Cyclist Compensation Claim and Red Tape

baudman

Here in Victoria, Australia, anyone who has a road accident where they are seriously injured is entitled to some compensation - paid for by a levy on your car registration.

Consequently, this does not extend to a cyclist.

The local Traffic Accident Commission (TAC) was stating that a cyclist, with a blood-alcohol reading of 0.2, had injured himself (falling off and ending up a quadriplegic) and was therefore holding out on compensation. However, evidence was found stating the contrary. If a registered vehicle is involved, the TAC have to fork out.

TheAge.com.au wrote:

In a decision handed down on August 31, Judge John Bowman, the acting president of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, found in favour of a claim by 23-year-old cyclist Jay Cracknell, of Mooroolbark, and accused the TAC of adopting a "win-at-all-costs" attitude and of improper conduct in the way it fought the claim.

Click for article.

In any case, it's a bit worrying if this is the stance the TAC is going to be taking...

spen666

why should the state ( ie tax payers ) pay to compensate someone for their own stupidity.

From what you describe there was no other vehicle/ traffic involved.

Cyclist in these circumstances brought it on himeself.

RufusA

spen666 wrote:

why should the state ( ie tax payers ) pay to compensate someone for their own stupidity.From what you describe there was no other vehicle/ traffic involved.

Cyclist in these circumstances brought it on himeself.

You obviously didn't read the clicky linky bit, and misinterpreted the OP. In essence cyclist found at side of road, with bike propped up, with our equivalent of 1 unit of alcohol's worth of drink in his blood stream.

TAC suggested he fell off and therefore no compensation due. However it transpires they didn't investigate thoroughly, didn't interview the cyclist, and ignored the car tyre marks at the scene.

Looking at what was reported, it looks like a hit and run, but the TAC don't want to pay up, and hid evidence / fought tooth and nail, as they have an alleged anti-cyclist blinkeredness.

Rufus.

nortones2

The scheme has some merit, if administered properly. What is concerning is that there is an apparent pro-motoring bias in the police of Victoria. Not unknown here I guess. BTW, if the TAC and police conspire to perjure themselves, is there an offence?

spen666

in the absence of proof, then it seems that the decision is not inappropriate.

how can TAC be satisfied the scheme is liable ie that he was a victim of hit and run.

nortones2

Re absence of proof: 'Evidence about an arc of fresh tyre marks imprinted in grass close to where Mr Cracknell fell was given to the TAC and police officers. But it did not go to the TAC's independent investigator, David Axup, who nevertheless concluded it was "a distinct probability" that a vehicle was involved.

The TAC, however, denied liability and suggested Mr Cracknell lost control of his mountain bike. Mr Cracknell took his claim to VCAT in May.

The TAC's initial file of evidence to VCAT also omitted any mention of the tyre marks. The TAC apologised to the judge during the case, and rectified it.'

Civil claim seems to have succeeded where police were, at best, unprofessional. Maybe there was something to cover up?