Originally Posted by
Velo Dog
Interestingly, I thought, a veteran judge wrote me a letter after the story appeared. He said that in the 30 years he'd been on the bench, he'd seen a deterioration of "police acceptance of responsibility:"
The initial comment from police spokespeople invariably lays the blame elsewhere. Hey, that's the spokesperson's job - limit liability. Then the conflicting accounts come out (often with cell phone video), stories change, claims are filed, followed by litigation, and then the municipality pays the bill. And, unfortunately, that does nothing to truly compensate for the loss of a life.
More than one witness in this case says the kid was doing nothing wrong, and had no chance to save himself. That is what we have as a basis to comment, because the additional facts will dribble out over a long period of time, and not get the same coverage as the initial event. It will be chalked up as an "accident", just as with almost every car hitting a cyclist. The term accident isn't appropriate, as it doesn't quite cover the realities of what has generally occurred, which is that a driver has not exercised due care. It's a collision; not an "accident".