Ozkaban wrote:The second article seems to say he was crossing at a lights not riding along the road. The bus had a green light but they don't know if the boy had a walk signal or not. What isn't mentioned are details like if there was a green arrow, which would definitely mean a red for the boy or if there was no arrow, etc.
The crossing has no red turning arrow for the direction of travel of the bus, ie it has an extra permissive arrow for the scenario when the two right turn bays on bacchus marsh road are both turning, as its non conflicting with that movement. The front of the bus has carried 12m from the crossing, and was not conforming to the inside lane, which to me indicates the bus was likely travelling relatively fast, which makes me believe the boy would have been ahead of the bus prior to the collision, and thus plainly observable for the driver.
IMO the state of the pedestrian light is almost irrelevant to the driver, and I rarely notice the state of them whilst turning through a traffic light - depending on the direction of travel of the pedestrian, a driver cannot even see the relevant light. Vic rule 62 requires that a driver turning into an intersection gives way to any pedestrians on or about the footcrossing on the road they are turning into, and does not reference the lights shown to a pedestrian.
The state of the pedestrian light at this point only covers whether or not the boy also committed an offence or not. 11yos are allowed to use the footcrossing on a bicycle.