Some of you might remember this story
It was discussed in this forum.
Looks like there were a lot of details ignored at the time.[SIZE=3]
Cyclist hit from behind[/SIZE]<O></O>
That's pretty crappy. The driver had 8 violations in the preceding 2 years and they wanted to blame the cyclist?
Are the police saying new evidence came to light only much later? Evidence that caused them to double back on what they were "following" previously? I can't tell from the article.
Pugash said it’s not at all unusual, and “absolutely understandable,” that in the aftermath of tragedies, the victim’s loved ones find it hard to accept if police don’t charge the driver involved with a serious offence. “But the fact is, every officer, whether they’re a traffic officer or not, their job is to evaluate the situation and follow the evidence where it goes.”
At the end of the day, I keep coming back to the same conclusion: that I have to get a helmetcam set up. Forward or rear facing though??? One for each??
Originally Posted by Kay.
Check and mate? I guess they can't charge us with rolling a stop sign 10 km earlier when we are deceased, but it's starting to sound like they might try.
Originally Posted by the toronto star
Also: If a collision involving a cyclist being hit from behind while lawfully waiting at a red light, is being reported by police as a cyclist being "hit while running a red light while riding in the wrong direction".... what exactly is the value of cycling safety studies that rely on said police reporting.
I would suggest their value is very low.
The above statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration
By Thumpy69 in forum General Discussion
Last Post: 03-28-2013, 10:52 AM
By morphosity in forum Passion
Last Post: 02-11-2012, 05:24 AM
By patirwin in forum Fat bikes
Last Post: 08-22-2011, 07:48 PM
By NEPMTBA in forum Pennsylvania
Last Post: 07-04-2011, 08:29 PM
By norcalenduro in forum General Discussion
Last Post: 06-06-2011, 10:30 AM