CliffordK

Drug & Alcohol testing should be standard procedure after all accidents.

With or without an accident, if an ordinary citizen was observed driving like that, they'd be cited for a number of traffic violations. There is some leeway for responding to an emergency, but that is why the police cars have emergency lights which didn't appear to ever be activated.

So, no, I doubt any citations were issued against the officers. But, that is the double standard we live in where the laws don't apply to the law enforcers.

CliffordK

If it happened slowly, there wouldn't be an accident.

It is hard to estimate speed and distances in the clip, but the rider appears to be 1/2 block away from the light when it turns yellow. Did the sidewalk have a count-down? Anyway, while I will sprint to try to make it through a light, I would have backed off on that one which would have necessarily slowed me down.

The rider appears to be coasting at the time of impact, so he apparently did react to either the light or the car. I can't tell how much he slowed down.

I probably would have moved left out of the bike lane into the traffic lane. That is a tough one. The rider was probably aware of the car just to his left too, but not necessarily exactly where it was, its speed and position, and whether it was attempting to run the red light too. So, part of reacting is also looking to the side and back to verify room to maneuver. But, such crash avoidance is dangerous in itself. I've gone from 20 to zero in about a car length.

dynodonn 

Another thing that I do, is if I'm passing stopped vehicles with a driver inside, is to watch the front wheel, and be extra wary if the front wheel is turned or turning towards my direction.

italktocats

what you expect? its a cop, **** the rules!

italktocats

im not sure how that will be useful when a car just slams right into your back, instead of overtaking

if youre gonna get hit, your better duck and roll, cuz you just got hit!

close calls all day err day, but i got hit over 5 times and at some point you just cant fix the amount of **** going wrong

CliffordK

In the video, the police car pulls in front of the car and the bike hits the left fender at speed.

As far as being rear-ended, so far it hasn't happened to me.

I'd be curious about the details of your 5 accidents. Rear-ended a couple of times? Lane Positioning? Intersections? Type of roads? Vehicles?

I'm a firm believer of ride where the cars aren't driving (shoulder, bike lanes, right side of the road). Take the lane when necessary (left turns), but with extreme vigilance.

I realize others have different opinions.

In this case, maybe the police officer wouldn't have mowed down the cyclist had he been stopped in the bike lane.... Maybe.... It is hard to say with impaired drivers.

dynodonn 

I don't live in some quiet hamlet, our city's motor vehicle collision ranking runs between #1 and #2 out of 100 cities our size in the state, not sure what to tell you other that I personally am not going to lay down quietly in letting some motorist hit me.

genec

Huh? The cyclist is using the clearly marked bike lane... the cop pulled into said bike lane suddenly... About the only criticism I have of the cyclist is to learn to watch front tire movement... but otherwise, the bad moves are on the cop.

genec

Of course... but as a cyclist, you have to keep track of traffic that can come from almost anywhere, that doesn't see you, so you are constantly looking about... one turn of the head is all the time it takes for someone to "suddenly be there."

Yeah, I would have watched the front tire too, but I would probably also have seen that right blinker and rolled right up too.

Miele Man

The TWO motor vehicles I watch the closest because of their often unpredictable moves are #1 TAXIS and #2 police cars. Either are liable to change direction without warning (including use of signals) or stopping without warning either.

Cheers

adablduya

personally, i wouldn't harbor ill will against the entire police department. i would, however, with the incompetent POS who clipped me. from what i could see in this video clip, the cop was COMPLETELY at fault, and there is NO circumstance (emergency, or otherwise) that would justify his actions. if i'm on a jury, this cop is 100% at fault.

rebel1916

You gotta give cop cars a wide birth, no matter how you are traveling. Cop cars will drive erratically. It's the nature of the beast. They could get a call at anytime for an emergent situation. Common sense dictates that you give them a little more room. This doesn't mean that the cop was right, he was clearly in the wrong, but...

adablduya

nothing personal, but that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

CliffordK

It may well be true that police officers are bad drivers tasked with ticketing good drivers for minor infractions.

One would think the police officers would get the most training of any driver on the road. But, maybe that isn't the case. Before making any aggressive moves in traffic they should always LOOK, and turn on their emergency lights. Also use their blinkers. That is what they are there for.

FBinNY 

I guess that's why we bet on horse races. Including the stipulation that the cop was wrong, but..... , I agree with the statement that it's wise to give cop cars a wide berth when possible. I don't necessarily mean passing a moving cop car wider, but will if space affords it. I do mean that they warrant added attention because they are more likely to make an erratic move for any number of reasons, both valid and not.

Earlier in this thread, I suggested that the cop became impatient and swung around the car stopped in front of him. That might have been the case, or he might have seen something ad was pulling out to give chase, or he might have just received an emergency call, and started around before flicking on the lights and siren.

It really doesn't matter why, the cop (or city) are civilly liable for the damage, though how the city disciplines the cop (if they do) may depend on the exact reason he pulled out.

eastbay71

I think my biggest surprise in this story is the fact that he harbors no ill will toward SFPD. I harbored ill will for them long before this incident. Pretty much since 4 SFPD plain clothes task force agents attacked a friend of mine that was walking down the street. The knocked out 4 of his teeth. He sued and won but was forced to move out of town after the case because of police harrassment.

For what it's worth this is standard driving procedure for both SFPD and Muni. They own the road and dont give a f#@k about who else is on it.

rebel1916

More accurate to say that police officers are required to multitask while driving and multitasking can cause all tasks being performed to suffer. Additionally, shots fired, or officer needs assistance calls, or an arrestee making a run for it may cause a fast reaction and a bit of tunnel vision. Again, the cop was in the wrong, but there is nothing wrong with understanding why we should attempt to avoid getting to close to a police car if we don't need to.

CliffordK

I've also found myself trying to give a little extra space to delivery trucks. I suppose I do periodically ride close to parked cars, but work hard to try to figure out which ones might move.

That was a tough place. Riding in a bike lane. The rider would likely have been aware of the car at his 7/8-o-clock position, so there is little room for maneuvering out of the bike lane.

One could signal and move left if it was a traffic stop with lights and an officer getting out of the car. But not simply an impatient bad driver stuck in traffic (which those around him don't know).

Wilfred Laurier

It's easy to slam the pigs, but this was not a peaceful protestor being tazed to death, or someone stopped on a DWB having his neck broken by being unrestrained in the back of the paddy wagon - this was an accident, and accidents happen.

adablduya

here we go again with the "accidents happen" .... wrong. what you want to call an "accident" doesn't just happen. an "accident just happening" would be a bolt of lightning striking the police car, blowing it up and taking out the cyclist with it. what folks seem to accept as an "accident" is really an incident with an unintended/undesirable result. unless it's an act of God, almost every unintended/undesirable result from a deliberate act is foreseeable, and thus, preventable. a motorist makes an unexpected move into traffic and causes some damage/injury.... that's no accident; it's an act with a completely foreseeable and preventable outcome.

just like a cyclist getting doored. that's no accident. completely foreseeable and definitely preventable. damn sure not an accident.

calling situations like these an "accident" removes accountability for the actions.

qajaq

You gotta be extra careful around cops, taxis, delivery folks (dominos pizza anyone) and the like. All are prime examples of distracted driving. They are always looking for addresses and street names etc. Cops have police radios and computer screens to pay attention to and cops are also expected to be looking out for bad guys, bad drivers, suspicious activity and the like while driving. Not faulting them but not excusing them either. You just better be very cautious around them.

mconlonx

This.

One time, I was in line in traffic, stopped at a light, with a cop in front of me, two lanes of traffic going straight. The right turn lane was clear and had a green light. Cop, pretty much without warning, suddenly pulled out into the right turn lane and was off in a flash... unfortunate for the VW that was traveling in that lane, not expecting a sudden obstacle to appear in their way. VW managed to stop, but was subsequently rear-ended by someone not quite so fast with the braking reflex.

Cop appears totally at fault, actual reason for the collision is yet to be determined, as is any kind of outcome, legal or civil, as a result. But let's not let that stop us from arguing the situation like we know everything about it...

Wilfred Laurier

Accidents are not necessarily blameless. Accidents happen often because of carelessness or recklessness or inattention, and usually are someone's fault, but they are still accidents. Unless there is some indication in this instance that the collision was intentional (as does happen) then this was an accident by definition.

adablduya

you don't seem to realize that you are completely corroborating my point. carelessness, recklessness, and inattention are all indicative of behaviors that can be recognized, and modified or eliminated. you are using these terms in the context of being acceptable excuses for the undesirable outcomes.

also, intent has nothing to do with it. just because the collision caused by the cop was certainly not intentional, it was careless. the predictable outcome of that careless behavior was damage to a car (or person) in the proximity. therefore, the result was reasonably foreseeable, and again, preventable.

i work in the construction industry, and the safety culture is taken very seriously. just about every injury, short of an act of God, is due to inattention, carelessness, or complacency (say, due to performing repetitive tasks). with attentive behavior, these injuries are ALL preventable, and are not just written off as "accidents happen".

corrado33

It was obviously a mistake on the part of the cop. Why make anything more out of it? Do people REALLY think that the cop did it on purpose to stop the biker? Seriously? Paranoid much?

I'm sure the cop did the right thing and stopped and helped the biker. I'm also sure the city's insurance is paying for it. What's the big deal? It was a mistake? Badly designed bike lane? Sure, but still it has a human error that caused this.