didn't allow for the possibility of a bike or scooter or whatever coming through.  The biker should also have been more careful as they should also be be aware of their low visibility and take additional care.  Not sure how it works in law but this is how I view it in a fair world. 


635 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 32
Inactive user


  Reply # 854880 13-Jul-2013 11:17
Send private message

surfisup1000: Personally I think you are 50/50 in the wrong, because you didn't allow for the possibility of a bike or scooter or whatever coming through.  The biker should also have been more careful as they should also be be aware of their low visibility and take additional care.  Not sure how it works in law but this is how I view it in a fair world. 



I tend to agree there was an offence committed by both parties here. A more reasonable outcome would have been:

(a) Both get tickets
(b) The party with the most culpability gets a ticket (not sure yet which party that would be)
(c) Everyone gets a warning?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.