Advocacy & Safety - Bike-Car accident on Cops

I was watching Cops yesterday and the officers were called to an accident involving a car and a bicycle. When they arrive, they found a Toyota Corolla that drove off the road and landed in the woods. They asked the lady driving the car what happened, and wanted to know where the cyclist was. She says she was just driving along a straight road and skidded off. Where's the cyclist? She says she doesn't know anything about a cyclist.

The cops figure that the call was wrong, so they wave away the ambulance that arrives. Few minutes later, a dazed teenager comes stumbling up to the cops, drenched in blood. He had no memory of the crash and couldn't tell them which direction he was traveling or why. He didn't know his address and couldn't give them a name of someone to call. Upon closer inspection of the car, there was a teenager sized dent in the hood and the windshield was smashed like it hit a person.There was no other obstacle that would've made such a mark. They also found a bike in the woods, smashed to bits. The witness that called it in was driving behind the woman, and said she just smashed into the back of the bike, the kid flipped 10 feet into the air, and then they both skidded off the road.

The kicker is this: the woman was charged with failure to maintain lane! She nearly killed a 14 year old on a bike, then lied and said she never hit anyone, and she gets charged with failure to maintain lane?? What the hell is up with our justice system?

I saw that too, that was very disturbing

I think sometimes we get a little too upset with "leniency" toward the driver when there is an accident involving a car and a bike. Accidents happen, and when they do tickets are issued for the violation committed and not for the result. I didn't see this one so I can't say whats fair or not but it sounds like she got charged with what she did, failure to maintain lane.

Its sucks when an accident involves a bike because the rider is so vulnerable, but if there was no malice then its just a ticket for the violation committed, even if someone gets killed.

i watch too much cops; think i've seen that one at least a few times. yeah, it's crazy she could get away with that... too bad it wasn't the mayor she hit, instead of some powerless/unconnected child.

there's another episode where they're pulling over a car, and during the questioning a car hits a bike right behind them. unfortunately, they got most of the hit on tape too.

that show is crazy, yet i love it.

btw anyone watch "jail" - kinda like that show too. makes me so happy to be free.

I think sometimes we get a little too upset with "leniency" toward the driver when there is an accident involving a car and a bike. Accidents happen, and when they do tickets are issued for the violation committed and not for the result. I didn't see this one so I can't say whats fair or not but it sounds like she got charged with what she did, failure to maintain lane.

Its sucks when an accident involves a bike because the rider is so vulnerable, but if there was no malice then its just a ticket for the violation committed, even if someone gets killed.

What would happen if she hit a pedestrian? What if it was a 3 year old on a bike? The part that makes it worse is that she lied about the fact that she hit someone, and it literally delayed him from getting help for like 10 minutes. If the guy hadn't regained consciousness, he could've laid there until he died.

What would happen if she hit a pedestrian? What if it was a 3 year old on a bike? The part that makes it worse is that she lied about the fact that she hit someone, and it literally delayed him from getting help for like 10 minutes. If the guy hadn't regained consciousness, he could've laid there until he died.

If it was a 3 year old it would be a tragic accident, but an accident. What if nobody was there and she just drifted onto the shoulder, then back on the road? That has happened to me, it has happened to everybody.

I agree that Lying about it is the real problem, like if she left the scene, and because of that I suppose the cops were too 'lenient', but what can they charge her with?

If it was a 3 year old it would be a tragic accident, but an accident. What if nobody was there and she just drifted onto the shoulder, then back on the road? That has happened to me, it has happened to everybody.

I agree that Lying about it is the real problem, like if she left the scene, and because of that I suppose the cops were too 'lenient', but what can they charge her with?

if she lied about it, i'd start with "obstructing justice" and go from there.

they can tack on all kinds of fun stuff if they really want to.

Accidents are no ones fault. The driver hitting the cyclist was clearly an accident because it wasn't her fault she drove off the road, hit the cyclist, and continued off the road. Really, it's no one's fault. /sarcasm

Accidents are no ones fault. The driver hitting the cyclist was clearly an accident because it wasn't her fault she drove off the road, hit the cyclist, and continued off the road. Really, it's no one's fault. /sarcasm

My point was that her hitting the cyclist was an accident, not a serious crime.

My point was that her hitting the cyclist was an accident, not a serious crime.

but what she did after the accident made it a more serious crime, i think. (eg lying and trying to cover it up)

if that was a bike cop she hit, i'm sure they could come up with some better charges..

Bet your attitude would change if she hit you from behind.

My point was that her hitting the cyclist was an accident, not a serious crime.

negligence while operating dangerous machinery (a car) should count as a crime

but what she did after the accident made it a more serious crime, i think. (eg lying and trying to cover it up)

if that was a bike cop she hit, i'm sure they could come up with some better charges..

agreed.

negligence while operating dangerous machinery (a car) should count as a crime

I disagree,

Failing to keep your car within the lane is not negligence, it is a reasonably minor traffic violation, you can't throw people in jail for that, we would all be in jail, we have all crossed pavement markings on some occasions. The fact that she hit someone is an accident caused by said violation.

On the other hand if she was drag racing or tearing around like a nut case, that would be negligence.

Best Show on TV

Those two episodes are the reason I have a mirror.

negligence while operating dangerous machinery (a car) should count as a crime
It is. That's what they charged that old man with for running down all those people in the Santa Monica Farmer's Market.



I disagree,

Failing to keep your car within the lane is not negligence, it is a reasonably minor traffic violation, you can't throw people in jail for that, we would all be in jail, we have all crossed pavement markings on some occasions. The fact that she hit someone is an accident caused by said violation.

On the other hand if she was drag racing or tearing around like a nut case, that would be negligence.
Drivers are required to maintain control of their vehicle. Negligence is doing ANYTHING that causes a loss of control. The only thing that could excuse this lady would be if something outside of her control caused her to lose control of the vehicle, such as a malfunction of the vehicle. Yes, it's still an accident either way, but you are still liable for accidents.

I'd think the cop would be pissed about being lied to.

Don't watch COPS

I think sometimes we get a little too upset with "leniency" toward the driver when there is an accident involving a car and a bike. Accidents happen, and when they do tickets are issued for the violation committed and not for the result. I didn't see this one so I can't say whats fair or not but it sounds like she got charged with what she did, failure to maintain lane.

Its sucks when an accident involves a bike because the rider is so vulnerable, but if there was no malice then its just a ticket for the violation committed, even if someone gets killed.

But she LIED about it! She was willing to leave the kid there like that.

I disagree,

Failing to keep your car within the lane is not negligence, it is a reasonably minor traffic violation, you can't throw people in jail for that, we would all be in jail, we have all crossed pavement markings on some occasions. The fact that she hit someone is an accident caused by said violation.

On the other hand if she was drag racing or tearing around like a nut case, that would be negligence.

Note to self: when/if I rear-end a cyclist because I'm drifting over the white line, make sure I'm not speeding or "drag racing or tearing around like a nut case". Then it'll just be an accident and I can go on my merry way with a ticket for a "minor traffic violation".

seems to me that it is fairly common not to charge drivers with anything when there is an accident. And this is not just with cyclist involvement.

But she LIED about it! She was willing to leave the kid there like that.
That's true. That makes her guilty of felony hit-and-run.

i was watching cops yesterday and the officers were called to an accident involving a car and a bicycle. When they arrive, they found a toyota corolla that drove off the road and landed in the woods. They asked the lady driving the car what happened, and wanted to know where the cyclist was. She says she was just driving along a straight road and skidded off. Where's the cyclist? She says she doesn't know anything about a cyclist.

The cops figure that the call was wrong, so they wave away the ambulance that arrives. Few minutes later, a dazed teenager comes stumbling up to the cops, drenched in blood. He had no memory of the crash and couldn't tell them which direction he was traveling or why. He didn't know his address and couldn't give them a name of someone to call. Upon closer inspection of the car, there was a teenager sized dent in the hood and the windshield was smashed like it hit a person.there was no other obstacle that would've made such a mark. They also found a bike in the woods, smashed to bits. The witness that called it in was driving behind the woman, and said she just smashed into the back of the bike, the kid flipped 10 feet into the air, and then they both skidded off the road.

The kicker is this: The woman was charged with failure to maintain lane! She nearly killed a 14 year old on a bike, then lied and said she never hit anyone, and she gets charged with failure to maintain lane?? What the hell is up with our justice system?

a&s

here's the problem.. when bikes are involved in accidents you have to remember that bikes are given all due rights of the other vehicles on the road. Meaning that if an accident occurs it is between 2 vehicles(cars). We can't look at the fact that one of those vehicles has no safety restraint system or airbags, because that is a serious point here. Yes the woman should have been been charged with lying(possible obstruction) but it probably will never happen. It is a shame that people get hurt and no one 'pays' for it. Just this past weekend I went to a major accident involving 6 people in 2 vehicles. We flew 3 helo's out and 2 ground units to our closest trauma center. The youngest victim of the accident was 5 and he shattered both of his legs. Why? His driver pulled out in front of a car. What did she get charged with? Failure to yeild. Should she have been charged with more? Yes? But she has to be guilty of something to be charged with first and the officer has to have the balls to do it.

Its sucks when an accident involves a bike because the rider is so vulnerable, but if there was no malice then its just a ticket for the violation committed, even if someone gets killed.

It's thinking like this that angers me...it's not just an "accident" its negligence on the part of the driver. An accident would be if the driver hit and icy patch or something and couldn't control the outcome. People are no longer expected to be responsible for any of their actions...it's always an "accident"..."I didn't see the person" Well its the drivers responsibility to pay attention and unless there are repercussions people feel no need to follow the rules of the road or safe driving practices...

wayne

I disagree,

Failing to keep your car within the lane is not negligence, it is a reasonably minor traffic violation, you can't throw people in jail for that, we would all be in jail, we have all crossed pavement markings on some occasions. The fact that she hit someone is an accident caused by said violation.

On the other hand if she was drag racing or tearing around like a nut case, that would be negligence.

It should generally count as a more serious offense. As one who had a job studying the DOT analyses of how collisions evolve, lane departure is one of the most common initial events that can lead to collisions. Opposing traffic head-ons and run-off-road collisions are essentially the most damaging and most deadly. If cars would stay in their lanes traffic conflicts would be reduced greatly, for other cars, pedestrians, and cyclists.

a&s

correct.

It's thinking like this that angers me...it's not just an "accident" its negligence on the part of the driver. An accident would be if the driver hit and icy patch or something and couldn't control the outcome. People are no longer expected to be responsible for any of their actions...it's always an "accident"..."I didn't see the person" Well its the drivers responsibility to pay attention and unless there are repercussions people feel no need to follow the rules of the road or safe driving practices...

wayne

If a person is ticketed for a traffic infraction, they are being made responsible for their actions. What they (we, really) aren't being made responsible for is the consequences of actions - higher penalties for run off road into a desert versus run off road and killing or crippling a cyclist or pedestrian. One the one hand it is reasonable to motivate drivers to exercise more care when in the presence of more vulnerable road users. On the other, where do such responsibilities end? The immediate results of the collision such as injury? Complications due to the injury? monetary effects of the injury? Insurance is designed to handle and even adjudicate some of this.

I completely disagree with all this accident talk. accidents are when a crash is physically unavoidable, for example when a deer darts in front of your car and you can't stop/move fast enough. when you hit some one traveling in the lane in front of you it is absolutely not an accident. People need to start treating cars more like guns because their destructive power is very similar.

What really got me about that particular Cop, was how stupid she was. The 911 call stated that the motorist hit a bicycle. The side of the road has a 10 foot drop off into the woods, making it hard to see a bicycle knocked off the road. You could not even see the car that drove off the road. The cop gets to the scene, ask the driver where the bicycle is, the driver says there was no bicycle. Rather then investigate and walk the 100 yards down the road to make sure that there is not a cyclist down the drop off bleeding to death, the dumb cop just believes the driver.:notamused:

The 14 year old cyclist had a head injury, blood all over, could hardly remember anything (indicating a serious injury) and the last words of the dumb cop, “it is a good thing the biker was not badly hurt”.:eek:

If it was a 3 year old it would be a tragic accident, but an accident. What if nobody was there and she just drifted onto the shoulder, then back on the road? That has happened to me, it has happened to everybody.

I agree that Lying about it is the real problem, like if she left the scene, and because of that I suppose the cops were too 'lenient', but what can they charge her with?

In Texas, they can charge them with this:

Sec. 545.401. RECKLESS DRIVING; OFFENSE.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

Perhaps they should apply the laws that are on the books.

Sadly, driving a motor vehicle on the public road has become such an ordinary every-day event that the solemn duty and grave responsibility it entails is unheeded. It is this cavalier attitude that has infected all areas of our society. Police and government officials excuse reckless behavior. Mayhem is described as an accident. Responsibility is removed from the perpetrator and placed on the victims.

Gee, if only there was a law! (There is, it is just not being enforced.)

I disagree,

Failing to keep your car within the lane is not negligence, it is a reasonably minor traffic violation, you can't throw people in jail for that, we would all be in jail, we have all crossed pavement markings on some occasions. The fact that she hit someone is an accident caused by said violation.

On the other hand if she was drag racing or tearing around like a nut case, that would be negligence.

Leaving aside your earlier mistaken belief that "accidents happen" - they are caused, her real offence was not failing to keep her car within the lane, but not to see a cyclist* and knock him god knows how many yards and nearly kill him. To not see another human being in front of you (in daylight, I assume?) is negligence, how ever you slice it. The lane discipline charge, which is unknown in the UK, is simply a get-out for lazy LEOs and DAs.

Keeping in lane is a simple, easily exercised task, scarcely deserving the name of skill and, since she managed to do both that and not see a cyclist in front of her (a Smidsy* in UK terms) it was a double failure of her absolute duty of care to other road users.

As for your assertion that, "The fact that she hit someone is an accident caused by said violation", it displays a sad lack of awareness of the real cause of the collision, namely the fact that she was, apparently, driving with her finger up her backside, trying, and failing, to stir what passed for her brains into action, so that light reflecting off the rider didn't register at all.

It is bizarre that, an act which, if carried out with the same lack of care with an axe, gun, knife, sledgehammer, chainsaw, etc., would lead to something more than a slap on the wrist, is deemed by many as an unavoidable aberration, if carried out while driving a motor vehicle. And since I've not managed to do what she did in 48 years of driving one kind of motor vehicle or another, I see no reason why she should be held to a lesser standard of safe driving.

*1 Cyclist: aka, Captain Invisible/Transparent Boy/Negative Opacity Rider/Moving Translucent Highway Obstacle

*2 Smidsy: "Sorry mate, I didn't see you"

Leaving aside your earlier mistaken belief that "accidents happen" - they are caused, her real offense was not failing to keep her car within the lane, but not to see a cyclist* and knock him God knows how many yards and nearly kill him. To not see another human being in front of you (in daylight, I assume?) is negligence, how ever you slice it. The lane discipline charge, which is unknown in the UK, is simply a get-out for lazy LEOs and DAs.

Keeping in lane is a simple, easily exercised task, scarcely deserving the name of skill and, since she managed to do both that and not see a cyclist in front of her (a Smidsy* in UK terms) it was a double failure of her absolute duty of care to other road users.

As for your assertion that, "The fact that she hit someone is an accident caused by said violation", it displays a sad lack of awareness of the real cause of the collision. (snipped by ChipSeal)

It is bizarre that, an act which, if carried out with the same lack of care with an axe, gun, knife, sledgehammer, chainsaw, etc., would lead to something more than a slap on the wrist, is deemed by many as an unavoidable aberration, if carried out while driving a motor vehicle. And since I've not managed to do what she did in 48 years of driving one kind of motor vehicle or another, I see no reason why she should be held to a lesser standard of safe driving.

*1 Cyclist: aka, Captain Invisible/Transparent Boy/Negative Opacity Rider/Moving Translucent Highway Obstacle

*2 Smidsy: "Sorry mate, I didn't see you"

Well said!

"If something bad happens as a predictable result of your bad behavior, then it isn’t an accident. Calling it an accident deflects blame from where blame properly belongs — with the person engaging in the bad behavior." -by Andy Cline at Carbon Trace (http://isocrates.us/bike/2009/05/no-accident/)

The problem we face now, as it has always been, is the lack of responsible behavior and how our society deals with it.

Right now, or society wants to give deadly irresponsible behavior a pass because “judging others” is frowned upon. Driving under the influence of text messages is socially acceptable. Bending the traffic laws in the name of Traffic Flow is encouraged. Motorists wish that the public roads were their exclusive domain, and so they operate as if they are.

These are not problems that are fixed by infrastructure. Law enforcement can increase the cost of a cavalier attitude, but it is a blunt and ineffective tool to change the zeitgeist.

To pursue liberty, we must change how society views public space and individual rights. Tyranny awaits at the end of the road marked “infrastructure and ordinances will make you safe”.

What really got me about that particular Cop, was how stupid she was. The 911 call stated that the motorist hit a bicycle. The side of the road has a 10 foot drop off into the woods, making it hard to see a bicycle knocked off the road. You could not even see the car that drove off the road. The cop gets to the scene, ask the driver where the bicycle is, the driver says there was no bicycle. Rather then investigate and walk the 100 yards down the road to make sure that there is not a cyclist down the drop off bleeding to death, the dumb cop just believes the driver.:notamused:

The 14 year old cyclist had a head injury, blood all over, could hardly remember anything (indicating a serious injury) and the last words of the dumb cop, “it is a good thing the biker was not badly hurt”.:eek:

+1 - I've been waiting for someone to mention that the Cop was really the person who made this worse - is it not his/her job to follow-up at the scene, take a look around, make darn sure there isn't another injury before calling off the ambulance - regardless of what the driver says? Dollars to doughnuts, that little vignette got him/her a reprimand sometime down the road. It should have.

In communities with bike cops, are the cops more likely to vigorously cite drivers if they are at fault in accidents with bikes? Do drivers drive with greater awareness and with lower accident rates?

Today, I saw more people than ever riding on the road. It was great. I've been riding solo all winter (when weather allowed). I was able to join three riders and we talked and had fun.

Just before sundown in my SUV, I saw a rider ahead, and forced my way into the somewhat crowded left lane about 400 feet behind him, making a left-lane driver brake gently as I turn-signaled and muscled my big Sequoia into the lane ahead of them.

This ditzy soccer mom (40isn Chry mini van) who had been on my tail then blew by me, and then split the lane with the cyclist.

I sort of fault the cyclist for this, moving from 4 feet in the lane to a foot from the curb, which encouraged the minivan driver to stay in the same lane. Me, I would have moved smack-dab to the middle of the lane, which given left-lane conditions would have forced her to chill behind me til it opened up, maybe 20 seconds.

However, I also would have had my DiNotte double flashing, which gives anyone ample warning, i.e. the ditz could have planned a straightforward merge before coming close to my tail. Maybe she wouldn't have even had to slow.

This cyclist had no flasher, and dark top.

I really think that riders who are on the road need to get a clue and make themselves maximally visible. Then they won't have to gutter-ride, and at the same time they will give drivers more time to think out a safe and sane go-around action.

I think I've got it. Most, make that nearly all, accidents involving motor vehicles aren't accidents at all but are the result of irresponsible and negligent behavior that ought to be punished by putting the perpetrator in jail for the rest of their life. Yeah, that makes sense. Let's do that.

Most, make that nearly all, collisions involving motor vehicles aren't unavoidable accidents at all but are the result of irresponsible and negligent behavior that ought to be punished.

There. I fixed it for you.

Accidents do not just happen. They are caused. And this one was caused by gross negligence on the part of the driver.
How do you run over a kid on a bike, or smash into them, and not see it? It's like well I pointed my gun at you, and pulled the trigger, but it was just a accident?
You intend the normal and ordinary consequences of your actions, and running your car into/over a kid on a bike is the consequence.
dc

... negligent behavior that ought to be punished by putting the perpetrator in jail for the rest of their life.

Reductio ad absurdum. Cute.

So, do you seriously believe that people should not be held responsible for their negligent behaviors that cause harm to others?

We have lots of collisions in this country, but very few accidents...

Another example of a driver who needs to lose their license for 5 years or so. BEFORE they kill someone. I agree that is not an accident, especially as she denied hitting anyone.

It's like well I pointed my gun at you, and pulled the trigger, but it was just a accident?


Oh please, spare me. It wasn't like that at all, UNLESS she INTENTIONALLY ran the kid over, which is not my understanding of what happened.

So, do you seriously believe that people should not be held responsible for their negligent behaviors that cause harm to others?


Did I say that? She got a ticket. I think the cop should have shot her.

Oh please, spare me. It wasn't like that at all, UNLESS she INTENTIONALLY ran the kid over, which is not my understanding of what happened.

OK, but really, how do you hit someone right in front of you? I mean if there is one place you should be paying attention... I would think it would be that area right in front... right where you are going.

It always amazes me that anyone hits anyone else RIGHT IN FRONT of the car.

Yeah, I know there are reasons... but MOST of the "excuses" come down to "I just wasn't looking."

For some reason that just amazes me. Sort of like folks just walking into brick walls... you know.

What the hell is up with our justice system?

It's NOT a justice system... it's a legal system.

Accidents do not just happen. They are caused. And this one was caused by gross negligence on the part of the driver.
How do you run over a kid on a bike, or smash into them, and not see it? It's like well I pointed my gun at you, and pulled the trigger, but it was just a accident?

Not quite the comparison I was thinking off. A better example would be of someone firing without looking to see if there was anyone in the way, whereas pointing your gun at someone and pulling the trigger would be intentional. Her carelessness was not, presumably, intentional, but her failure to apply reasonable standards of care is closer to my analogy, I believe.


You intend the normal and ordinary consequences of your actions, and running your car into/over a kid on a bike is the consequence.
dc

It seems unlikely that she "intended" any such consequence and, in any case, the "normal and ordinary" consequence of a brief lapse in concentration is not hitting a cyclist. To me, the weakness of the law enforcement system is that the lack of intentionality is treated lightly, whereas I believe that the possible consequences of careless driving can be of such severity, that a much higher standard duty of care should be applied to drivers of motor vehicles than is often the case.

I remember seeing this one awhile back too. Man that was messed up.

seems to me that it is fairly common not to charge drivers with anything when there is an accident. And this is not just with cyclist involvement.
True, however it should be enforced much more. In FL it is the responsibility of a motorist to avoid any object/obstacle, which is what bicycles are considered when it comes to overtaking, even though we are required to follow the same laws and responsibilities we are still just an object to be avoided.

That's true. That makes her guilty of felony hit-and-run.
But she didn't, or couldn't run since her actions put her in the ditch also.

I completely disagree with all this accident talk. accidents are when a crash is physically unavoidable, for example when a deer darts in front of your car and you can't stop/move fast enough. when you hit some one traveling in the lane in front of you it is absolutely not an accident. People need to start treating cars more like guns because their destructive power is very similar.
agreed