Originally Posted by
sudo bike
I disagree, for reasons stated quite clearly. There's no proof/disproof anymore - it's become a matter of opinion of what is/is not reasonable and what is/is not negligence.
Pretty as a picture, and it's how we all would like these scenario's to end. Unfortunately, it's just not realistic. It doesn't happen like you are thinking it would. Especially if you don't allow the officer to drive on sidewalks/etc in order to keep a close distance. There is a reason officers generally try to stop chases quickly if able to with only reasonable risk. I feel that was the case here, again, for reasons stated.
We had one member already mention how he outran the cops as a kid. Is it really so hard to accept that bikes are more maneuverable and can get into places cars can't?
I fully understand that a bike is more maneuverable then a car and can get into places that a car can't. But in chasing a suspect in a car the cops typically call for backup, as well as in chasing a suspect who is either already on foot or has fled from the car that was being chased. If the suspect had been on foot and being chased by a cruiser and had slipped and fell would it still be an "understandable accident" or would there be more public outcry over it?