Advocacy & Safety - Cyclist cut off and killed, police blame cyclist

Thanks Helmet Head.

Now, everybody, WHY would the police blame the cyclist for not having a light, when the accident occurred at approximately sunset, and he wasn't required to have a light?

Whether or not the cyclist is legally to blame, if he is not visible to the driver, it is hard to blame the driver.

That's all very interesting, but since the crash occured on 9/20, the information from that date is more relevant. As I posted earlier, sunset on 9/20 was at 6:47pm.

http://www.boattahoe.com/sundata.htm
That's all very interesting, but since Lake Tahoe is a large lake, there are different sunset times at different locations along the shore.

According to Incline Village specific data, Sunset was between 7:00 and 7:02pm. Deputies arrived at the scene at 6:55 - before sunset.


Twi A: 5:14am
Twi N: 5:46am
Twi: 6:18am
Sunrise: 6:45am
Sunset: 7:02pm
Twi: 7:29pm
Twi N: 8:00pm
Twi A: 8:32pm
Moonrise: 3:36pm
Moonset: none
http://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp

Begin Civil Twilight 6:19 AM PDT
Sunrise 6:46 AM PDT
Sunset 7:00 PM PDT
End Civil Twilight 7:27 PM PDT
http://www.hometownlocator.com/Sunrise-Sunset.cfm (http://www.hometownlocator.com/Sunrise-Sunset.cfm?TZ=Pacific&Lat=39.25139&Long=-119.97194&LocalOffset=-8&UsesDST=Y&City=Incline%20Village&StateCode=NV)

when this accident was caused by a driver not yeilding at a stop sign.

I don't think that's the case. The second article says the driver was northbound and turning left. That means they were both on Country Club Drive which does not have stop signs.

Sounds like a local kid in a small town with some connections. So why not blame the tourist he can't complain about it. Hey Pete the truck had the stop sign not the biker. This happend to me the other night(except the dying part) and I had a light on, a JAM just turned right in front of me looking right at me.

Since the accident occurred on 9/20 and not 10/12, the proper sunset/civil twilight times are posted below for Carson City. Also, since the crash occurred was WEST of Carson City, the actual sunset at the crash site would be LATER than Carson City by a matter of minutes - sunset for Las Vegas, farther EAST, for 9/20 was 6:41pm:

U.S. Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department

Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for Carson City, Nevada (longitude W119.8, latitude N39.1):
Thursday
20 September 2007 Pacific Daylight Time
SUN
Begin civil twilight 6:18 a.m.
Sunrise 6:45 a.m.
Sun transit 12:53 p.m.
Sunset 7:00 p.m.
End civil twilight 7:26 p.m.

Phase of the Moon on 20 September: waxing gibbous with 61% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

First quarter Moon on 19 September 2007 at 9:48 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time.

Hey Pete the truck had the stop sign not the biker.Again, I don't think he did (see prev post #61).

Sounds like a local kid in a small town with some connections. So why not blame the tourist he can't complain about it.ya think?

Since the accident occurred on 9/20 and not 10/12, the proper sunset/civil twilight times are posted below for Carson City. Also, since the crash occurred was WEST of Carson City, the actual sunset at the crash site would be LATER than Carson City by a matter of minutes - sunset for Las Vegas, farther EAST, for 9/20 was 6:41pm:

What were the weather conditions? Cloudy, overcast? Is the route on the leeward side of a mountain or hill so the loss of daylight would be quicker? Does the heavy forestation along the road make it appear darker?

Simply trotting out sunrise / sunset times provides minimal information as to the actual illumination of the area.

What were the weather conditions? Cloudy, overcast? Is the route on the leeward side of a mountain or hill so the loss of daylight would be quicker? Does the heavy forestation along the road make it appear darker?

Simply trotting out sunrise / sunset times provides minimal information as to the actual illumination of the area. Look it up and get back to us please. It's your turn ;)

Amazing how stuff gets posted when yer not lookin!

Weather: 57-60 degrees, scattered clouds.

Look it up and get back to us please. It's your turn ;)

Weather wise it looks like clear for Lake Tahoe but range from clear to partly cloudy for other reporting stations in the immediate area. So we can probably summarize that the weather was not a factor.

It does appear, according to topo maps, that the area of the accident was in a valley between ridgelines of 8600+ feet. I really can't say what the actual angle of the sun was in relationship to the area though.

Interesting how we make the instant assumption that a driver will lie. Kind of like the assumption that the cyclist is ever at fault.

This reminds me of the incident several weeks ago where the cyclist got hit by a train. Momentary inattentiveness, unfamiliar conditions, speed or actions not prudent.

I don't think I'm making the assumption that the driver will lie. I do think there's a very high probablity that he will if he was really at fault, especially since there are no surviving eyewitnesses, and especially since he's a teenager scared to death about going to prison. Face it; it's human nature. You or I might do the same if we were in his shoes.

I don't think I'm making the assumption that the driver will lie.

That's odd


Though we'll probably never know for sure since the driver would probably lie if he did not in fact signal or did not have his headlights on at the time.

To me the words "driver would probably lie" is making an assumption. But then again you're opinion is that a cager would naturally lie in order to avoid blame.

Thanks Helmet Head.

Now, everybody, WHY would the police blame the cyclist for not having a light, when the accident occurred at approximately sunset, and he wasn't required to have a light?
The blame is not for not having a light alone.
The blame is for going too fast for the circumstances, which include not having a light at dusk.

Again, to cite the teen driver, they have to find intent or negligence. If they feel the guy made a reasonable effort look for oncoming traffic, and just plain didn't see the fast-moving cyclist with no light at dusk in the trees (and, yes, probably riding too far right for the situation too), then they have no grounds to cite him. And it makes sense why they would mention that his not having a light was a factor in all this.

That's all very interesting, but since Lake Tahoe is a large lake, there are different sunset times at different locations along the shore.

According to Incline Village specific data, Sunset was between 7:00 and 7:02pm. Deputies arrived at the scene at 6:55 - before sunset.


http://www.sunrisesunset.com/calendar.asp


http://www.hometownlocator.com/Sunrise-Sunset.cfm (http://www.hometownlocator.com/Sunrise-Sunset.cfm?TZ=Pacific&Lat=39.25139&Long=-119.97194&LocalOffset=-8&UsesDST=Y&City=Incline%20Village&StateCode=NV)

Huh?

Sunset for that entire area was at 7:02pm at Tahoe Vista (N. Lake Tahoe, near Incline Village), and in South Lake Tahoe, at the far end of the lake, on 9/20.

The 6:47 9/20 sunset time I posted earlier was from a website that adjusted for surrounding elevations.

EDIT: fixed "altitude" to be "surrounding elevations".

Sloppy, thanks. Fixed.

While you're at it you might want to note the +/- 5 min variation as well as the fact that your source lists the sunset time for Lake Tahoe, in its entirety. Sunset on the West shore, where the accident happened is later than it is on the East shore...

Actually, with the west side of the lake closer to the mountains the sun disappears behind, I'd think that the west side would be dark before the east side. This is what I experience in the mountains west of Lake Tahoe. When I'm in the shade on the west side of a valley, the east side still has sunlight.

Christ on a crutch..........
what?

Haha, I blew that description bigtime.

The accident happened on the East shore, not West shore and I should know better given how much time I've spent in Tahoe.
Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

Huh?
Yes, that was a silly and irrelevant comment on my part, as sunset times around the Tahoe coast only vary by about a minute.

The blame is for going too fast for the circumstances, which include not having a light at dusk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dusk

Dusk is at the end of civil twilight, which was 27 minutes after sunset.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dusk

Dusk is at the end of civil twilight, which was 27 minutes after sunset.

Also from Wikipedia:

Dusk and dawn, the times of day after sunrise and before sunset (emphasis added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dusk_and_Dawn

And Dictionary.com:

dusk1
–noun 1. the state or period of partial darkness between day and night; the dark part of twilight.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dusk

Colloquially it means around sunset.

I do stop at stop signs and traffic lights, and I do signal, but I'm the ONLY one in my group that ever does.

We as cyclist want to be treated equally and fairly but we sometimes tend to bring these motorists' bad attitudes on myself by rolling through stop signs and traffic signals.

Even I get pixxed off when I'm stopped at a sign in my car and a fellow roadie goes blowing by...

This is a tragic accident for all involved...

DPN

C'mon, now, the roady just goes blowing by you at a stop, risking his/her life by wildly proceeding through a stop sign. Is the situation similar to the TV chase scenes where opposing traffic has to noisily screech to a halt at all sorts of weird angles?

I just love that characterization of road cyclists - they just have no regard for anyone's safety, including their own. I ride the roads exclusively - many miles per year. The description of roadies you give is not supported in my observations. I see cyclists roll through stops, sure, but they aren't blowing them. When traffic is present, it is extremely rare to see cyclists who do not respect the normal "pecking" order at an intersection.

Caruso

I teach bike ed for a living and the next cyclists I see stop at a stop sign will be the first and I see hundreds of bikes per day here.

I have a few of my former students that I occasionally see that stop but noone whom I dont know.

Maybe you should buy a kit or two and become a real cyclist, yourself . . . and I suppose you define stopping as putting a foot down, too. That so few of your former students actually practice what you preach might be an indication that you are out of touch with reality.

Caruso

It is quite clear that the police are biased in this investigation. I don't know the terrain, so cannot speculate on what the fastest possible speed for the cyclist would be (maybe someone familiar can fill us in). We don't have many mountains around here, but we have some steep hills. On the steepest, I can attain speeds of 45 - 50 mph. Obviously, in a 35 mph zone, I would be speeding. In a car, most officers would not ticket me on those roads at those speeds, nor would they assign blame to me if some other car pulled out in front of me when I had the right of way.

For the cops to insinuate that the cyclist was speeding when there is not one shred of supporting evidence is a clear indication that they want to spare the young driver any responsibility for the accident.

That's a normal human reaction even if the accident were car on car, but it still isn't right, nor is it fair to the family of the cyclist.

Had the cyclist been driving a car instead of a bike, it is unlikely that 45 or even 50 mph speed would be considered a contributing factor, and as sympathetic as the cops might feel for the young driver, they would, perhaps reluctantly, cite him for a violation. Actually, I suspect that, had this accident been car vs. car, the investigative bias would have shifted totally against the young teenage driver who, according to that bias, would most certainly had to have been up to something wrong for the accident to have taken place.

In fairness to that young driver, we all know it can be easy to overlook a cyclist when driving a car. This tendency would have been exacerbated by the fading evening light and the fact that the cyclist didn't have any lights. The driver certainly shares some, if not all, of the responsibility for this tragic accident, but he is not responsible for the investigative bias.

Why law enforcement in this case goes on and on about cyclist’s bad traffic manners when none of the "rudeness" issues were contributing factors is a clear indication of their bias.

. . . but I have hope that the truth will eventually rule in this case.

My sympathies to the family of the cyclist.

Caruso

Also from Wikipedia:

Dusk and dawn, the times of day after sunrise and before sunset (empahsis added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dusk_and_Dawn

And Dictionary.com:

dusk1
–noun 1. the state or period of partial darkness between day and night; the dark part of twilight.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dusk

Colloquially it means around sunset.
Colloquially, yes, around sunset - although with the connotation of darkness as opposed to lightness. I think the reason for the looseness of the use of these different words (sunset, twilight, dusk) is due to the fact that the length of twilight can vary so much depending on location and time of year, in some places all 3 happen in rapid succession. Pedantically, you have sunset, then twilight (between sunset and dusk), then dusk (the dark part, end of civil twilight) - (conversely, dawn, twilight, sunrise in the morning).

"dusk" as an adjective refers to darker colors, shadows, while "twilight" refers to the light period caused by refraction after the sun has set. For example, it would be misleading to refer to the "white nights" of St. Petersburg, for example, as dusk, when the sun is set, but it is still light out. That's twilight. Dusk is when it starts to get dark, when twilight ends in the evening.

I know that it is pedantic of me, but I feel that it is deliberately misleading word choice on the part of Serge McFearfulstein, due to the connotation of the word "dusk" both colloquial and meteorological.

I've been reading this thread for awhile now.....and here's my 2 cents worth.

The poor cyclist is dead. Right or wrong, he's dead. So he got the worst end of it. Personally, I try not to get into crashes with cars. Maybe I do have the right-of-way. What differance does it make if I'm dead?

My guess is that everybody, the diver and the cyclist, was at fault. It's almost dark and the cyclist is hauling ***** around a curve with no light. The dumb ass teenage driver isn't paying attention of the road. It sounds like both parties could have done a better job to avoid this. But this is nothing more than my guess.

The bottom line is that you can't ride a bike, or drive a car and not be ready to avoid a crash if some driver does something stupid, because it happens all the time. It's possible that you're number's up and you get hit with no chance of reaction, but most of time you can pick a riding or driving style that avoids accidents.

That's what I wanted to say, but you already stated it so well. :)

... Brad
+1


In my interview I would have something like this.

Most cyclists feel that wearing a reflective vest makes you look like a clown. Or not know how long it takes to stop a bicycle while going a fast rate of speed? The cyclist had the right of way and it is obvious that the motorist didn't see him. Whether that is no lights, night conditions, speed, and or some motorist problem(s). However if sight lines are the problem then maybe we should look at the other 2 cyclists that died, and see if we to engineer better intersection(s). It doesn't matter whose fault it is someone is dead, all roadusers need to learn and react in a positive manner toward all transportation methods whether walking, cycling, equestrian, or being a motorist.

there is my bias opinion

Reflective outerwear is great for traffic that is approaching directly from behind or oncoming, but it's effectiveness is virtually useless when dealing with traffic at 90 degree angles, unless you are directly in front of them, and by then it could be too late. After dealing with this scenerio several times, realizing that even with my high powered light and front flasher that motorists still were not seeing me, I went and bought a helmet light to shine in the motorist eyes in order get their attention, which seems to be working since the number of motorists pulling out in front of me has diminished greatly.

Amazing how many cyclist here have never had a motorist see them, and yet, still try beating the cyclist through the intersection, either causing a collision or near miss.

Amazing how many cyclist here have never had a motorist see them, and yet, still try beating the cyclist through the intersection, either causing a collision or near miss.

I have had motorists do all sorts of bizarre and illegal things that certainly seem to be related to my presence, and then say "I didn't see you" when I ask them what they were thinking.

My favourite was the women who acted like she was shading her eyes as if my headlight was too bright, then pulled out in front of me cause "she didn't see me".

My favorite "I did not see you story":

8 am, clear dry morning, occurred on a 6 lane highway underneath an elevated freeway bounded by a curb , no shoulder but did have bus turnouts. While riding 4 feet from the curb/right lane line in a VC manner, a routine check of the mirror shows a Jeep just about on me and I cannot see the right headlight of the Jeep in the mirror (he is close). I also cannot not see the drivers face as he is bent over. I know I am in trouble and make an emergency swerve to the right (moving at least 5 feet) as fast as I can into a bus turnout (lucky it was there). The Jeep passes about 1 foot from the left end of my handlebar. As he passes, I see he is bent over, picking up a CD player off the passenger floor board. He never saw me until I caught him at the light and started yelling at him. I can yell extremely loud. He made all the excuses, “I could not see you, it is dark under here”. I pointed to a couple of guys 100 yards away and asked if he could see them. He just kept arguing until I yelled that I saw him bent over picking up the CD player. The light turned green and he promptly speed off.

In this case though, he really did not see me, even though he lied about the reason.:rolleyes:

As far a near miss left hooks, they all saw me regardless of their claims afterwards.

Seems to me that "I didn't see you" amounts to an admission of negligence, i.e., an admission to failure to keep a proper lookout.

What have you read gives you that impression?

I have read that, with absolutely no means of determining the cyclist's speed, they have suggested this as the likely cause of the accident. We know that the cyclist struck the truck that pulled out in front of him. We have, however, no concrete information concerning the cyclist's speed. What reason can you cite to justify the LEO's inference to the cyclist's speed as a causal factor? I can find none other than bias to ascribe blame to the cyclist and deflect it from the driver.

The notion that the cyclist should be held accountable (I love HH's insinuation that too-far-right riding by the cyclist also contributed - as if that has any bearing upon the legalities of the case) reminds me of an auto accident that involved my mother years ago.

We lived on a farm. The mailbox was on the opposite side of the road from the entrance to our driveway.

In order to retrieve the mail, she pulled the car to the shoulder, facing into oncoming traffic. An oncoming driver (doing Lord knows what distracted him), crashed into her head on while she was sitting still.

Police cited her for illegal parking . . . didn't cite the other driver at all.

We took it to court . . . the ruling: Sight lines for the other driver were clear. That a vehicle is parked illegally is not just cause for it to be rammed by another vehicle. Furthermore, the court ruled that my mother was not parked, so, the citation was not justified.

Now, the issue of parked/not parked might be considered a matter of interpretation. The central issue here is whether or not one infraction excuses another. If they could prove that the rider was exceeding the posted speed limit by 5 mph, does that in anyway justify the teen driver who failed to yield to the cyclist? I contend that it does not.

Even if it did, the cops are grasping at straws in their weak attempt to shift blame in this situation.

They have absolutely no proof that the cyclist was speeding.

I still have heard no response as to what maximum speed a fit cyclist might attain during this descent. Can anyone offer some estimates?

Caruso

I still have heard no response as to what maximum speed a fit cyclist might attain during this descent. Can anyone offer some estimates?

There are a lot of variable as far as a max speed, particularly the grade and length pf the slope.

Tour de France riders easily hit 40-50 mph, heck I can get over 30 on my loaded tourer without even pedaling.

If they could prove that the rider was exceeding the posted speed limit by 5 mph, does that in anyway justify the teen driver who failed to yield to the cyclist? I contend that it does not.

When I was younger my grandfather pulled out onto our main road through town, making a left turn. The way appeared to be clear, the only vehicle was just cresting the top of the hill... speed limit was 35 mph, so we should have had plenty of time to clear the lane and complete the turn.

We got struck in the front bumper.

Police estimated that the car was doing at LEAST 75 mph when it collided with our truck. My grandfather received a ticket for failure to yield.

After traveling to and spending considerable time at the site of this crash, reading the entire police report taking photos & video and just watching traffic travel through the intersection, I've concluded, in my mind at least, ...

1. Unless he was in the big crank and really pushing it hard, the cyclist's speed could not have been much more than the posted 35. The "steep hill" levels out well before the intersection so it would have taken considerable effort to maintain the rapid pace one could achieve in the downhill.

2. The motorist had a clear site line for the last several seconds before the crash which means, at 30-40 mph [44 - 58 ft/sec], the cyclist would have been "visible" and in the line of vision of the motorist for the last several seconds before the motorist turned.

3. It would have only taken the motorist a second or two to initiate his left turn turn and go from his lane to a position which completely blocked the cyclist's lane with the full size pick up truck. The cyclist would have been been approaching the point of impact during the turning maneuver and would have been "visible" for some seconds PRIOR to the beginning of the turn to any non-blind motorist who was paying attention. The cyclist would have been "visible" throughout the turning maneuver.

4. The cyclist would have had several seconds to observe the intersection as he came out of the curve. As he approached the intersection, he was entitled to ASSUME that traffic would respect his right of way. Assuming the motorist approached, then turned, the cyclist would have been riding towards an open intersection which was suddenly cut off in the last second or two before impact.

5. Even assuming an aggressive "perception/reaction" time for the cyclist given his age, fitness level and cycling experience, there was absolutely NO time in that "second or two" in which the motorist turned for the cyclist to have "perceived" the danger and "reacted" in a meaningful way. There was no physical way for the cyclist to have avoided this crash, in my view.

6. The motorist was in complete control of the situation. He should have seen the cyclist, who was less than 100' away when he started his turn. If he had waited another couple seconds to start to turn left, the crash would have never occurred...by failing to "see" or appreciate the oncoming cyclist & turning when he did, the crash was inevitable...

SM

My favorite "I did not see you story":

8 am, clear dry morning, occurred on a 6 lane highway underneath an elevated freeway bounded by a curb , no shoulder but did have bus turnouts. While riding 4 feet from the curb/right lane line in a VC manner, a routine check of the mirror shows a Jeep just about on me and I cannot see the right headlight of the Jeep in the mirror (he is close). I also cannot not see the drivers face as he is bent over. I know I am in trouble and make an emergency swerve to the right (moving at least 5 feet) as fast as I can into a bus turnout (lucky it was there). The Jeep passes about 1 foot from the left end of my handlebar. As he passes, I see he is bent over, picking up a CD player off the passenger floor board. He never saw me until I caught him at the light and started yelling at him. I can yell extremely loud. He made all the excuses, “I could not see you, it is dark under here”. I pointed to a couple of guys 100 yards away and asked if he could see them. He just kept arguing until I yelled that I saw him bent over picking up the CD player. The light turned green and he promptly speed off.

In this case though, he really did not see me, even though he lied about the reason.:rolleyes:
Four feet from the curb is riding in a VC manner, but it is probably not far enough left to maximize your cognitive conspicuity to motorists approaching from behind. In fact, the fact that you're thinking of your lateral position relative to the curb, rather than to the lane or center stripe to your left, also indicates you're probably riding closer to the curb than I would recommend, FWIW.

What you want to do is be in a position to grab his attention before he chooses to attend to a distraction (like pick up a CD player off the passenger floor board). By being further left, and more obviously in his path sooner, you are significantly more likely to accomplish that.

Since you're monitoring with a mirror to the rear anyway, it's pretty easy to learn to read motorists approaching from behind in terms of whether they are paying attention and have noticed you, or not.

I think you need to read the entire thread once again.

"They," as in the folks responsible for investigating the accident, haven't said anything.

One LEO, who is not part of the investigation team working on the accident gave his tentative opinion about the cyclist's speed.



Not the cops who are investigating the accident.

Claiming that it is "quite clear that the police are biased in this investigation" is ridiculous.You say that as if you would have us believe that they don't work for the same County Sheriff's office. :rolleyes:

So what?

Is it really that difficult to understand that one cop's tentative opinion is not indicative of an attempt to "shift blame" by the folks who are actually investigating the accidentGot it. Captain Steve Kelly of the Washoe County Sheriff's office is just a loose cannon who in no way represents the Washoe County Sheriff's Office when he speaks to the press.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

He's the head of the local substation and was speaking about his tentative opinion.

The folks investigating the accident are the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office Major Accident Investigation Team and Washoe County Forensic Investigation Services.

Do you really think that he speaks for the folks investigating the accident? His comments were made the day after the accident. A few weeks later, the investigation was still ongoing.

How you jump from one cop's comments to "the way they are handling the investigation" illustrates a serious critical thinking break down.

You're right, it is all supposition and innuendo.

However, there is enough supposition and innuendo of this kind from various police at various times regarding cyclists, for one to wonder if there isn't some sort of bias against cyclists... (duh!)

Now as you are a cyclist and a motorist, you may be objective enough in your mindset to be quite objective about cyclists and motor traffic. You have pointed out to me that I am probably not. I can live with that.

But just for the sake of argument... how objective do you think a non cyclist is going to be, when investigating an incident, when internally they may feel that "bikes don't belong on the road..."

Now granted, no one has expressed that feeling directly, so my supposition is just as vapid as any one else's supposition. But can you honestly make the assumption that all involved with the investigation are being fully objective regarding their views of cyclists? (of course for all I know perhaps one or two of the investigators are hard core cyclists... but based on the statistical probabilities, I doubt it.)

a serious critical thinking break down.You got that right.

Your argument that a Captain of the Washoe County Sheriff's Office is just some sort of loose cannon who isn't representing the Washoe County Sheriff Department's spin when he talks to the media about an ongoing Washoe County Sheriff's office investigation does indicate a serious critical thinking breakdown.

There's simply not enough information to make that kind of assumption, one way or another.

If anything should be labeled the "cyclist inferiority complex" it's these feelings of persecution that are expressed that are baseless (as in this case).

If the feelings were baseless, then there would not be public record of individuals such as the retired Arizona Hiway Officer that went public about such thinking in an AZ newspaper. (sorry you're either going to have to search BF or wait for noisebeam to respond) and was followed up by so many of the general public, agreeing.

If these feelings of persecution were not part of the mindset of some of the general public, then why do certain talk radio hosts seem to have such support in suggesting that cyclists be targeted by the driving public. (search BF to find at least three instances of radio hosts on air making such suggestions in different locations of the country).

What the heck, maybe we are paranoid for a reason.

I have never claimed that the Captain is a loose canon.Explicitly? No. Implicitly? Sure you did:

One LEO, who is not part of the investigation team working on the accident gave his tentative opinion about the cyclist's speed…Not the cops who are investigating the accident.

one cop's tentative opinion … not … the folks who are actually investigating the accident

He…was speaking about his tentative opinion … Do you really think that he speaks for the folks investigating the accident?.

What the heck, maybe we are paranoid for a reason.

It's not paranoia if they actually are out to get you.

That's amazing that you can make the leap from me merely pointing out a single sentence in a news piece and jumping to the erroneous conclusion that I'm implying that some is a loose canon.Perhaps you didn't intend to imply it, but that is nevertheless the implication.

There are only two possibilities here: Either Captain Kelly is speaking for the Washoe County Sheriff's Office, or he isn't. If he is speaking for the Washoe County Sheriff's Office, then he's giving the press the information the Sheriff's Office wishes to convey. If he isn't speaking for the Washoe County Sheriff's Office, and he's commenting to the press, then he's a loose cannon.

I would think it should be patently obvious that a Captain in the Sheriff's Office who is speaking to the press about an ongoing investigation is speaking on behalf of the Sheriff's Office.

He's the commander of the local substation. He's not part of the investigation team.Utterly irrelevant.

Not at all but I don't hold any hope that you will be able to understand that fact.It's not a "fact," quite the opposite, and your incessant resort to logical fallacy doesn't make it so.

Good luck dealing with your paranoia and persecution complex issues that are, at least in this case, driven by your reading comprehension challenges.More logical fallacy. You really don't have another game, do you?