Ken Lay (Victoria's Top Cop) supports cyclists

[human909]

It is quite clear to me the TAC does not cover the DRIVER for third party injury in such a situation. Thus the cyclist will need to sue the driver to recover costs regarding the injury.

[Warin]

It is quite clear to me the TAC does not cover the DRIVER for third party injury in such a situation. Thus the cyclist will need to sue the driver to recover costs regarding the injury.

Ummm several things ...
Firstly. If you are after compensation you sue a person (or more than one person, or even a firm) who you believe to be liable/at fault. If that person has insurance it is the insurance company that may pay and may represent them in court. But you sue the person .. Insured or not. It is not the insurance company that commits the offense .. so they cannot be sued for it. [Oh .. if you cannot identify the preson at fault - you sue teh 'nominal defendere' and t=for transport accidents the TAC represents them.]

Secondly. By human909 reasoning a pedestrian hit by vehicle will also have to sue the driver. Or someone in their house it the vehicle drives though it.

This from the TAC website "The TAC will pay the reasonable costs of medical treatment, rehabilitation services, disability services, income assistance, travel and household support services that you may need as a result of your injuries from a transport accident." Note that is says "involved" that means you don't have to be in the vehicle nor does it exclude those in the vehicle.

So where does human909s' impression come from? Maybe if the 'driver' is at fault then the driver is not covered .. but anyone else is covered. That is the usual third party law .. but I though Vic had a 'no fault' policy?

[alexander]

Haha. Top comment says: "This should be interesting. I'm going to get the popcorn."

Yep. Me too.

It is great to see this level of support from the Commish.

I want the usual bogan idiots to write "cyclists don't pay rego which is used for roads!" even though Ken was quite clear about this point.

[ColinOldnCranky]

I believe the wording is along the lines of cyclists only receive TAC benefits if they're involved in an accident with a vehicle engaged in the act of driving. So a cyclist having a stack all of their own accord, or hitting a parked car, other cyclist or pedestrian = no cover. Being doored may be a very grey area, which I would l think clarification on would be greatly welcome - I certainly don't know how that scenario stands in this instance. But if a cyclist is injured by a car/motorbike/truck etc, then TAC will step in.

Hmmm. What would the story be if someone rear ended a stationary car in the middle of the freeway that was there as a result of break down? I can think of situations where a driver would reasonably not be at fault in such case - Truck or vehicle in front in the moments just before collison for example. Equity-wise I would hope that it would be covered.

Ditto for the unfortunate owner whose car had to be left there with a locked diff.

[Duck!]

I believe the wording is along the lines of cyclists only receive TAC benefits if they're involved in an accident with a vehicle engaged in the act of driving. So a cyclist having a stack all of their own accord, or hitting a parked car, other cyclist or pedestrian = no cover. Being doored may be a very grey area, which I would l think clarification on would be greatly welcome - I certainly don't know how that scenario stands in this instance. But if a cyclist is injured by a car/motorbike/truck etc, then TAC will step in.

Hmmm. What would the story be if someone rear ended a stationary car in the middle of the freeway that was there as a result of break down? I can think of situations where a driver would reasonably not be at fault in such case - Truck or vehicle in front in the moments just before collison for example. Equity-wise I would hope that it would be covered.

Ditto for the unfortunate owner whose car had to be left there with a locked diff.

That would depend if injuries result (TAC only covers medical costs above a certain threshold incurred as the result of an accident). Being registered (one would hope) motor vehicles, any costs above that threshold are automagically covered. My original point is that cyclists are only covered for injuries sustained in an accident involving a vehicle engaged in the act of driving. A parked car is not engaged in the act, so a cyclist hitting one would not be covered. On a technical level, a car which is having its door opened is also not engaged in the act of driving, but given it involves the action of an occupant of that vehicle to cause the collision, what then? That's where I reckon there's a grey area that needs to be clarified in regards to where TAC stands.

[il padrone]

From Bicycle Network:

•If in Victoria, contact the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) (ph 9663 7500 or 1800 332 556) as a car door crash is classified as a crash involving a motor vehicle in the act of driving under the relevant Act. (Thank Bicycle Network for this inclusion.)

[Duck!]

From Bicycle Network:

•If in Victoria, contact the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) (ph 9663 7500 or 1800 332 556) as a car door crash is classified as a crash involving a motor vehicle in the act of driving under the relevant Act. (Thank Bicycle Network for this inclusion.)

Thank you.

[human909]

Hmmm for some reason I can't edit my previous post.

It is quite clear to me the TAC does not cover the DRIVER for third party injury in such a situation. Thus the cyclist will need to sue the driver to recover costs regarding the injury.

It is also quite clear that I am wrong based on Il Padrone's post. The wording as stated previously seemed clear cut, but either that wasn't the exact clause or there has been a specific ruling addressing this. Either way I have edited this to avoid misleading people.