Originally Posted by
sanitycheck
A wrongful death suit is a civil suit, DC -- unless you've fallen back into your old habit of making up random laws, believing that they're real, and complaining that they're not enforced.
But seriously, why would the cop or the county be liable? The cop told the guy that what he was doing is dangerous, and presumably told him it's also illegal. Issuing a citation rather than a warning wouldn't have saved the guy. Physically impounding the bike or arresting the cyclist are the only things that would have guaranteed he get off the road, and I hope no one is going to argue that a cop should do these things every time they see a violation.
Cops issue warnings all the time; it would be a terrible idea to say that makes their city or county liable for the consequences if someone disregards the warning.
In this case as I said the cop in question could have had the cyclist call his mother (or someone else) for a ride to his mother's. This is also good example of how in those cities where the cops that carry light sets to hand out to "ninjas" could have saved a life. Or the cop could have ordered the cyclist in question to get off of his bike and walk it.
Originally Posted by
sanitycheck
But you just argued that if the cops do say something, they should become liable if the cyclists ignore their warnings.
In the situation reported in the OP the deputy acknowledged that he himself had difficulty in seeing the cyclist. And he should have known that any other motorist coming upon said cyclist would also have difficulty in seeing the cyclist. And should have either instructed him to call his mother, a friend, a cab or even offered to drive him to his mothers house.