[NA] Cop hits cyclist head on!

BS on that. The City will hand this guy a check pretty quick in an effort to make it go away.

Would not surprise me if the city tells this person that he has no right to sue so you better take this check for half the price of the bike.

At least that is what happens here in my little part of the desert. Apparently years back someone sued the city and the cost of defending themselves plus the pay out nearly bankrupted the city, so they are now quick to pay off.
 
I got hit by a car like that. Hurt the bike more than me, I saw it coming. Indeed I think that's what soured me on bicycles. I see something coming on the motorcycle I can get out of the way.
Really? You are sitting at an intersection and a car making a left turn cuts the corner, essentially nose to nose with you. That motorcycle is not going to magically move to the right without also accelerating toward the car.
 
Last edited:
Really? You are sitting at an intersection and a car making a left turn cuts the corner, essentially nose to nose with you. That motorcycle is not going to magically move to the right without also accelerating toward the car.
I see the car headed my way I take off the other. Amazing things happen when you maintain situational awareness rather than stare at a screen.
 
Suspended with pay...

Pending the outcome of the investigation.

In police-speak this is "there is enough here that it's serious, so we don't want him on the streets, but he has a right to due process before we find him guilty and decide the punishment".
 
Pending the outcome of the investigation.

In police-speak this is "there is enough here that it's serious, so we don't want him on the streets, but he has a right to due process before we find him "NOT" guilty and decide the "Return To Service"... pnsmt".

fixed it for you
 
anyone else notice the biker ran the stop sign? he went at least 10 yards past it. cop should'a wrote him a ticket. or tased him, or both, I dunno.
 
Stop signs on country roads like that are typically fifty or sixty feet before the intersection to give drivers enough warning to stop. If he had stopped at the stop sign, he wouldn't have been able to see the cross traffic. He was about ten feet behind the intersection, which is totally appropriate.
 
Stop signs on country roads like that are typically fifty or sixty feet before the intersection to give drivers bikers enough warning to stop room to not get run over by cops.... He was about ten feet behind the intersection, which is totally appropriate apparently nowhere near appropriate.

FTFY
 
anyone else notice the biker ran the stop sign? he went at least 10 yards past it. cop should'a wrote him a ticket. or tased him, or both, I dunno.

His shadow definitely did but I’ll have to look closer to see if he did. I do know though that you are partial to shadows.
 
anyone else notice the biker ran the stop sign? he went at least 10 yards past it. cop should'a wrote him a ticket. or tased him, or both, I dunno.

He did go past the stop sign, which I learned a few years ago when one of the kids was getting their license you are supposed to stop at, then advance to where you can see and stop again, he was stopped. BUT, the cop was not only distracted, not looking where he was going, but he was on the wrong side of the road when he turned. If he had squared off his turn like he was supposed and not turn into the wrong lane he would have been fine. He is a ****ty driver and should be required to retake a driving test.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but you are mistaken, at least in California. This page is from the 2018 California DMV Driver Handbook.

2018%20ca%20dmv%20driver%20handbook%20-%20stop%20sign_zpsrfcp2dio.jpg
 
Sorry, but you are mistaken, at least in California. This page is from the 2018 California DMV Driver Handbook.

2018%20ca%20dmv%20driver%20handbook%20-%20stop%20sign_zpsrfcp2dio.jpg

Stab, wtf are you talking about? I was kidding, I don’t give a hoot if he stopped or not. BUT, if you are saying I’m wrong that he did not stop at the painted white line, YOU couldn’t be more wrong. He went well past the painted white line. But again, I don’t care either way.

Not sure what you’re outlining. It clearly says if there’s a white line painted on the road, that you must stop at it, which he did not.
 
Stab, wtf are you talking about? I was kidding, I don’t give a hoot if he stopped or not. BUT, if you are saying I’m wrong that he did not stop at the painted white line, YOU couldn’t be more wrong. He went well past the painted white line. But again, I don’t care either way.

Not sure what you’re outlining. It clearly says if there’s a white line painted on the road, that you must stop at it, which he did not.
There is no white stop line in the video. There is "STOP" stenciled on the pavement at the stop sign. They ain't the same thing.

FWIW, here's what the 2018 Missouri Driver Guide says. Note that in all three cases the car is past the stop sign.

Where did you guys learn to drive?

2018%20Missouri%20Driver%20Guide%20-%20Stop%20Sign_zpsa1clrvzi.jpg
 
Last edited:
There is no white stop line in the video. There is "STOP" stenciled on the pavement at the stop sign. They ain't the same thing.


hahaha! you had me going there, stan! jeez I thought you were serious there for a second. holy @#it! clearly that says 'stop' and is definitely not a white painted line in the road. man, you had me fooled fo sho!

upload_2018-8-3_21-45-42.png
 
Pending the outcome of the investigation.

In police-speak this is "there is enough here that it's serious, so we don't want him on the streets, but he has a right to due process before we find him guilty and decide the punishment".

Nobody else gets to go to work while they’re dealing with jail, bail, or courts. The rest of society doesn’t get paid when they do stupid crap that lands them in court and need to utilize their “due process”.

Suspended without pay would have been fine. Let him take his vacation days if he has any, like everybody else. No vacation days, no paycheck.

Hell, that was one of my former employer’s policy for a jury trial I could have been called to serve on for two months.
 
Looking at this as a serious recreational bicyclist for decades who at 76 still does 100 - 150 miles a week in the Marin Headlands to keep fit, I'd have done exactly what the cyclist in the video did; namely, I'd ride up to the intersection and stop so I could see cross-traffic and proceed when safe. The cop really screwed up.
 
Even if the cyclist had stopped at the line and then moved up to see, which is perfectly legal, the dumbass texting in the cop car would have still hit him.

There’s no way to make this one the cyclist’s fault, no matter how much mental masturbation and stop sign documentation one might post.
 
Even if the cyclist had stopped at the line and then moved up to see, which is perfectly legal, the dumbass texting in the cop car would have still hit him.

There’s no way to make this one the cyclist’s fault, no matter how much mental masturbation and stop sign documentation one might post.

Exactly. Cop's fault all the way.
 
Nobody else gets to go to work while they’re dealing with jail, bail, or courts. The rest of society doesn’t get paid when they do stupid crap that lands them in court and need to utilize their “due process”.

Suspended without pay would have been fine. Let him take his vacation days if he has any, like everybody else. No vacation days, no paycheck.

Hell, that was one of my former employer’s policy for a jury trial I could have been called to serve on for two months.

Yup. This is why unions are a good thing. They prevent members from being screwed in exactly the ways you describe.
 
The officer is clearly and inexcusably at fault. Even if he was responding with lights and siren, there is no excuse for not exercising due regard for others and having precise control of his car.

As I told my trainees, the public expects us to be expert drivers and to obey traffic laws at all times. You’ve been trained to that standard, so like it or not, perform at that level.

At my agency, it probably would have been a minimum two week suspension without pay, remedial training and extra attention paid to his driving and cell habits. If he had any prior driving or electronic device policy violations, it’d probably be termination.

Highway patrol investigated any patrol car crashes we had. They would have found him in violation of the Vehicle Code sections for unsafe turning movement, failure to drive within the right-hand side of the road, and possibly the cell phone law if it didn’t fall within the public safety officer exemption. The deputy would have been charged, and basically directed by the sheriff to own it, pay the fine and take the points.

Everyone would have been sternly warned at roll call (daily shift briefing), the next monthly training day would have had a block on driving policy and cell phone policy and the next guy to violate either policy would be looking at just much punishment, if not more. The county would have paid the bicyclist’s medical bills and replaced his bike. Oh, and the errant deputy would have screwed himself out of any promotion or specialized assignment for at least five years to come. The admin had a long memory and held stuff against people.
 
I worked for a series of sheriffs who took their cue from the guy in office through the mid 70s to the early 90s. He had a darned near zero tolerance policy for patrol car collisions.

Oh, adding more, if the involved deputy would have been anything less than totally truthful about everything, it would be automatic termination. Our department wasn’t perfect, but liars were gotten rid of.
 
The officer is clearly and inexcusably at fault. Even if he was responding with lights and siren, there is no excuse for not exercising due regard for others and having precise control of his car.

As I told my trainees, the public expects us to be expert drivers and to obey traffic laws at all times. You’ve been trained to that standard, so like it or not, perform at that level.

At my agency, it probably would have been a minimum two week suspension without pay, remedial training and extra attention paid to his driving and cell habits. If he had any prior driving or electronic device policy violations, it’d probably be termination.

Highway patrol investigated any patrol car crashes we had. They would have found him in violation of the Vehicle Code sections for unsafe turning movement, failure to drive within the right-hand side of the road, and possibly the cell phone law if it didn’t fall within the public safety officer exemption. The deputy would have been charged, and basically directed by the sheriff to own it, pay the fine and take the points.

Everyone would have been sternly warned at roll call (daily shift briefing), the next monthly training day would have had a block on driving policy and cell phone policy and the next guy to violate either policy would be looking at just much punishment, if not more. The county would have paid the bicyclist’s medical bills and replaced his bike. Oh, and the errant deputy would have screwed himself out of any promotion or specialized assignment for at least five years to come. The admin had a long memory and held stuff against people.
And then you woke up...
 
why isn't the media portraying (and therefore the masses believing) that ALL cops are bike-smashers?
 
Yup. This is why unions are a good thing. They prevent members from being screwed in exactly the ways you describe.

Screwed? The guy ran over a bicycle while texting AND he’s a supposed expert on bad driving and treated so in a court of law.

He deserves all the screwing he gets. Which will be virtually nothing compared to if you did it in your personal vehicle.
 
Screwed? The guy ran over a bicycle while texting AND he’s a supposed expert on bad driving and treated so in a court of law.

Yes, when the investigation is complete. Penalizing him before that would be as wrong as penalizing a civilian driver before their day in court.
 
Yes, when the investigation is complete. Penalizing him before that would be as wrong as penalizing a civilian driver before their day in court.

Not getting paid while you’re not working isn’t a penalty. It’s called “normal life”.
 
why isn't the media portraying (and therefore the masses believing) that ALL cops are bike-smashers?

Because there hasn't been a pattern of behavior to support that portrayal.
 
Not getting paid while you’re not working isn’t a penalty. It’s called “normal life”.

I'm not a fan of punishing people before investigations are concluded. You have no problem with it. I guess that's just a difference between us.

The evidence in this case is pretty clear, seems like the investigation won't take long.
 
I'm not a fan of punishing people before investigations are concluded. You have no problem with it. I guess that's just a difference between us.

The evidence in this case is pretty clear, seems like the investigation won't take long.

Not paying someone who was already punished with a suspension isn’t a new punishment. Your logic is broken.
 
Not paying someone who was already punished with a suspension isn’t a new punishment. Your logic is broken.

He wasn't punished with a suspension. He was put on leave pending the outcome of the investigation. That's the entire point.
 
And then you woke up...

That’s how it was where I worked. I know that it’s not like that everywhere. I consider myself lucky, because there are poorly led and poorly trained departments with some real lops out there.
 
Back
Top