bicycle crash legal advice

  1. Forums
  2. Legal
  3. bicycle crash legal advice

bicycle crash legal advice

Submitted by Stephen Molloy on 23 March, 2009 - 14:47
Forums: 
Legal

Hi CAN legal
I was involved in the following and would like some advice on best way to proceed.

I was involved in crash and broke clavicle (but my MTB is OK). Police did not take full statement at time as I was in hospital. I then heard today that police have evidence from 3-4 witnesses saying that they saw vehicle indicate. I completely dispute this as it was the reason for my accident (he cut into my path). I don't have any witnesses and now seem likely to receive ticket (or that was my feeling).

Can anyone please advise me on the way to proceed ASAP please?

Regards
Stephen Molloy
sPOKES dUNEDIN

Groups audience: 
CAN Legal
Group content visibility: 
Public - accessible to all site users

Submitted by jdawson on 23 March, 2009 - 15:44

Hi Stephen,
I'm sorry to hear about your crash.
Can you please describe the situation in more detail? Was the car going the same direction as you? Did it pass you then turn left? (If so, it doesn't matter whether he indicated!)
If the car was coming towards you, then who had priority at the intersection?
I would suggest that your first step is to talk to the police and find out what their analysis of the situation is. If possible, try to get a copy of their crash report form, and any papers that indicate what they are proposing to do next.
Best wishes for your recovery,
Jane

Jane Dawson
jane@can.org.nz

Submitted by Stephen Molloy on 23 March, 2009 - 17:17

Hi Jane
Thanks for your comments and concern about my injury.

I was descending down hill (Stafford St, Dunedin) at 12 noon, dry conditions, mid-week, something like 40km/h. I saw car in right hand portion of lane not doing much at all (tapping brakes and descending). I was descending hoping to catch green-light. Lane becomes two at intersection. Right hand lane can go straight or right.

I lined up to go left and vehicle turned left into alleyway driveway without indicating. I would never pass a vehicle on left at intersection if it was indicating. By this time I had too much inertia to stop, and despite rapid braking, edo-ed over his boot.

I was in Ambulance as police arrived and they did not take full statement at the time.

Today as it pans out, seems like 3-4 witnesses have come from somewhere (while I was in ambulance) and said they saw me going fast (true) and that car indicated (totally inaccurate). My feeling is that officer asked question "did car indicate" and they answered yes.

I was too out of it to properly organise or scout for itnesses at scene.

Apart from finding CCTV video records of this (impossible) what should I do?

kind regards
Stephen Molloy

Submitted by Sridhar on 23 March, 2009 - 19:44

Also, the witnesses may have said that the driver "generally" signalled, but how long was it in relation to you. For example, the driver started signalling while you were still ahead of you. Took 3 seconds to reach you and then immediately turned and cut across you.

Submitted by Stephen Molloy on 24 March, 2009 - 09:10

Hi Sridhar

I'll just clarify that I was coming downhill saw lane open up on left of vehicle in front (vehicle pointing in same direction as myself) so I moved into that. At that time, vehicle turned directly left (without indicating) and cut me off. I collided with the vehicle because of my momentum.

In answer to your question though I don't know how long the witnesses said he generally signalled for.

What is the legal position, if it's not three seconds of indication, is it something?

Cheers
Stephen

Submitted by Sridhar on 25 March, 2009 - 07:02

Hi Stephen,
If the signal was less than three seconds it is an offence. See http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/roadcode/about-driving/turning.html. Not only that, the driver is required to check blindspots. The incident shows, the driver either didn't check blind spots or just ignored your presence at a blind spot. Did the police verify this point? What does their investigation report say on this?

Sounds like the vehicle was in front of you and the signal could have been visible to you. But the dispute is,
a) if the driver did signal or not.
b) did the driver signal before or after coming in front of you

Again, the witnesses need to be cross examined on this.

cheers,
Sridhar

Submitted by Stephen Molloy on 25 March, 2009 - 10:21

Thanks Sridhar

I'll keep digging and keep you informed of outcome or any changes.

Stephen

Submitted by michael on 23 March, 2009 - 20:28

Hi Stephen,

It would also be good to know where the lane changes to two and where events happened relevant to that (ie did everything take place when there was one lane or two, or some combination of both).
Cheers

Michael

Submitted by Stephen Molloy on 24 March, 2009 - 09:01

Thanks Michael.

I think the answer to your question would be when there was a combination of both. The alleyway which the vehicle turned into was just after the division into two lanes (or turning bays) for the intersection.

I am not sure,is this legally described as a lane or not?

Regards
Stephen

Submitted by RRMarsh on 28 June, 2013 - 22:00

Stephen, hoping now you are as fit as fiddle. I'd rather suggest you to tell the whole drama to a accident injury lawyer and got legally assisted before justice gets far away from you. You can ask your law related queries here: http://www.patterson.co.nz/.

Prayers and wishes with you.

Roger.