Need advice from someone fluent in Victorian Roadlaw.

[Article99]

So here's me, on my widdle motorcycle (green) and the evil lady in her car (red).
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.

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.

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 - she didnt look - 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.

[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.