How do they justify not penalising her for doing something clearly against the law???
It’s at the officer’s discretion, apparently. The reporter was unable to ask them directly but another officer commented briefly and asked the officer on behalf of the reporter. The officer in question had nothing to add. That’s the whole explanation we’re given. It sounds like a possible case of “windshield bias”, “car brain”, or similar–the stereotyping of non-drivers by drivers
I can see the hitting a person part being waved away like this. But the video shows her running a red light. How is that excused??
most states have a statute that specifically shields cops against liability for instances where they don’t enforce the law. this allows them to let certain people off.
however, the cyclist can still sue for injury. just the insurance co will use the cop’s lack of issuing a ticket against them in court.
insurance co will use the cop’s lack of issuing a ticket against them in court.
Against the cop or against the injured who is suing for injury?
against the injured, of course.
Of course. Why did I even ask. Of course it would be the evil version.
yeah, it is a stock play for court: “if the cop didn’t issue a ticket, nothing wrong happened.” you have to have a response, but then, jurors.
I hate that this is our perception of the world now, just assume the greedy evil version cuz it’s probably that :[
Well my experience of the unfairness of this world sure does reinforce my pessimism in many cases.
You can always apologise after hitting her in the head with a hammer…
Well, as long as you do it while driving a car, anyway.
True
That’s basically a license to kill cyclists
in the video, I can see a blinking red light, is that the traffic signal? Where I’m from, a blinking red light means that intersection is temporarily an all-way stop sign.
An all way stop sign which means that the driver should have stopped. and in Portland, Oregon. We have something on the books called the Idaho stop, which means that bicyclists should be able to keep their acceleration through stop signs and stop lights and treat them as yield signals. Also the bicyclists clearly had the right of way approaching the stoplight first.
Yeah no matter how we look at this the driver is clearly in the wrong.
I’m not arguing any of that, I was just wondering if that’s what I was seeing.
Yeah sorry I guess that does come off as argumentative but I was actually agreeing and trying to add my own thoughts onto yours.
Well, I should have added that I was asking that because if that’s a blinking red light, there’s no way the driver even remotely saw a green light, making her even more full of shit. I didn’t know about the Idaho stop thing, that’s interesting!
