Lane Filtering in NSW. Got Hit From Behind. Insurance Company Deemed I'm At Fault

Kittokid on 20/11/2015 - 17:30
Last edited 20/11/2015 - 18:19 by 1 other user

Hi fellow riders and Ozbargainers,

I need your help and suggestion about lane filtering and changing lanes during a red light.

Accident Description:
All of the events described were during the red light (the light doesn't change to green or amber when the accident happened).

I am a full licensed rider in NSW, Sydney and was filtering the lane (my speed was less than 15 km/h) in the middle of 2 lanes and about to change the lane between 2 cars (turning left between the car in front and on my rear). I turned my signal on and when I was 1/4 way to change the lane, the car on my rear lightly accelerated and hit the back of my Vespa.

It was a small scratch on my Vespa and on the car (not a big accident), but the car owner lodged a claim. The insurance company deemed I was at fault, because I changed the lane "dangerously".

I am confident that I am not at fault, as the light was still red when I changed the lane (with a good buffer of approximately another 30 seconds before the light changed to green). I turned my signal on, and there was ample space between these cars, for me to change lanes. At the moment, the insurance company stated that I am responsible, but I reject this and want to appeal. Now the Debt Collection Agency is asking for the accident description and diagram about this.

What do you think guys? Any help or suggestion is appreciated.

Automotive Vespa

Related Stores

Roads and Maritime Services
Roads and Maritime Services

Comments

        • h4zey on 25/11/2015 - 16:40

          agree with the last comment, too many egoistic driver who thought they own the road, riders do pay tax and registration.

  • Hirolol on 20/11/2015 - 21:44
    -1

    i read some comments, not sure if its been said but the main lesson learnt is to get a decent helmet cam!
    the camera never lies!!

    • sween64 on 21/11/2015 - 10:00
      +4

      Be aware helmet cams are illegal in Victoria and NSW. It's against the helmet safety specifications to have anything protruding from it.

      http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/09/putting-a-gopro-on-your-he…

      • noob999 on 21/11/2015 - 19:58
        +1

        sort of illegal and a grey area - but police have been booking riders as you said.

        and the argument is that on a Police Helmet it is Safe???

        • Hirolol on 21/11/2015 - 21:17
          +2

          Not necessarily safer but the police are exempt from the law.
          Kinda how they can park in disabled/no standing spots to go buy some lunch.

        • noob999 on 21/11/2015 - 21:48

          @Hirolol:

          Speeding and parking etc yes… and they wear the same helmet stickers as normal riders do - saftey yeah right!

          they DO not have any more safer engeneered helmet that makes adding cameras to their helmet safer!
          They do engineer their cars etc for high speed etc with police packs including brakes.

        • Gravy on 24/11/2015 - 11:07

          @Hirolol:
          or accelerate in 50 zones to excessive speeds to nab the guy that just drove by in a ute with his load uncovered.

      • Hirolol on 21/11/2015 - 21:16

        Yeh any cam will do, does no have to be a helmet cam jeeze
        Dont think it matters where its attached does it?

        what if the cam was stuck on to the helmet with adhesive or something?
        I thought it was illegal because the helmet was being modified in a way that affected the helmet strength

  • p1 ama on 20/11/2015 - 22:39
    +3

    To be honest, there's just a couple of suggestions that I want to make.

    It was a small scratch on my Vespa and on the car (not a big accident), but the car owner lodged a claim.

    Since it's such a small thing, if you have the guy's number, just give him a call and settle it in cash. Everyone will be for the happier. He'll get his car fixed quicker (if he wants it fixed at all), you won't have to pay your excess and see your premiums go up…etc.

    Next, invest in a cam or something so in case stuff like this happens again, you have some sort of evidence.

    Ultimately, it's just a small deal, but lane filtering is definitely a contentious issue and some people have strong opinions on it, especially if they've had bad experiences before, e.g. being scraped by a rider or the like. There are also certain people who dislike the fact that riders get in front of them when they're on the road. Oh well, can't please everyone.

    • Kittokid on 24/11/2015 - 15:52

      There is actually no damage on his end and he doesnt want to pick my calls.. text him on phone and he replied, please speak with my insurance and please stop calling me

      • p1 ama on 25/11/2015 - 15:43

        Sounds like a jackass, just ignore him and get on with your life, if there's no damage to his car, he can't seek damages from you, plain and simple.

  • doctordv8 on 20/11/2015 - 23:13

    Why aren't you asking the Traffic Police? They enforce the rules, not insurance companies, not debt agencies, and certainly not us lot in here. Help we may try, but one call in to see the boys in blue and all your questions answered.
    If you believe you are right, send a copy of the rule and details to the other guys and send a bill for your repairs instead. Good luck.

  • Roll Eyes on 20/11/2015 - 23:42
    +1

    As odd as it sounds its not hard to imagine the driver moving forward after he had already stopped. I see it everyday sitting in traffic - the fools are looking down at their phone, momentarily look up and roll forward, no idea what's happening around them.

    Might you have been behind his windscreen pillar and didn't see you because he wasn't watching? (not that it makes it ok)

    • noob999 on 21/11/2015 - 20:05

      I have been hit from behind in stopped traffic because the stupid girl behind me bent over to pick her phone off the passenger floor - how did i know, and after the hit I saw in my rear view mirror her head pop up center of car and she slipping back into seat and she was wearing the OH crap face!

  • RockyRaccoon on 21/11/2015 - 02:09

    deleted

  • Tnetennba on 21/11/2015 - 02:17

    You can fight it, but it might be best to get a helmet camera for next time, it will help in cases like this if you really are not at fault. Sounds like you're unlucky, so good luck fighting it :)

  • cantstanzya on 21/11/2015 - 02:43
    +1

    You probably shot yourself in the foot with the initial accident description you gave to insurance the first time.
    Very hard to prove person in front was at fault in vehicle accidents without dash cam footage so the fact you copped the blame makes me believe you may have unintentionally admitted fault.
    Probably the lane changing as others have stated.

  • cowiie on 21/11/2015 - 07:48
    +1

    I am a rider as well. Let me get this straight, when you say you were 1/4 way to change the lane, you were 1/4 in that lane and 3/4 in your original lane (ie. Still across the white line?)?

  • serpserpserp on 21/11/2015 - 10:53
    +1

    I don't get how lane filtering is even legal. You should see what some of the riders in Sydney do down College Street in the city (heading towards Oxford) during peak hour. They shift lanes everywhere without indicating, ride down the wrong side of the road to get by and try and drag off from beside cars at lights etc. Not to mention on that street there is no bicycle lane anymore so all the cyclists are also doing the same thing. I am literally surprised that I haven't see someone die on that road because I see close calls daily and I am on that road for a maximum of 20-30 minutes a weekday.

    • chansthename on 21/11/2015 - 12:11
      +2

      Thats not filtering, thats splitting and is not legal. the rest is just stupid.

      • noob999 on 21/11/2015 - 20:11
        +1

        Lane filtering (cough) Splitting (cough) is legal in NSW

        Motorcyclists must only lane filter when travelling less than 30 km/h

        http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/motorcycl…

        Techically:
        Lane Filtering is a MC travelling between cars stopped in trafic
        Lane Splitting is a MC travelling between moving trafic

    • ankor on 21/11/2015 - 16:38

      Yeah I did lane splitting once, not a fan. I can't predict what people are doing and it scared me probably more than the people in the cars that I was filtering through.

  • immortalbjr on 21/11/2015 - 12:06

    Another self-entitled rider having a whinge. Have some common decency and patience and you would have avoided the accident.

    9/10 riders I see on the road do dumb shit because for some reason being on a bike somehow entitles you to be a knob on the road, I have no sympathy when I hear bikes colliding with other vehicles on the radio, its no surprise. I think ive seen maybe a handful of riders over the years who actually stay in a lane properly and show some patience and those I actually have some respect for, the rest of them weave back and forth between lanes and probably wonder how dare that car didnt see them when they get clipped.

    • Azn310 on 22/11/2015 - 11:05

      Yep. I can probably live with the motorbikes doing so, but boy, the bicycles are the absolute worst. They appear out of no where and they are slow af, but they think they're in some sort of emergency nascar vehicle or something. And let's not forget they run the red light when there is an opportunity to do so. I can understand the fact that it takes a lot of effort to slow down and start from a stand still point, but its just too dangerous.

    • ihfree on 22/11/2015 - 20:14
      +2

      I understand your sentiment, but honestly in this case it just sounds like normal filtering. Maybe an error of judgement on the riders behalf. Assuming that he's not at fault, and was rammed - it's an example of bad mentality.

      On the topic of filtering. Bikes in congestion do you a favour - while filtering they don't take up space in the queue, allowing you to get to your destination faster.

  • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2015 - 13:54
    +7

    It is your fault. When lane filtering, any accidents are the rider's fault, both in wording and by logic.

    I am a rider myself, so I'm definitely not anti motorbikes. The law says you may lane filter when it is safe to do so. The fact that the situation resulted in a collision is the very definition of not safe.

    Also, if this wasn't a lane filtering situation and you were in a car, you would have still been at fault. You merged when it wasn't clear.

    • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2015 - 18:48

      The situation I am interested in is if a car opens their door on someone lane filtering - who's at fault then?

      • noob999 on 21/11/2015 - 20:16

        In NSW it is illegal to filter next to parked cars - just for this reason!

      • whooah1979 on 21/11/2015 - 21:44

        the person that's opening the door is at fault.
        http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104…

        • [Deactivated] on 21/11/2015 - 23:22

          That's correct because when the car is parked, it's no longer part of the traffic. Most of the road laws will use the word "traffic". Bear in mind that stationary does not necessarily mean parked.

    • L1ndros88 on 22/11/2015 - 03:12
      +1

      By that logic, if a crazy person in a car decided to rear-end a stationary biker who had just successfully filtered to the front, it would be the biker's "fault" because the situation "resulted in a collision".

      You make it seem like drivers bear no responsibility for their actions, and it's not that black and white.

      • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 10:45

        You're stretching the point very much. May as well say that when the rider reached home and got burnt by hot coffee, it's his fault because it ended dangerously.

        We were looking at the scenario where the rider is not stationary and in between lanes. Doesn't get any more clear cut that this is lane filtering/splitting/merging.

        And say if the rider filtered and ended up between cars, and gets scraped from the side when traffic starts moving, then yes, the rider is still at fault. There's no ambiguity as you're suggesting.

        • L1ndros88 on 23/11/2015 - 17:02
          +1

          May as well say that when the rider reached home and got burnt by hot coffee, it's his fault because it ended dangerously.

          I agree, this is flawed logic and precisely the point I was making. It's illogical to determine fault based on the outcome of the situation. Without all the facts of the situation (to wit, not those relayed second-hand and incompletely) as inputs to that determination, we're all just guessing.

  • User167511 on 21/11/2015 - 14:02
    +2

    The bit I don't get is "Now the Debt Collection Agency is asking for the accident description and diagram about this". Sounds like they are acting as judge and jury and it's not their call, it's the insurance company's call to ask for this kind of crap. Their next move could be for the DCA to take you to court and use your supplied evidence to substantiate their claim, so be careful what you submit. It's your call to decide whether to ignore them or wait to give your evidence to court. You also don't say how much the claim against you is. If it's a big amount, its worth fighting hard for. One thing you could consider is to negotiate your way out of it (Insurance company will just want to settle, be sure of that). Do it in writing under "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" and make a statement that you do not consider yourself liable and the offer of settlement is to close the case and move on, not an admission of guilt. The insurance company will likely have a claims mediator in-house. I had such an experience over 30 years ago and ended up dating the mediator (hope the wife's not reading this, if you are, it was before we met dear!).

    • User167511 on 21/11/2015 - 14:03

      PS: We settled the matter during pillow talk.

    • serpserpserp on 21/11/2015 - 14:37

      TL:DR

      Don't trust anyone. I once dated a girl.

      • Hirolol on 21/11/2015 - 21:20

        What?
        Now I feel like i need to read it!

  • minniethemoocher on 21/11/2015 - 14:42
    +1

    You haven't said whose insurance found you at fault. Was it yours or the other parties insurance?

    • Kittokid on 22/11/2015 - 17:40

      other partiesand i dont have insurance on this

      • minniethemoocher on 22/11/2015 - 23:00

        That's the real problem then, a similar thing happened to an acquaintance who was driving a motorcycle and had an accident with a car. Wasn't the motorcyclists fault but the insurance party deemed him at fault and stuck him with the repair costs to the car. It's a trick they do to not payout for the repairs. It sounds like you are getting a lot of opinions but it is unclear how educated they are. I think you should try to get legal advice.

      • lysp on 23/11/2015 - 11:19

        Like the poster said below.

        Think of the other driver's insurance company as the enemy. It is there job to get money out of you, even if it was their driver's fault.

        You need to lodge a claim yourself and have your insurance company counter their claim.

  • SlickMick on 21/11/2015 - 15:19
    -3

    Do you have any idea how annoying what you were doing is?
    It wouldn't surprise me if the car that hit you saw you indicate and tried to close the gap before you got in front of him. Who wants to sit behind a vespa?

    Just so you know, motorcycles "lane filter" because they have better acceleration than cars, so won't be annoying anyone. If a vespa was to do same, they should be moving to the back of the pack, not the front.

    • z00m on 21/11/2015 - 16:54
      +5

      Do you have any idea how legal filtering is?

      If you are the type of person who gets so buthurt about a motorcyclist having an advantage over cage drivers to the point where you would physically assault them by trying to ram them with your car, then I hope you lose your licence very very soon.

      The sooner dropkicks like you are off the road, the better.

      • ozhunter on 21/11/2015 - 16:59

        He knows it's legal, he just said it's annoying. It doesn't mean he's going to ram the next vespa driver he encounters.

      • mrham on 21/11/2015 - 17:09
        +1

        You sound like you dropped your ice cream..

        • Hirolol on 21/11/2015 - 21:22
          +1

          That would get anyones knickers in a twist….

    • jsefrog on 21/11/2015 - 17:43
      +2

      Yeah, good point, from now on if I am behind anything on the road I will just nudge it out of the way, it's so annoying when there's someone else on the road. I hope you're in front of me on Monday.

    • ankor on 25/11/2015 - 22:29

      Yup, if you cause an accident by doing that, I'm going to get witness details, take you to court, and have the police on you too.

      Alternatively, you do it to the wrong guy and he calls his mates, or he rips off your mirror and rides off between cars before you get his license plate.

      Long story short, violence isn't the answer when you are mildly annoyed at someone doing something that's legal.

  • nikey2k27 on 21/11/2015 - 18:09

    I had lane filtering on the outside of me turn in the front and drive across in front of my car all most hit him on a roundabout.

  • Squidmcsproggen on 21/11/2015 - 19:33

    can of worms
    the problem with lane filtering when not done by the law
    the problem you have is that you where most likely (overtaking) turning on the left side of a vehicle

  • Hiroko on 21/11/2015 - 21:18
    -5

    accidents involving a biker and driver … biker at fault 9/10 times… just sayin. flame suit on XD

  • Shwayne on 22/11/2015 - 00:52
    +1

    You failed to mention the most important thing in your post Kittokid.

    If the driver was indeed on his phone when he hit you, he is definitely at fault.

    Make sure the insurance companies know this.

    • alpal05 on 22/11/2015 - 17:58

      Too hard to prove the guy was on his phone though. His version is flaky.

    • CLoSeR on 25/11/2015 - 11:13

      Unless the Police witness it he has no claim; otherwise everyone would claim this.

      • Shwayne on 25/11/2015 - 18:13

        That applies to pretty much every aspect of the insurance claim.

  • Joxer on 22/11/2015 - 02:36

    Rule one, Forget who was at fault.

    Now, deny all liability.

    Continue from there.

  • [Deactivated] on 22/11/2015 - 03:38
    +1

    You are at fault. Pay up.

  • serpserpserp on 22/11/2015 - 09:13
    +3

    Most bike riders do believe the idea of lane filtering means that they can just do whatever they like when the traffic is in a slow moving grid lock. The fact is that they just believe all cars should just give way to them because the cars aren't going anywhere in a hurry, only the bike riders. Don't pretend like you all drive safely when peak hour hits Sydney, you guys take calculated risks constantly and because you are on a risky vehicle and take risks you will eventually get hit when you or another drive isn't paying attention. If you had just sat behind that car and didn't try and weave through traffic you would have been fine.

  • imurgod on 22/11/2015 - 10:41

    Can I ask who the insurer was and if you're insured? This sounds like it can be easily argued. I've successfully argued worse for my clients but if you're uninsured, it's going to require a little more work/expense on your part.

    • Kittokid on 22/11/2015 - 17:43
      -3

      Imurgod, i am not insured

  • Serapis on 22/11/2015 - 14:19
    +1

    Contact your own insurance and tell them the story. The fact they sent it to a Debt Collection Agency might mean they have a weak case and just want to harass you into paying. Insurance companies do this quite often and will drop it at first signs of this becoming a court matter. Just really depends how much your own time is worth.

    Ask yourself this question: Was there anything you could have done to prevent the accident (ignore the lane filtering part, just basically the part the other car rear ended you)? If not then you've got a reason to go by in fighting this.

    • alpal05 on 22/11/2015 - 17:56

      Good luck proving it though. No witnesses and no police attendance..

      • Serapis on 22/11/2015 - 19:33
        +1

        Same applies vice versa. Since they're accusing, onus is on plaintiff to prove firstly. If no proof, they have no case either and no requirement for evidence to defend against unsubstantiated accusations. OP just needs to not make blunders / admit liability in a recorded call / agree to pay up.

        All things aside, if all they had are pictures, the damage is on their front bumper than the rear bumper of the Vespa. What does that say about the accident? Vespa got rear ended.

        In almost all cases, the car doing the rear ending is at fault and there are a myriad of reasons you can accuse them with (by going over speed limit, not paying attention, tailgating the car in front, etc.) I would think car driver should be paying the damage to the Vespa.

        • alpal05 on 22/11/2015 - 19:41

          Serapis if you bothered to read his initial version he provided to the insurance company then you'd realise he's already put his foot in it..

          As I've said best case scenario is EBO.

        • alpal05 on 22/11/2015 - 19:43

          The damage is on the front d/s headlight. It is not a clear cut hit in rear and his version clearly states that. Obviously you cannot read..

        • Serapis on 22/11/2015 - 19:58

          @alpal05:

          No need for insults, just relax. I'm going by what can be proved, not what he said. What do you mean he's 'he's already put his foot in it?' The reason they are using to back their claim is circumstantial at best is what I'm saying. Lane filtering, even if it can be proven, might have contributed but shouldn't be the cause. Worse case each party pay for their own damages.

        • alpal05 on 22/11/2015 - 20:26

          @Serapis:
          Car a is in their lane and is driving towards the lights. A bike is filtering between the lane that car a is in and in a lane to the right of car b. Car a stops at the intersection then moves forward, at that point the bike attempts to filter infront of car a and impact happens. The bike is at fault because they need to ensure it is safe when lane filtering, it is not a hit in rear scenario and the difference is that car a was in the 1 lane the whole time, but the bike wasn't.

          If I was op i would deny liability but hope for EBO.

    • PVA on 22/11/2015 - 21:22
      +1

      they said they dont have insurance.

  • alpal05 on 22/11/2015 - 17:51

    Honestly, unless you have a really strong case then the insurance company will continue to hold you liable. Most consultants don't understand that lane filtering is legal in certain scenarios now, but your version is weak. To cut to the chase you have an almost zero chance of them paying for your damages. Best case scenario would be EBO, but I don't like your chances given your first version. How much is the other party claiming for?

  • alpal05 on 22/11/2015 - 17:55
    +1

    You're lucky it's gone to a debt collectors actually. If you had of had insurance and your insurance company agreed with liability and you continued not to pay then legal action would possibly have been taken and you would have been issued with a complaint and possibly with a default judgement which is bad news. It was sent to debt collection because they have enough confirmation you're at fault, but you're uninsured.

    • Serapis on 22/11/2015 - 19:53
      +3

      I'm of the opposite view. Debt collectors normally mean they have a weak case and sold it off to strong arm you into paying.

      Dealt with my dad's claim once, 3 car accident, guy at the rear was on phone and wasn't paying attention. My dad was driving a friend's car which was uninsured (I know, sheer lack of judgement on his part) and was the middle car. Dad merged lanes, the guy in the rear wasn't paying attention, sped up and hit the car my dad was driving, so hard it pushed his car into the one at the front.

      What followed was a nightmare, the guy in front was driving an expensive car so just put it on his insurance. The rear guy's insurance tried to say my dad was at fault because 'it wasn't safe at the time to merge'. To make it worse, the front car's insurance was planning to pin it on my dad too but they agreed to put it off until matter with the rear car was settled. Rear guy's insurance threatened legal action and made an application. I helped my dad make a counterclaim accusing the rear car driver of not paying attention and speeding + for entirety of damages to the car my dad was driving.

      Dragged on for 3 months and the rear guy's insurer tried to get a debt agency to strong arm him during this time into paying making ridiculous requests, accusing him of negligent driving and making him draw one diagram a month hoping he would slip up. A week before the court hearing, the whole matter was dropped and rear guy's insurance admitted liability and paid off everyone.

      Really hate these debt agencies, PITA to deal with. Luckily my dad is self employed, have heard stories of them unethically calling up people's workplaces to put more pressure.

  • alpal05 on 22/11/2015 - 20:18

    That's one experience you've had and it's not a reflection of what normally happens.

    Unless costs are over 2k then court action is highly unlikely. Believe it or not it's also unlikely if he's uninsured too, although there are exceptions..

    Your version you've given holds your dad 80% at fault. He probably got out of it because there was a witness who saw the rear guy on a mobile phone, or your Dad had completed the merge when the accident happened which can change things. There would be more to the story you're not aware of that probably came from the police report. Your Dad would have been in a lot more trouble if there was insurance on the car, but either didn't lodge a claim or pay the excess. Depends on where the damages to your dads car was though, maybe he completed his merge by the time the impact happened and the rear cars insurer couldn't prove that his merging contributed to the accident (it would have though), if he didn't complete the merge then it's surprising he got off, maybe there was a witness…

    • Serapis on 22/11/2015 - 20:51

      He was completely merged, 100% of the damage was flat on the rear trunk. Even the insurance of the front car told my dad that he wasn't really at fault but they weren't acting on his behalf so they were willing to hold off for a bit. I don't know where you're getting 80% from and furthermore, damages were well in excess of 2k. The car my dad was driving + the rear car were total write-offs.

      • alpal05 on 22/11/2015 - 21:11

        Your Dad would have contributed when merging, but it's a matter of whether the insurance company can prove it. It did help his case immensely that his merge had completed and the rear cars insurer were dumb for sending debt collectors after your Dad. I would have fought that one too.

        Ops situation is different though.

  • mikkim4eva on 22/11/2015 - 20:21

    If the other driver rear end you, it doesnt matter who os at fault… The person that rear end you is at fault….

    Stupid law, but circumstances does not pay any contribution to who os at fault.

    If he hit you on the side though, its a diferent story.

    • alpal05 on 22/11/2015 - 20:27

      It's not a clear hit in rear…

  • alpal05 on 22/11/2015 - 20:35

    You guys are ignoring the fact that OP has lane filtered in the first place. It changes the law completely with being hit in the rear. Imo both parties have contributed, but it's going to be a lot harder for OP to prove he's not liable.

    • whooah1979 on 23/11/2015 - 05:53
      +2

      lane filtering doesn't change the road rules when it comes to giving way during a lane change. reg 148 still applies to op if op was "moving from one marked lane or line of traffic to another marked lane or line of traffic".

      • alpal05 on 23/11/2015 - 09:22

        Exactly my point, although there are always shades of grey that can be considered. In this instance though OP is most likely to be held at fault

  • smpantsonfire on 22/11/2015 - 22:19
    +3

    All your informations is very hard to understand, different comments contradict each other.

    Sounds like you picked a gap too small to begin with.

  • [Deactivated] on 23/11/2015 - 01:07

    Could you keep us updated in 3 months or when possible please.

  • dbun1 on 23/11/2015 - 09:48

    What are the rules regarding lane filtering? If the bike moves into the lane, like the OP did, is it the same rules as changing lanes?

    • Stphen on 23/11/2015 - 14:15
      +1

      What NSW motorcyclists need to know about safe lane filtering:

      •Motorcycle lane filtering laws apply in NSW, with strict conditions
      •Motorcyclists must only lane filter when travelling less than 30 km/h
      •Motorcyclists can lane filter through stationary and slow moving traffic
      •Motorcyclists caught moving between traffic at over 30km/h face heavy fines and three demerit points under the offence called ‘lane splitting’
      •It is illegal for motorcyclists to lane filter:
      ◦next to the kerb
      ◦next to parked vehicles
      ◦in school zones

      •Motorcyclists should always look out for pedestrians and cyclists
      •Motorcyclists should not lane filter around heavy vehicles and buses
      •Only fully licensed motorcyclists are allowed to lane filter
      •Motorcyclists must only lane filter when it’s safe
      •Motorcyclists must comply with all existing road rules when lane filtering. This includes stopping before the stop line at a red traffic light or stop sign, never in front or over it.

      Motorists

      •Motorists should always check twice for motorcycles.
      •Motorists should not deliberately move into the path of a motorcyclist who is lane filtering.

      • save my dollarydoos on 23/11/2015 - 22:36
        +1

        Do vespas count as motocycles?

      • Japius on 24/11/2015 - 10:44

        The contention will be was it safe to do so, both parties will have their own opinion of that.

        • CLoSeR on 25/11/2015 - 11:22
          +1

          OP claims 1 metre space is ample, doesn't sound safe to me.

  • Monojoker on 23/11/2015 - 11:25

    I can't see where anybody has asked the OBVIOUS question…

    "The insurance company deemed I was at fault"

    WHOSE insurance company, yours or the car drivers'?

    NVM, saw there was a page 2 and you have no insurance. You have no real options unless you get a lawyer and fight it - and if you have no insurance I doubt you'll be able to afford that. In such a situation YOUR insurance company will usually fight for your rights but that's moot now. My 2c done :)

  • CLoSeR on 23/11/2015 - 11:41

    Sounds like you were not completely in the lane when you were clipped as the car has damage to the front right.

    For this to happen it sounds like you dropped in too close to the rear car not changing lanes safely.

    If you were completely in the lane when the car behind struck you then sure the rear car is at fault.

  • dmaca667 on 23/11/2015 - 14:48
    +1

    First of all, regardless who is actually at fault and or insured. Never admit to being at fault.
    Next, pay attention to the wording on the claim that the insurance company sent to you, especially the phrase "Without Prejudice".
    "Without Prejudice" means that they can make any claim they want and that if the case goes to court, it cannot be submitted as evidence. Even if their driver is at totally 100% at fault, they will still claim that you are at fault as well as claiming immunity from blame by making the claim, "Without Prejudice". Having your own insurance (which you don't have at the moment) means that they will fight each other and you don't need to get involved).

    I would suggest that you respond to them with a letter (make sure you also state in your reply that the letter is "Without Prejudice") explaining the events. It is also a good idea to request an itemized list of expenses that is being detailed in the claim as well as any evidence of the incident (dash cam footage for example). Also state in the letter that you deny liability and that if they persist in the claim then the next step is to go to court, basically say to them something along the lines of, "I deny all liability and should you wish to pursue your claim you do so in court, if you don't then any other steps including but not limited to debt collectors will be considered harassment".
    Make sure that the letter is has a postal receiving receipt on delivery (forgot the exact term) or is conducted via email. If they try to call you on the phone instruct them to contact either via email or post and hang up on the person (don't worry about being considered rude - being rude is not illegal and you will defiantly not get a discount being being nice).

  • lime111 on 23/11/2015 - 17:20

    I read it more simply:

    1. Rider was lane filtering which was legal as described

    2. Rider entered a lane and was hit from behind.

    3. Unclear to me whether rider was fully in the lane or not, which I understand is the relevant consideration in determining liability.

    I am not sure at what point a bike actually "enters" a lane, but if the same principle as a car applies, bikes are almost always fully in a lane (i.e. not across lane lines). To this non-lawyer, a bike is fully in a lane even if all parts of the bike are even 2cm inside the lane.

    I thought the rules were if you were fully in the lane you have entered the lane safely.

    I am not surprised someone else's insurance agency found the uninsured rider at fault, easy outcome for the insurer.

    PS also learned something new about filtering that only fully licensed riders can do it, how often do we see the L & P plater riders filter?

    • euk on 23/11/2015 - 19:10

      What did you just write….

      By that logic if I swerve right in front of a car quickly to get my bike in there first, that it's considered having entered the lane safely?

      • lime111 on 23/11/2015 - 23:13

        It was a serious post, and i'm happy for the internet lawyers to correct me.

        My understanding is that in NSW, there is no "distance" requirement to merge, i.e. if you can cross both lines into a lane you have merged safely. It's just different with a bike to a car because a bike does it faster, but same rules apply.

        • euk on 23/11/2015 - 23:23

          Pretty sure there's more to the law than just 'getting both wheels over'. That wouldn't be considered a safe merge, irregardless of which state you live in.

          Just think about it. I merge quickly into your lane with a 1 cm gap. By your interpretation of the law, i'm in the right if the driver hits me.

  • Mysterious Laptop on 23/11/2015 - 21:33
    +3

    This is why a helmet cam is ESSENTIAL these days, and if you're willing to do so, chuck another cam on the rear of your motorcycle or vespa. Just far too many idiot drivers these days, and with phones etc becoming more distracting, they just simply will not see you.

    From what i've read, EVERYONE is stopped and OP moved into the lane in front of the car. Driver in car gets pissed (ie accelerates) to close gap and tries to assert dominance by not letting them in. Put 2 together, you get vespa moving into lane and car moving up and smashing OP.
    I've come across this sort of incident COUNTLESS times on youtube (im an active motovlog watcher) where drivers turn their cars into the lanes at red light to block filtering, get pissed at the motovlogger etc. There's some weird thing that drivers hate when bikers filter, when I personally couldnt give a damn if a bike goes in front of me.

    • euk on 23/11/2015 - 23:22
      -1

      Making some big assumptions there.

  • BartholemewH on 24/11/2015 - 02:53

    "It's possible to be right and dead". All this wondering about liability but the only thing I take from this story as a bike rider (and car enthusiast) is that the OP isn't too concerned that he got himself into a situation where his bike was hit by a vehicle. What if he was hit harder? What if he was injured? I sound like crazy old grandpa (early thirties) but no insurance is a clear indicator of how seriously the OP takes being on the road in general.

  • Mumbles on 24/11/2015 - 06:20
    +2

    Hi Kittokid. Sorry to hear about your situation. I ride a motorcycle too.

    For OzBargainers to give you the best advice we'd need the precise information from both you and the driver.

    If possible provide:
    1) Your description of the events word-for-word given to the driver's insurance company.
    2) The driver's description of events which they gave to their insurance company.

    You can ask the insurance company to mail you the claim. It will have the driver's description of what happened and will help you (and your lawyer) in making your defense.

    Also, how did you hear from the insurance company? Was it in writing or telephone? It would be nice for OzBargainers to know their exact response.

    The information from your original post is so minimal that OzBargainers can only guess. Fortunately the drivers statement should fill in the gaps (eg. what speed the car was travelling, stopping distance to the vehicle in front, when they saw you, how they reacted …).

    Its now a legal issue since the driver's insurance is claiming damages.

    As a starting point for legal adivice there's some helpful links on the NSW Government LawAccess website regarding car accidents and "fault":
    http://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au/Pages/representing/lawassist…
    http://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au/Pages/representing/lawassist…

    By the way I am not a lawyer. I've always let my insurance company deal with everything.

    If the insurance company has passed the debt to a debt collector then the insurance company and driver will no longer contact you. It is now the debt collectors you have to deal with. There are specific laws that debt collectors must play by. Complain to an Ombudsman if they are harassing you unfairly. Don't be pressured by threats to settle quickly. You need a clear head when putting together a legal defense.

    I wish you lots of enjoyment with your future riding. My advice is to learn as many lessons from this first accident. Make an adjustment to your city riding and/or consider motorcycle insurance. There are some seriously expensive cars on the road. $600 for repairing a new headlight is very reasonable.

  • Drifta on 24/11/2015 - 22:30
    +2

    I am a rider and have been involved in an accident, where I was riding in a lane that had parked cars (but was officially a lane and not a parking strip) as well as another lane to the right of me. The driver saw an empty parking spot and decided to cut across me and park knocking me onto my side.

    He admitted fault and told me to go get a quote and then put an insurance claim denying any fault. His insurance company tried to pin everything on me.

    Long story short, went to legal aid, they wrote a letter, I also sent them a drawing of the incident and evidence from vicroads (VIC) that I was riding in a 2 lane unmarked road and the driver did not indicate (even though he claimed to do so). The insurance company were denying it was a 2 lane road. I went and measured the road width and read through the relevant law sections to find that since the road was 2.something m wide and had lane markings at the start of the road which then disappear its classified as unmarked 2 lane road.

    Few months later my written off bike got paid out and case was closed with the insurance company saying that given they cant prove "without a doubt" that their client was not at fault they are paying me out.

    I would go to legal aid if I were you, get their opinion. I would also eplain everything to the insurance company after getting a statement of what their driver is claiming and when doing that mention the while mobile phone thing.

    If they cant prove "without a doubt" that it is your fault they dont have much to stand on. Secondly I would be claiming for your own bikes damages.

    I am personally concerned about the driver and if he did indeed ram you thats very sad. why he would lodge a claim against you when there is such minimal damage. Sort it out directly with you first then go to insurance. His response to your attempt to talk also sounds like his a grumpy sad man.

    Good Luck!

    • Kittokid on 25/11/2015 - 09:45

      Hi Drifta,
      I got the same story as yours. The driver admitted fault on that day, but then put an insurance claim denying any fault and now his insurance company tried to pin everything on me.
      I dont know if I can actually get the other driver statement.
      About my bike damage, its just a small scratch on my Vespa and I dont bother to claim this as its easily wiped off. I will try to give him a call again in the next few days as this is a very minor issue indeed.
      On the meantime, writing my accident description to give to the Debt Collection Agency. They are pressuring me to write the accident description and diagram within 7 days.

      Thanks for the comment and feedback!

      • Drifta on 25/11/2015 - 11:39

        just stand your ground and keep reiterating what actually happened against what is being claimed. Good luck. Even if it is a small scratch you should claim for it if thats what the other guy is doing

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join