Approaching a Give Way sign at an intersection, Judy clearly indicates her intention to turn by putting on her indicator. Emma is travelling parallel with her, on the footpath, and continues straight ahead across the intersection. They collide when Judy turns across Emma's path. Judy and James emerge unscathed, protected by their seat belts and air bags. The car's front panel is damaged. Emma suffers multiple fractures, and her bike is a write-off.
Judy is fined for driving an unregistered vehicle.
Had Emma been walking, or riding along the road, or being driven by her mother, Judy would have been at fault under the Road Rules for failing to give way. Because Emma was riding across the road, the police determine that Emma was at fault for moving into Judy's path. Under the circumstances, the police decide not to press charges against Emma.
Leon Arundell wrote:The TAC has advised that the claim for Emma's medical expenses would not necessarily be covered.
Emma would have been at fault for two reasons:
* Victorian Road Rule 253 prohibits a cyclist from moving into the path of a driver; and
* Rule 74(1) requires Emma to give way to the driver, because she is entering a road from a road related area.
...The TAC is a "no-fault" scheme. This means that medical benefits will be paid to an injured person - regardless of who caused the accident...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests