MRT2

I don't see a lawsuit against the city going anywhere based on these facts. The cops are not nannies expected to impound the bike of every cyclist riding without lights. What do they do if nobody comes to get the stranded cyclist and his bike, spend the night in jail?

On the other hand, maybe a lawsuit against the driver, though again, a jury could find the cyclist more than 50% negligent which in most states means you get nothing.

MRT2

I have seen both. I have had clients detained for bike violations and later arrested for 1. parole violations, 2. open warrants, 3. possession of narcotics (found usually after a search incident to arrest for a warrant, parole violation, or just because the guy "seemed nervous", 4. carrying a concealed weapon/felon in possession of a firearm (same as #3)

Standalone 

Chipcom, as someone who also loves to argue for the sake of argument, it's all good with me, but you seem to be contradicting yourself in other threads. Have you changed your mind?

chipcom 

I think you're still missing the key issue that makes drunk driving or carrying a gun an apt analogy...the risk of death or injury if you allow the behavior to continue. I did my time as an LEO and as a commissioner of public safety. I've dealt with situations similar to this too many times...and in every case the lynch mob came after the cop, the department and the city...and while they didn't actually lynch anyone with a rope, they sure made some money from the deal and the cop didn't walk away unscathed.

I hate to see anyone get hosed for cutting someone some slack...but tell me, if this were your kid/sibling/spouse, would you consider letting them continue dangerous behavior as cutting them some slack? Running with scissors isn't an offense that is even on the books, that I know of...is letting someone do so cutting them some slack...or tempting fate?

Personally, if I were the LEO, I would have probably put the bike in my car either drove the kid to his mom's...which may or may not have prevented a darned thing. Considering that his mom was allegedly only 8 miles away, in an hour and a half he had either already been there and left, or wasn't going there in the first place.

dougmc

I've investigated the state laws in Texas and Alaska, the only places I've ridden bikes enough to care about the specific laws. Neither requires bells.

I know that NYC requires bells, but beyond that I think requiring a bell is the exception rather than the rule.

As for rear reflectors, (at night) some places require a rear reflector or a rear light, some explicitly require a rear light, some explicitly require a rear reflector (a light isn't good enough) -- but they all require something along those lines, so I won't argue on that point.

Some also require reflectors on the pedals though I think that's rarely enforced where it is required.

Guest1209283

You seem to forget that cops are allowed discretion. Cops are not required to issue a citation/make an arrest/tow the bike under most circumstances. Even if the cop did take some action, it most likely would have been to simply ticket the man and send him on his way. If you get pulled over in your car for a broken brake light, the cop won't generally tow that, even if he writes you a ticket, so why would he impound a bicycle for the same thing? When people talk about derelict of duty, they are talking about a cop that fails to investigate a murder, or refuses to take a report for a robbery or ignores a call for help, that sort of thing. That does not refer to giving a break for a simple traffic violation. It's written into the law that police are allowed to do that.

What this all comes down to is this was a full grown man responsible for his own actions. He was told by the police to keep the bike off the street and he didn't. Even if the cop gave him a ticket and impounded his bike, what's to stop him from riding without a light again as soon as he gets the bike back.

The police have a responsibility to protect people from others, not from themselves.

chipcom 

Let's use a bit of common sense here, shall we? One can mitigate lack of a bell with another audible signal, like their voice...lack of lighting, not so much.
But, if the law does require a bell, then if I allow someone to proceed without one when there is a reasonable expectation that doing so might cause death or injury...I fully expect someone to attempt to hold me liable.

You seem to be missing the obvious...the cop felt the situation dangerous enough to pull the cyclist over...subsequently letting him proceed without mitigating that danger can be considered negligent, don't you think? If not, then you have to apply that logic to drunk drivers and not hold me liable if I pull him over, determine he is drunk, then just let him go on his way with a warning.

You can cite all the contradictory laws, statements, behavior, etc. that you want, it does not change the fact that an LEO has a duty to attempt to prevent death or injury when he/she obviously feels that not only is a subject's behavior putting them or others in danger, but also has applicable law to support his/her action.

chipcom 

No contradiction on my part at all...just stating my observations of reality...which doesn't necessarily conform to rhyme or reason or consistency.

njkayaker

People (not you) also through the term "frivolous law suit" around too casually. If one has to look at the facts of the case to determine if it's "frivolous" or not, it isn't frivolous. That is, the determination of "frivolity" can't be a substitute for going to trial.

chipcom 

You are right, cops have some (not nearly what they used to) discretion...which means he didn't have to write a citation or impound the bike. But discretion is a double-edged sword....by making the decision to just give a warning rather than enforce the law...and more important than the law, do his due diligence to prevent death or injury when he/she had a reasonable expectation that death or injury could occur, he opened himself up to liability. Using that discretion the cop could have also gotten the guy to his destination. If he then left that destination and got himself killed...then the cop would at least have some protection...but even then someone might try to go after him.

Of course, based on this story and the timeline, it's not clear that the victim died on his way to his alleged destination...he could have gotten there and left too.

Do you really think that riding at night with no visibility only puts the person doing so in danger?

njkayaker

The traffic laws often spell-out what response (ie, punishment) is allowed for a particular infraction. A citation probably would not have prevented the accident but that might have been the only action allowed the deputy.

One important difference is that the drunk driver is impaired mentally. Such a driver is not considered competent.

The "drunk driving" analogy doesn't work because the driver is not considered to be capable of avoiding the "risk of death and injury". There was no reasonable expectation that Jenkins wasn't competent to keep himself from harm (after being warned).

You haven't made a "carry a gun" analogy. Anyway, carrying a gun (illegally) is explicitly a very serious crime (unlike a traffic offense).

The equivalent analogy is clearly speeding. Giving a person a ticket for speeding doesn't prevent that person from subsequently speeding (and getting into an accident due to that speeding).

Yes, no lawsuit. This situation is no different than a speeder still speeding after getting a warning/ticket.

Many people are assuming that a lack of lights, etc, was the cause of him being killed. While it's likely that the case, we don't know for certain.

Why ever didn't Jenkens take care not to get struck by a car even after being warned? It's not that hard to avoid being struck (people do it all the time!).

chipcom 

it's not about what the law allows...officers are allowed to use some discretion, which he did...and also can be held liable for the results of doing so.

Yes, but IMO the key issue is potential danger to himself or others. Lets use a closer analogy...a car with no working lights.


We don't have a lot of facts...this is an internet forum, not a court of law.

njkayaker

Therefore, speeders should have their cars impounded.

It isn't clear what action you think should have been taken.

Impounding the adult's bike would likely have been considered an excessive response. And it would not have prevented the person from riding in the future without lights (except for a short window).

(If the bicycle had been impounded, some people here probably would have cried "bicyclist brutality"!)

He had an option to keep off of the streets (eg, ride on the sidewalk). A car doesn't.

No, it isn't but that doesn't mean people should be very aware that not all of the facts are there. Keep in mind that the article is leading the reader to draw the inference that "no lights" lead to him being killed.

dougmc

And we never will.

The driver of the car will certainly say that "he didn't see him!" (or "he came out of nowhere!") and people will look at the lack of lights (the documented lack of lights) and nod their collective head. Unless the driver of the car was drunk or seen drag racing or something, the odds of him being ticketed or prosecuted are approximately zero.

(Granted, the odds were pretty low before, but the documented lack of lights makes them much lower.)

Standalone 

That is the point that I am making-- an argument for the obvious realities and necessity of discretion. In mathematics and debate, it's called reductio ad absurdum... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Digital_Cowboy

Exactly, it's probably pretty much a given that his family is going to try to blame everyone under the sun except for their family member for his death. That poor woman even though she couldn't see him very well is going to have to live with the fact that she caused the death of another for the rest of her life. And if she has any money the family is probably going to go after "their share" of it.

To SC, if you go back and read my response about a wrongful death suit I never said or suggested that it would be against the cop, the city, or the county. Just that there would probably be a wrongful death suit sometime in the future.

Standalone 

Backpedaling from making a judgment about the LEO's culpability and calling it an observation doesn't get you out of that one.

And you seem to be missing an obvious interpretation of events, a racially aware reading of the situation. It's just as easy to assume that profiling was part of the stop as it is to assume anything else about the incident-- the actual destination of the rider, etc...

It's "obvious" just because of the cop's say-so? Unfortunately, since becoming a serious adult cyclist and commuter, my interactions with police have been, on average, more negative than positive.

But anyway, thanks for further explaining your point. I still disagree. Discretion cannot see into the future, it can only make a reasonable judgment. I think the cop acted reasonably, and went above and beyond what many would do. It's a moral issue to me, not a legal one.

Might the cop spend some time thinking hard about whether s/he could have acted differently? Yes. I think he or she ought to. But a court would and should throw this out.

Obviously we draw the line of discretion in different places. Fight the urge to advocate for such a nanny state. It would not be pretty.

Standalone 

Is that a bad thing? That is a very reasonable conclusion to draw, and useful to the discussion and practice of cycling safety. Lights at night = good. No lights = bad.

I'm not as comfortable with the discussion of the color of clothing, because I think that is a reasonable place to draw the line as far as legislation. Mandating reasonably inexpensive safety devices on a bike-- that is cool. Mandating dress (and, ahem, headgear) is not so cool. Bicycle convenience is key to wider use, and clothing laws are bound to make night cycling more time consuming for riders-- and I question the real advantages of clothing supplimented reflectiveness above normal lighting and reflection.

(I still wear helmets and reflective clothing, but I can (kind of) afford both the extra expense and time)

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, it is sad to hear about another cyclist getting killed, even if it's is/was their fault. Until you just mentioned it I had no idea as to Mr. Jenkins ethnicity. But it doesn't change that he could have been instructed to call someone to come and pick him up.

Again, until you had mentioned it I had no idea as to Mr. Jenkins ethnicity, and even if he had been white or Asian I would have said the same thing. And I am sure that there are just as many white people with the last name of Jenkins as there are black people.

We know this all too well, but sadly as we also know it doesn't always happen.

Given that by virtue of the crash that this would appear to have been a dark road, and that the cyclist is/was wearing black this outcome shouldn't be a surprise. And I agree that Mr. Jenkins paid too steep of a price for his decision to be a "bike ninja."

Agreed, and agreed.

Hopefully one day we will evolve beyond this, but sadly the stats support that motor vehicles cause more death and injuries then just about any thing else.

DX-MAN

I think it is; I've seen too much to think otherwise. When I lived outside Atlanta, there was a section of the community (usually high-school dropout "good ol boy") who thought it was a rite of passage to manhood to spend time in jail for an alcohol-related offense.

Not quite as stupid as the street thug who sags for 'street cred' when they don't know what it really means (prison 'receptacle'), though.

Wake

Problem: What if there's a law that you have to ride on the sidewalk? Are you going to support the police when they arrest you for riding in the street?

I side with the Darwin Effect. People have to take responsibility for themselves if they want to live in a free society.

Standalone 

It was the first name that is afr. amer., not so much the last. (Both my mother and my wife were nee "Williams." And both caucasian. No relation, and let's hope no weird Freudian issues)

I do want to disagree on a few points. I'm not sure that specifically instructing someone to call for a ride is appropriate behavior on the part of an LEO in this case. It might be a good solution in the case of serious intoxication, but not for an equipment related infraction. I maintain that the cop did just the right amount of intervention.

Second point is the call itself. As a resolutely cell phone- (and TV-) free person, I tend to resent assumptions that people must have cell phones.

And I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make about our underlying ideas of modern motoring. There is this sort of subconscious idea that incidents like this are some kind of natural justice-- some folks take it far beyond the subconscious and proudly proclaim it as natural law. Just read the comments sections of online news articles like this.

I draw attention to it because it is part of the slippery slope of driver irresponsibility that we see out there. I'm trying to make a conscious choice to not see this tragedy as inevitable, even without the lights.

Drivers are in control of serious machinery. Much moral responsibility lies on them (as a driver, I should say "us"), regardless of the legal fine points.

CB HI

As noted by some, the guy was 21 years old.

May I also point out that the guy told the cop he was going to his mothers house 8 miles away.

But some how, the guy was not able to travel the 8 miles between the time the cop stopped him and he got hit. That is less than 5.33 mph. Really, who rides slower than 5.33 mph.

I have to wonder if the guy was an intentional ninja for some other reason. Bet he was not even headed to mom's at 1:15 am (the time he got hit).

KonAaron Snake 

It sure seemed like your point was pointing out the need for tort reform and saying lots of silly cases get brought and won. I think, like most people, you didn't know how bad your example was. The two situations aren;t at all analogous and given how difficult it is to sue most Government entities, I strongly doubt this goes anywhere. You can make any argument...and judges and juries can be unpredictable...but this looks like a non-starter to me. To compare the negligence of an officer for not forcibly restraining someone for not riding wioth lights to that of a corporation that knowingly served coffee at 180 degrees despite warnings seems fairly misguided.

KonAaron Snake 

I'm not sure what country you live in, or when you mean by "used to", but Miranda has been gutted and police have been given more and more power consistently in nearly every state and federal court. If by used to you mean 1843, ok...but police have consistently been given more power for the last 40 years in nearly every area I've lived in. The reality is that police have nearly absolute authority in a given situation and will rarely be questioned by judges. In Philly there have been some absolutely GROSS abuses and the FOP is so strong that nothing has happened. Things like police ripping off bodegas and disabling cameras...beating people on film...making racist comments on police oriented web sites, run by police, while on the job...pulling out weapons while drunk...it goes on and on. Philly, like many other cities, has implemented stop and frisk.

This is a non-issue...the officer behaved completely reasonably...I can't imagine a jury that would see it otherwise and I don't think many lawyers will be lining up to take this case. There is usually a presumption in most states that Government agents are acting in good faith...and to win a law suit, you have to show they weren't. There is a margin for error.