Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,175

  2. #2
    weirdo
    Reputation: rodar y rodar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,679
    Ha! I love it!
    BrianMc and his sherriff buddy must have been lurking around the corner!
    Recalculating....

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,971
    Cop is definately guilty.....since she didn't see the obstacle before hitting it...

    The obstacle could have easily been a stationary biker pulling a kid trailer stopped to wipe the kids nose...

    Very defensive posture for the cops to take as well....

    Now the article is unclear as to the issues about the cyclist actions before the accident....

    Why cause the cop didn't see her...so when it gets to trial the cop cannot testify as to what actually was going on.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BrianMc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,418
    Rodar had my first reaction, "what's with the distraction excuse stuff". Doesn't sound like the officer trotted that out as an excuse, though.

    In most jurisdictions, you have the obligation to avoid the accident. This requires looking where you are going/about to go. If a car runs a red light, you don't have the right to plough into them if you can avoid them, even if it has been green a while. You must try to allow traffic that is imminent to cross the intersection regardless. Pedestrians and joggers might be using the bike path. It is clear the officer did not look, or if the officer did, the cyclist was not seen. It does reinforce the idea that I need to put my bell back on my bike. It is law that I have one (even though I can out shout it). I'd hate some officer to hit me or my bike and say "I was distracted but he wasn't legal anyway, so I can run him over all I want without any problems. Darn scofflaw!"

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mtbxplorer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,175
    I don't think cyclists can expect to be seen when traveling the wrong way in a bike lane or regular street. If someone was driving the wrong way on the interstate, we wouldn't say the other traffic should have seen them and avoided the collision and that the driver going the right way must have been distracted.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,971
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianMc View Post
    It does reinforce the idea that I need to put my bell back on my bike.
    I have a loud piercing whistle....curl the tongue and let it rip....drivers can hear it even when traveling 50 kph works wonders...

    I can do it it unless I am too dehydrated...faster and way louder than a bell...

    Worth practicing.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: junior1210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,092
    ^ +1 this. If cyclist had been following correct road procedures, she wouldn't have been in that place and that time, therefor no collision would have happened. Harsh? Yes, however if we expect to have the protection of the law and respect of motorists, it's up to us to earn it by following the rules, all of them, not just the convenient ones.
    The ridiculousness of cycling clothes increase exponentially in relation to the distance from your bicycle.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,971
    Quote Originally Posted by junior1210 View Post
    ^ +1 this. If cyclist had been following correct road procedures, she wouldn't have been in that place and that time, therefor no collision would have happened. Harsh? Yes, however if we expect to have the protection of the law and respect of motorists, it's up to us to earn it by following the rules, all of them, not just the convenient ones.
    So your saying that if the cyclist was stopped and the cop hit the cyclist then and only then would the cop have any part of the blame....doesn't make sense the cop was not paying proper attention to the road period.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: junior1210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,092
    What I'm saying is no matter what the cop did or didn't do, The cyclist started the event cascade by riding against traffic. If it had not been the cop, it likely might have been some other person who would have hit her. People make mistakes and police are no different. I'm willing to excuse a mistake, but cycling against traffic is a purposefully willful act, and therefore where I put the majority of the blame.
    The ridiculousness of cycling clothes increase exponentially in relation to the distance from your bicycle.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,971
    Quote Originally Posted by junior1210 View Post
    What I'm saying is no matter what the cop did or didn't do, The cyclist started the event cascade by riding against traffic. If it had not been the cop, it likely might have been some other person who would have hit her. People make mistakes and police are no different. I'm willing to excuse a mistake, but cycling against traffic is a purposefully willful act, and therefore where I put the majority of the blame.
    So a cop who pulls out into a bike lane and accelerates without looking in front and hits any object has committed no wrong....

    Pulling out into a bike lane and accelerating without looking ahead is a wileful act.

    And thank god the cyclist was not killed....or the poor little guy inside a bike trailer getting his nose wiped by his mom while stopped.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: junior1210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,092
    Agreed that I'm glad injuries weren't worse, and hopefully both individuals will follow the rules from now on and save themselves grief.
    The ridiculousness of cycling clothes increase exponentially in relation to the distance from your bicycle.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BrianMc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3,418
    Enough blame to go around. Cyclists are invisible enough without being where we aren't expected by law. Salmon cyclists really irk me. But that's my problem (or one of many). I told one cyclist to leave her bike in a garage if she was going to ride the wrong way on a two way then swing into a one way the wrong way with no signal and expect me too give her ample clearance in one second.

    However, there appears to be a sidewalk where the officer pulled out. So the officer should have stopped behind the sidewalk and checked for pedestrians in both directions. The cyclist would have been spotted if the officer did that. My guess it was a rolling stop as well as a failure to look for pedestrians, which in Indiana is a violation in and of itself. Police do the sort of thing here all the time.

  13. #13
    weirdo
    Reputation: rodar y rodar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,679
    The drivers should have looked, no question. Pin a "G" for guilty on her lapel if you want to.

    Guilt aside, the rider is an idiot. Not looking sifficiently to the left when turning right and pulling into traffic is SO common that I`d venture to guess the majority of rights onto a busy street involve the same guilty breach. A cyclist in traffic has to pay attention and can`t assume everybody else will be flying straight. A salmon cyclist had DAMNED SURE better be watching what`s up, and especially for drivers who don`t check carefully for salmon! This story is a classic example of why it isn`t generally recommended.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffscott View Post
    So your saying that if the cyclist was stopped and the cop hit the cyclist then and only then would the cop have any part of the blame....doesn't make sense the cop was not paying proper attention to the road period.
    Totally different situation. If the cyclist were stopped, she wouldn`t have been riding against traffic and wouldn`t have ridden into the path of the driver (who should have seen her anyway, yes). Bottom line, no accident.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianMc View Post
    However, there appears to be a sidewalk where the officer pulled out. So the officer should have stopped behind the sidewalk and checked for pedestrians in both directions. The cyclist would have been spotted if the officer did that. My guess it was a rolling stop as well as a failure to look for pedestrians, which in Indiana is a violation in and of itself. Police do the sort of thing here all the time.
    The reminder that she (the driver) should have looked for peds on the sidewalk even if she didn`t expect the wrong way cyclist is a valid point. But I doubt a pedestrian would have been moving quick enough for it to be an issue. Still, maybe a runner...

    Yeah, "rolling stop" would be my guess too.
    Recalculating....

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-25-2012, 11:28 AM
  2. 1st Head On Collision
    By Fresh in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-15-2012, 12:26 PM
  3. Top tube / lever collision
    By mdb1974 in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-07-2011, 10:27 AM
  4. Alameda cyclist dies in road collision saturday
    By zorg in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-25-2011, 05:59 PM
  5. Cruiser Cam Captures Cyclist Collision
    By mtbxplorer in forum Commuting
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-08-2011, 08:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •