Legal aid for bike crash - how?

**CookMySock** · 7th July 2009, 13:04

Originally Posted by Ixion

As I interpret the drawing, the stopped cars to the right were is a *different* lane. So the only things in the lane were a moving vehicle (the bike) and some *parked* cars. Very normal situation.)

Yep, 100% correct, this is exactly how it was.

Parked cars in the left lane (the lane he was in) and cars stopped for the red light in the right lane.

Steve

**Mully** · 7th July 2009, 13:10

Originally Posted by Ixion

Probably lose her job. Sounds like the force looking after its own.

Bingo.

Seems silly to try to prosecute the rider in this case. Clearly a case of the Police looking after one of their own*

So, for the Legal Aid boffins; if the rider applies and gets LA, and it is found (as appears to be the case) that there is no case against him and it's thrown out, can he apply for costs from the Police? Or is a PCA complaint his only option? (which means he's still out of pocket)

DB, what did the rider's insurance company say about it? Seems to me they may be keen to argue the Police conclusion (therefore clearing the way for the rider to piggyback on their argument) in order to reduce their liability.

(*Disclaimer, this opinion is based on the information as provided being correct and unbiased. I reserve the right to flip-flop on this case as it takes my fancy. Rinse and repeat. For best results, use regularly. Your home may be at risk if you do not make your mortgage payments. Do not drink paint, unless advised by your Doctor. If your Doctor advises drinking paint, seek an alternate Doctor.)

**Winston001** · 7th July 2009, 13:19

Originally Posted by Mully

B
So, for the Legal Aid boffins; if the rider applies and gets LA, and it is found (as appears to be the case) that there is no case against him and it's thrown out, can he apply for costs from the Police? Or is a PCA complaint his only option?

An order of costs against the police is so rare that it usually requires a separate hearing. Possible....not probable.

As for the car driver, the motorcyclist has the right to make a complaint of careless use against her. If the police refuse to prosecute = PCA.

**Mully** · 7th July 2009, 13:22

Originally Posted by Winston001

An order of costs against the police is so rare that it usually requires a separate hearing. Possible....not probable.

As for the car driver, the motorcyclist has the right to make a complaint of careless use against her. If the police refuse to prosecute = PCA.

Thanks for that.

So it's the rider's problem to prove that the prosecution was biased.... Yeah, good luck with that.

Seems to me that a PCA complaint would be appropriate anyway. Clearly the investigation was biased in favour of the Occifer.

**Winston001** · 7th July 2009, 14:20

Originally Posted by Mully

So it's the rider's problem to prove that the prosecution was biased.... Yeah, good luck with that.

Seems to me that a PCA complaint would be appropriate anyway. Clearly the investigation was biased in favour of the Occifer.

No no, you'll see above where I put a reasonable doubt argument in favour of the driver. The police often decide not to prosecute - they have a discretion.

There are situations where both parties are separately prosecuted. I think this could be one of them.

The twist in this tale is the car driver "might" be a police officer so there is a perfectly reasonable suspicion she's being let off.

So a complaint to the police should sort this out. Ask any police officer - internal investigations are the one thing they hate. That's because the investigators are zealous and tend to think the officer is wrong from the get-go. I have a mate who is a police legal advisor and they go after blood.

**Mully** · 7th July 2009, 14:39

Originally Posted by Winston001

No no, you'll see above where I put a reasonable doubt argument in favour of the driver. The police often decide not to prosecute - they have a discretion.

There are situations where both parties are separately prosecuted. I think should be one of them.

The twist in this tale is the car driver "might" be a police officer so there is a perfectly reasonable suspicion she's being let off.

So a complaint to the police should sort this out. Ask any police officer - internal investigations are the one thing they hate. That's because the investigators are zealous and tend to think the officer is wrong from the get-go. I have a mate who is a police legal advisor and they go after blood.

Hmmm, OK. But I don't see why the rider should be being charged with anything - seems from reading here that he did nothing wrong (except possibly not indicating when overtaking, it's not clear).

If the woman who opened the door into him is not being charged and is a Police Occifer, that seems to be to be biased. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a reason that she shouldn't be charged.

I get your reasonable doubt thing, but what's stopping it being a truck a little too far left and taking the driver's hand off when she flings the door open?

So does the rider have the right to ask if the other driver was charged in relation to the incident? If so, can he then go the driver for the damage to his bike?

EDIT: Actually, DB; has your mate said how fast he was going? Seems like an awful lot of damage for the situation, unless he was going for it.

**marty** · 7th July 2009, 15:01

What a lot of blah blah for a very simple matter - am I correct in thinking that no ticket has even been received yet?

It seems pretty simple - it's an 'opens door without due consideration' - Provision 7.2(1), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 .

If however, the cars were legally parked in some kind of Clearway, then your friend could have been 'riding in an unavailable lane', Provision 2.3(1)(a), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Either way, it's a $150 fine. I don't think Legal Aid would be interested.

**p.dath** · 7th July 2009, 18:28

Originally Posted by marty

What a lot of blah blah for a very simple matter - am I correct in thinking that no ticket has even been received yet?

It seems pretty simple - it's an 'opens door without due consideration' - Provision 7.2(1), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 .

If however, the cars were legally parked in some kind of Clearway, then your friend could have been 'riding in an unavailable lane', Provision 2.3(1)(a), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Either way, it's a $150 fine. I don't think Legal Aid would be interested.

$150 ticket. It's just not worth doing anything about.

**marty** · 7th July 2009, 18:34

Who was at fault is still important - it's the staggering amount of handwringing and woe-is-me that is going on over a ticket that hasn't even been issued yet (and imho, won't be).

Get some facts, deal with it.

**PrincessBandit** · 7th July 2009, 18:46

Thing is though, for the people going on about "woe is me, handwringing" etc., it IS a major deal to the person it has happened to. Especially if they have injuries to boot. It's not quite as simple a matter as "oh, just wait and see what happens, don't get upset before you know what you're up for" because although that makes sense, it's a tall order for the person involved. (Unless all you blah blah'ers are so blase and have been through it so many times it barely raises a yawn from you!)

From my reading of it there it seems hard to see how the rider could be held exclusively at fault. As I read it the door-opener is clearly at fault - checking over your shoulder before opening a car door should be a reflex for any driver! Would the police be acting exactly the same if it had been an 8 year old child on a bicycle hit by this "officer"?

If the details are completely upfront as relayed by DB then I certainly hope that there is some way this person can be vindicated and not left holding the

**The Stranger:Me** · 7th July 2009, 19:16

Originally Posted by p.dath

$150 ticket. It's just not worth doing anything about.

Perhaps not, but the cost of repair to the bike and to the car could be significant. Even if the irder is insured it could easily cost a grand in excess.

Are you related to dpex per chance?

**Gremlin** · 8th July 2009, 02:47

Originally Posted by marty

If however, the cars were legally parked in some kind of Clearway, then your friend could have been 'riding in an unavailable lane', Provision 2.3(1)(a), Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but clearways on normal roads are normally (from what I have seen anyway) used to prevent parking during certain hours, to make the lane available to traffic?

I understood the time to be outside of the hours of the clearway anyway, so I wouldn't imagine it would apply.

Others have already stated about passing parked cars etc within the lane.

**discotex** · 8th July 2009, 23:22

This thread reminds me of the often quoted saying:

"It's no good being in the right if you're dead"

**The Stranger:Me** · 9th July 2009, 07:51

Originally Posted by Winston001

Ask any police officer - internal investigations are the one thing they hate. That's because the investigators are zealous and tend to think the officer is wrong from the get-go. I have a mate who is a police legal advisor and they go after blood.

What? The cop hate being treated like they treat the rest of the public. Fooken hypocrites!