Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby AgrAde on Fri 10th Feb 6:45pm

Just to add another opinion: Careless driving on the part of the cyclist. (Careless and Reckless driving does apply to cyclists too).

Passing stopped traffic at 35kmph and then entering an intersection where you could reasonably expect turning traffic to enter your path and you know that the turning traffic can not see you is not "exercising the care and attention that a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in those circumstances". Popping out from behind a car at 35kmph is exactly like driving at night with your lights off and then suddenly switching them on when someone pulls out in front of you. You forfeit your right of way because it's not reasonable for anyone to be able to react to your sudden appearance. A reasonable and prudent driver should be able to foresee this problem and change their speed to suit the situation, and you did not.
AgrAde
User avatar
Member for: 13 years 11 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby glenkoorey on Sun 12th Feb 3:44pm

As it happens, I've just been reviewing this kind of situation for NZTA; that may lead to a change to the legislation in the future. But for now...

Essentially you have to consider three separate pieces of legislation in the Road User Rule 2004 (remember that the "Road Code" is a not-perfect simplified interpretation of the actual legislation, so don't rely on it for legal matters. Also note that "driver" in the legislation also refers to bike riders):

(1) - In the absence of any other controls, turning traffic has to give way to through-traffic (RUR clause 4.2). Those hold lines either side of the side-road don't connote any legal significance here BTW; they're just indicating where you shouldn't block the intersection (which is covered by RUR 4.5).

(2) - If travelling in the same lane, you can't overtake on the lefthand side ("undertaking") unless the overtaken vehicle is stopped or be turning right (RUR clause 2.8). In rush-hour traffic without a cycle lane, this currently leads to the ridiculous situation of requiring riders to repeatedly start and stop passing slow traffic as it stops and starts. Not surprisingly, in practice most cyclists ignore this, and this is the rule section being considered for changing.

(3) - Regardless of what any other road rules say about passing, RUR clause 2.6 requires that road users only attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction if the movement can be made "with safety and due consideration for other users of the road". Just to back that up, clause 8 of the Land Transport Act also requires all drivers/riders not to be careless or without reasonable consideration of other road users (BTW clause 7 about "reckless driving" only applies to motor vehicles, not cycles).

So in the scenario posed by the original poster, the turning motorist could be ticketed for failing to give way to the through-cyclist. Assuming the main traffic queue was stopped, the cyclist would normally be legitimately undertaking on the left. However, if they were zooming along at 35km/h, I think that would probably fail the "safe and due consideration" test in this context (i.e. the turning driver could not reasonably see you in time to avoid you) and the Police could ticket you instead. You can see that this scenario gets greyer as that bike speed goes down to 30, 25, 20,...
glenkoorey
Member for: 8 years 9 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby EoinC on Sun 12th Feb 5:56pm

glenkoorey wrote:...You can see that this scenario gets greyer as that bike speed goes down to 30, 25, 20,...


As does the risk of an accident occurring.
EoinC
Member for: 7 years 3 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby philstar on Mon 13th Feb 7:18pm

glenkoorey wrote:
So in the scenario posed by the original poster, the turning motorist could be ticketed for failing to give way to the through-cyclist.

However, if they were zooming along at 35km/h, I think that would probably fail the "safe and due consideration" test in this context (i.e. the turning driver could not reasonably see you in time to avoid you) and the Police could ticket you instead.


is there anything to stop both from being ticketed? which leads to the question if 2 people are doing something wrong who is at fault.
philstar
User avatar
"misanthropic"
Member for: 11 years 9 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby matnz on Tue 14th Feb 8:26am

The question that really matters is "Who gets hurt ?"

IMHO OP had a scare, got all pumped up on Adrenalin and rather than admit what he was doing was verging on legal but clearly down right stupid in the first degree, came here asking us to validate his stupidity. If we pander to his request, he will be encouraged to keep doing it, and it will happen again.

Thinking this is a version of that drunk driver add - "your balls are in my hands now" (I am the old crusty bugger :) ).
matnz
Member for: 2 years 7 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby 13daza on Tue 14th Feb 9:47pm

As I have stated here before the best advice I ever got was to "assume that all the drivers around you are homicidal maniacs then you can be pleasantly surprised when they fail to kill you" .I have followed this mantra for the last thirty years and none of the bastards have managed to kill me yet, thats not to say that there haven't been a few good attempts made ;)
13daza
Member for: 3 years 8 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby swtchbckr on Sat 18th Feb 8:35am

Mine's always been, assume they're all drunk and you're invisible
swtchbckr
User avatar
"Freakin' Mellonfarmer"
Member for: 12 years 8 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby R+P+K on Mon 20th Feb 4:26pm

glenkoorey wrote:As it happens, I've just been reviewing this kind of situation for NZTA; that may lead to a change to the legislation in the future. But for now...

Essentially you have to consider three separate pieces of legislation in the Road User Rule 2004 (remember that the "Road Code" is a not-perfect simplified interpretation of the actual legislation, so don't rely on it for legal matters. Also note that "driver" in the legislation also refers to bike riders):

(1) - In the absence of any other controls, turning traffic has to give way to through-traffic (RUR clause 4.2). Those hold lines either side of the side-road don't connote any legal significance here BTW; they're just indicating where you shouldn't block the intersection (which is covered by RUR 4.5).

(2) - If travelling in the same lane, you can't overtake on the lefthand side ("undertaking") unless the overtaken vehicle is stopped or be turning right (RUR clause 2.8). In rush-hour traffic without a cycle lane, this currently leads to the ridiculous situation of requiring riders to repeatedly start and stop passing slow traffic as it stops and starts. Not surprisingly, in practice most cyclists ignore this, and this is the rule section being considered for changing.

(3) - Regardless of what any other road rules say about passing, RUR clause 2.6 requires that road users only attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction if the movement can be made "with safety and due consideration for other users of the road". Just to back that up, clause 8 of the Land Transport Act also requires all drivers/riders not to be careless or without reasonable consideration of other road users (BTW clause 7 about "reckless driving" only applies to motor vehicles, not cycles).

So in the scenario posed by the original poster, the turning motorist could be ticketed for failing to give way to the through-cyclist. Assuming the main traffic queue was stopped, the cyclist would normally be legitimately undertaking on the left. However, if they were zooming along at 35km/h, I think that would probably fail the "safe and due consideration" test in this context (i.e. the turning driver could not reasonably see you in time to avoid you) and the Police could ticket you instead. You can see that this scenario gets greyer as that bike speed goes down to 30, 25, 20,...


<mic drop>
R+P+K
Member for: 8 years 1 month

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby 13daza on Tue 21st Feb 9:55pm

Geez I tried really hard to ride home today while following the above guidelines (specifically rule 2 as per above),and crawled along next to the cars being very careful not to undertake anyone unless they had stopped ....to be totally honest after a couple of km or so I flagged it as the motorists were giving me strange looks and riding a bike at like 4.5 km per hour gets a bit tedious after a while ,but mostly because a little old dear on a scooter undertook me on the footpath and some of the pedestrians were catching up .
Out of curiosity does a marked cycle lane on the left of the vehicle lane constitute a lane of its own specifically for bikes ,if for example Im humming along in my bike lane fatser than the slow moving traffic to my right and some muppet decides to park thier car in it requiring me to enter the vehicle lane of slow moving cars to overtake the parked car thus undertaking some of the slow moving cars in the vehicle lane who gets the ticket , and can I get a speeding ticket on the push bike
13daza
Member for: 3 years 8 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby philstar on Wed 22nd Feb 4:46am

13daza wrote:Out of curiosity does a marked cycle lane on the left of the vehicle lane constitute a lane of its own specifically for bikes ,if for example Im humming along in my bike lane fatser than the slow moving traffic to my right and some muppet decides to park thier car in it requiring me to enter the vehicle lane of slow moving cars to overtake the parked car thus undertaking some of the slow moving cars in the vehicle lane


a marked cycle lane is a lane, like a bus lane or a car pool lane. if some parks in the cycle lane then you need to follow the rules as if the is no cycle lane (or ride over their car), just like if you were driving a car on a 2 lane road and a car parked in your lane.
philstar
User avatar
"misanthropic"
Member for: 11 years 9 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby dwgknz on Wed 22nd Feb 6:55am

90% of NZers would genuinely be surprised by more than half of the road rules.

The level of comprehension of the rules is shocking, people seem absolutely terrified when cars and bikes (legally) appear where they don't expect them! My current pet peeve is lane spreading and idiots not turning into the closest lane essentially blocking lines of traffic coming from the other direction also turning. (I'm a crusader for public good!)
dwgknz
User avatar
Member for: 4 years 8 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby Klarkash-ton on Wed 22nd Feb 12:06pm

(2) - If travelling in the same lane, you can't overtake on the lefthand side ("undertaking") unless the overtaken vehicle is stopped or be turning right (RUR clause 2.8). In rush-hour traffic without a cycle lane, this currently leads to the ridiculous situation of requiring riders to repeatedly start and stop passing slow traffic as it stops and starts. Not surprisingly, in practice most cyclists ignore this, and this is the rule section being considered for changing.


'tis just impossible...does need to change, but to what? the desired 'let the cyclist past at full speed" is definitely unsafe - from my painful personal experience, though I still pretty much do it. The catch all "with safety and due consideration for other users of the road" is too open to interpretation.
Klarkash-ton
"I ride to support my eating habit"
Member for: 9 years 4 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby philstar on Thu 23rd Feb 2:41pm

dwgknz wrote:90% of NZers would genuinely be surprised by more than half of the road rules.

The level of comprehension of the rules is shocking, people seem absolutely terrified when cars and bikes (legally) appear where they don't expect them! My current pet peeve is lane spreading and idiots not turning into the closest lane essentially blocking lines of traffic coming from the other direction also turning. (I'm a crusader for public good!)


you mean like turning right (from far right lane) an going into the left hand lane. :rolleyes:

my pet peeve is when people pass you and pull in with inadequate stopping distance with the road empty in front of them :angry:
philstar
User avatar
"misanthropic"
Member for: 11 years 9 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby Klarkash-ton on Fri 24th Feb 4:24pm

philstar wrote:

my pet peeve is when people pass you and pull in with inadequate stopping distance with the road empty in front of them :angry:


I like people who pass very close to you or use their horn when there is no one for miles in the oncoming lane.
Klarkash-ton
"I ride to support my eating habit"
Member for: 9 years 4 months

Re: If There Is A Crash In This Situation, Who Is In The Fault?

Postby supernovah on Mon 27th Feb 11:13am

Lol at people telling me I had a scare and came here for affirmation. It never happened, I was wondering. My brain wonders, hopefully yours do too.
supernovah
Member for: 6 years 10 months

Cycling - Latest Posts

Who is online

54 Users browsing this website: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 50 guests

REMEBER TO CLICK THE LINKS WHEN BUYING FROM VORB SUPPORTERS


  • Merlin Cycles
  • ProBikeKit
  • Vorb Shop
  • Wiggle
  • Chain Reaction Cycles
  • GT Bicycles