Need advice from someone fluent in Victorian Roadlaw.

[Article99]

So here's me, on my widdle motorcycle (green) :D and the evil lady in her car (red). :devilred:
The lady's stationary in the slip lane, with traffic whizzing past her.

So I mosy on up like in front of her and look over my right hand shoulder to look for a break in the traffic. :2tsup:

At this point, the nasty lady decides to make a go for it and runs square into my backside, sprawling me and my not so pretty bike into the oncoming lanes of the adjacent road. (Thank goodness nothing was coming at 60km/h.) :((

Fact 1: Both she and I were stationary before this collision.
Fact 2: I was hit from behind.

According to the two people I've spoken to about this matter, I should not have to worry, as the evil lady is liable for damages, due to her failing to give way to a stationary vehicle in front of her. :)

According to said evil lady and equally nasty bf/hubby/whatever on the telephone this evening, I am mistaken. :o:no:

Anyone here who'd have a fair idea of who's liable in reality? (See attached image to clarify.) :?

[Burnsy]

Are you saying that she was stationary and waiting to pull out and you slipped past her on the inside to get in front?

[Article99]

Yessir, that's correct. Once I was past her, I was in front of her, stationary too, with my right foot on the deck and about to look for oncoming traffic. (Got my head halfway to my right shoulder before she came knocking...)

[Burnsy]

I'm no expert but would guess that, that may be the crucial piece of info, it all depends on whether motocycles are allowed to pass through stationary traffic to get in front. I would also guess that even if you were not allowed to do that though, she would certainly not be allowed to hit you so is still at fault even though you may or maynot have commited an offence.

[Big Shed]

Not fluent in Victorian (or any other) road law.

But I would question the legality of passing on the inside in a slip lane?
I would say that is a questionable maneuver, even for a motorcycle.

Anyway, my understanding is that the person that hits someone from behind whilst that vehicle is stationery (or moving for that matter) is at fault.

If it comes to court though, they may well question how that person came to be in front in the first place.

[Article99]

Surely the subject of arrival is irrelevant if both vehicles were stationary for a time and then the accident occurred afterwards.

As far as I know, slip-laning whilst vehicles are stationary isn't illegal at all. However lane-sharing, which is the same thing with the exception that the vehicles are in motion, is illegal.

[pawnhead]

I don't know the legalities, but I don't think you're allowed to lane share with a car, hence overtaking her in the same lane would be illegal.
From her point of view, there was no one in front of her when she pulled up. Looking over her right shoulder for a break in the traffic, she wouldn't have seen you. Sure she could have looked forward before she accelerated, but she assumed that a motorcycle wouldn't just pop up there.

If you're going to zip past someone through a narrow gap, then you should be fully prepared for any eventuality, no matter how unlikely, i.e you should have kept far enough to one side, or accelerated out quicker than she did as soon as there was a gap.

Bikes are hard to see, and you should always ride defensively and assume that you're invisible to motorists. In other words, make allowance for idiots.

[Calm]

I'll go with the common thought on this.

You were in front - she hit you from behind :o :o - she didnt look :oo: :oo: - you were in the right.

i dont see how you got there is relevant.

Only a guess though.

[Article99]

Sure she could have looked forward before she accelerated, but she assumed that a motorcycle wouldn't just pop up there.

She actually said something quite similar to that on the telephone. To which I asked..

In the same situation would you assume that a pedestrian wouldn't pop up either? And not look in the direction you're going to travel before beginning to accelerate?

Got an earfull of abuse rather than an answer at that point, however. :no:

[johnc]

I also think the fact you took the hit from behind has you in the right, however you may be a tad culpable with the manouvre. Even so passing on the left may also be illegal which does not have you in the clear either. Why not ring the local plod and ask the question, then follow up with a quick question to your solicitor, there is no point arguing the toss with the lady or her beloved they know they are right unless proved otherwise with a fair bit of legal clout. If you are in the wrong best to find out now and get on with it I suppose.

Glad to hear you did not sustain any serious injuries, lady luck must have given you a wink as you took the thump.

John.

[q9]

As much as she should have looked where she was going, they could argue that you contributed to the accident by your actions. Let it be a valuable lesson, some time is not worth saving, and don't expect other people to look out for your best interests - they will only disappoint you.

[Dirty Doogie]

An almost identical thing happened to my GF (driving car) recently.

Were there any witnesses? You should get some - If not she can do you like a dinner! She can merely say she was creeping forward, you overtook on the inside and you stopped in front of her.

It worked for GF under Qld law a few years back. Biker got $1500 fine and lost 8 points - dangerous driving.

[ian]

Her arguement will be that:
she was stationary looking to the right waiting for a break in the traffic
there was no one in front of her
you passed her on the left (very naughty), you should always pass on the right
she saw suitable break and went for it
you got in the way having (very naughtily) snuck up on her blind side

factors you haven't stated:
is the slip lane crossed by a pedestrian crossing and was she on or behind said crossing? (relevance – if there were a crossing she has a particular responsibility to look for peds before going for a gap in the traffic)

regardless she can only procede if the road ahead is clear and it demonstrably wasn't

my advice?
report the crash to the cops
report the crash to your insurance company (including your third party insurer) — she may lodge a claim for "shock" naming you the "at fault" driver.
get yourself checked by a doctor as a "third party accident victim"



ian

[Article99]

factors you haven't stated:
is the slip lane crossed by a pedestrian crossing and was she on or behind said crossing? (relevance – if there were a crossing she has a particular responsibility to look for peds before going for a gap in the traffic)

regardless she can only procede if the road ahead is clear and it demonstrably wasn't

my advice?
report the crash to the cops
report the crash to your insurance company (including your third party insurer) — she may lodge a claim for "shock" naming you the "at fault" driver.
get yourself checked by a doctor as a "third party accident victim"


Yes, there is a pedestrian crossing there, which she was pretty well on.

Cops? Not if I can avoid them. Don't trust them anymore than lawyers or insurance companies.

Speaking of which, I have neither.

Doctor? I'm not bleeding anywhere and there's no sore spots...

[Big Shed]

Yes, there is a pedestrian crossing there, which she was pretty well on.

Cops? Not if I can avoid them. Don't trust them anymore than lawyers or insurance companies.

Speaking of which, I have neither.

Doctor? I'm not bleeding anywhere and there's no sore spots...

I think the advice that Ian gave is very sound, isn't there an obligation under road traffic to report traffic accidents?

Insurance, you may not have any but maybe they do and their insurance company will come after you.

[Burnsy]

I think the advice that Ian gave is very sound, isn't there an obligation under road traffic to report traffic accidents?

Insurance, you may not have any but maybe they do and their insurance company will come after you.
I agree, get the name and details of the witnesses, go down the local cop shop and fill out an accident statement. I think in WA it is reportable if it is over $350 in damage or someone is injured, $350 is not much when it come to panel repairs.

[ian]

Yes, there is a pedestrian crossing there, which she was pretty well on.good. It makes the "I was creeping forward" defence more difficult to sustain. If you're creeping forward without checking for peds you're not keeping a "proper lookout"
Cops? Not if I can avoid them. Don't trust them anymore than lawyers or insurance companies.

Speaking of which, I have neither.you're not riding uninsured (compulsory third party) and therefore unregistered are you?

VERY VERY naughty if you are — go find a lawyer as a matter of urgency.

you may be able to report the crash by phone.
A reluctance to report the crash — particularly to tell your side of the story — might be interpreted as an admission of culpability
Doctor? I'm not bleeding anywhere and there's no sore spots...Well, see how you feel in the morning.

if you don't report you will have to pay for physio on the stiff neck you develop next week.


ian

[pawnhead]

She actually said something quite similar to that on the telephone. To which I asked..

In the same situation would you assume that a pedestrian wouldn't pop up either? And not look in the direction you're going to travel before beginning to accelerate?

Got an earfull of abuse rather than an answer at that point, however. :no:I'll assume there was no zebra crossing there. I certainly wouldn't jump out in front of a car if I wasn't certain that the driver had seen me. That's just common sense, and if it's not at a zebra crossing, then the pedestrian would be at fault. I wouldn't even cross at a zebra crossing unless the driver sees me and is preparing to stop.
You might remember what happened to that poor girl Sophie Delizio. First hit by that pensioner whilst in a childcare centre (I was working just around the corner at the time and saw the choppers), and then hit again by a pensioner whilst being pushed across a zebra crossing (Again, I was just around the corner at the time and saw the choppers).
Of course it wasn't her fault but if you're careful then these thing wouldn't happen. Always assume the worst, especially if you're on a bike.


edit:
Yes, there is a pedestrian crossing there, which she was pretty well on.
Sorry, I should have read further before responding. I still think that you're in the wrong though. I reckon that the most likely outcome is that you'll both be charged with neg driving.

One time as a child, my father stopped in the middle of the road when I pointed out some model planes flying. Someone ran into the back of us, and after reporting it, both my father and the other driver were charged.

[cflake]

In VIC, you can pass stationary traffic on a motorcycle providing you're in the same lane and passing on the right. If you passed on the left and she hit you while you were passing, then I'd say you're in the wrong. However since you stopped in front of her.... as you said it shouldn't matter how you got there, the fact was that you were in front of her. The solution? Always pass on the right or buy some louder pipes!

btw, don't bother asking a copper because most of them don't know the road laws anyway.. But they know how to fill out a speeding ticket!

[Sturdee]

There is no requirement to advise the police of an accident if both parties are present and if no one is injured. In fact reporting it to the police outside these circumstances is inviting trouble.

You broke the law to get into the position to get where you were hit so you are in the wrong and if the police is called in you will get booked.

Secondly IMO you will be held responsible for the damage as well. So get good legal advice as quickly as possible or leave town.


Peter.

[Waldo]

G'day,

Article99, pretty rough getting smacked form behind, but I think you'll find some trouble passing on the left in a slip lane.

I'm gonna stir the hornet nest here and it's something I find stupid and unique to Vic - slip lanes. There are three lanes, one of them is a slip lane. If anyone tries to be impatient and think that they can accelerate out of a slip lane that ends 5m or whatever out of the traffic lightsw just to get past a couple of cars and push back in - watch out for me, because if you're next to me then I'll block you out - but I don't block out bikes, just idiots in cars.

:U

[Sturdee]

G'day,


I'm gonna stir the hornet nest here and it's something I find stupid and unique to Vic - slip lanes.


Slip lanes at intersections are for the specific purpose of turning traffic so they don't hold up through traffic. Using them to get in front of cars is illegal.

However slip lanes for entering main roads require that drivers in the left lane give way alternatively, so that one car from the slip lane then one car from left lane etc enter the main road. Hence the reluctance of Melbourne drivers to drive in the left lane on main roads.

This procedure also applies to the extra lanes added just before main intersections and cease shortly afterwards. These lanes are not to get ahead of other drivers but to allow more cars through the intersection whilst the light is green and failure to allow them into the main stream is illegal and a rather expensive fine if caught.


Peter.

[Waldo]

G'day Peter,

Where they indicate to come in is fair enough, but just to get ahead of a car o two and push in - that's another story in my book. There's about 3 slip lanes in my local area, and come peak hour most drivers are happy to use the two normal lanes, it's the impatient that go staright for the slip lane that are the annoyance because all they are really doing is causing a bottle neck for the lane adjacent to them.

[R.B.]

if it were me... and it well could have been.

I'd count my lucky stars and wait my turn the next time.

[Gingermick]

Well I think there ought to be different laws for motorcycles. I pass traffic on the left every day. I take up little room and accelerate very quickly to give nearby cars as much space as they want.

[Honorary Bloke]

As far as I know, slip-laning whilst vehicles are stationary isn't illegal at all.

Well, come and try it in the States, mate. :) If the first bloke you pass doesn't knock you cock a block, then the second one surely will. :D:D And if a copper sees you, you're in for a hefty fine. :wink:

[rrich]

Generally speaking, one must pass another vehicle using the "Traveled portion of the road or highway". If this were not true, we could not pass another vehicle. (In California and probably most other states, this is a perfectly legal manuver. As is "Splitting Lanes" on a two wheeler.)

I'm not sure what the term "slip lane" means however if it is the normally traveled portion of the highway I don't see a problem.

As I see it, the evil lady should be cited for failure to have her vehicle under control. (She did hit you.)

My advice is to avoid dealing with these yahoos. Go to your insurance company and have them fight for you. That is their job and is what you pay premiums for. And no, not being your fault, it will not affect your rates or driving record.

[namtrak]

Sooo, let me get this straight.

You came up behind a vehicle which was waiting to enter traffic.

You were impatient and passed the vehicle on the inside.

You pulled up in front of the said vehicle, across a pedestrian crossing, and waited for an opening in the traffic flow.

The vehicle behind you saw an opening in the traffic and accelerated into you, pushing you off your bike.

You say the vehicle should have been aware of you even though you didn't pass her on the right - the direction she is looking.

You don't want to make a report to the police.

You don't want/have a lawyer.

You don't have insurance. (I assume you mean comprehensive not 3rd party)

Your not injured.

mmmmmmmmmmm good luck.