3 ms·

> It's curious how some fairly important pieces of data can be quite wrong. I was nearly killed by a driver who disregarded the law and the police officer int

> It's curious how some fairly important pieces of data can be quite wrong. I was nearly killed by a driver who disregarded the law and the police officer intentionally disabled his bodycam when interviewing a key witness, never questioned me, let the driver off with no tickets for his violations, and submitted a report with factual inaccuracies. Crooked cops don't have an interest in reporting the truth.

matsemann 2y ago
I get so angry when I ready the reports, and they mostly talk about the victim. "The pedestrian was wearing dark clothing", "the bicyclist wasn't wearing a helmet" (like that would've avoided the accident?), etc. Of course, the victim is most likely being transported away in an ambulance or even dead, so they got little say. And the offender can paint the story with their picture: "the sun was low and blinding", "the cyclist came in at high speed" (probably a third of the car..), etc. So that's what the report will say.
- nativeit 2y ago
  I’m a little confused at the assertion here. What is happening that shouldn’t be happening, and what should be changed? Should they presume malice, and discount any reference to circumstance? What if the circumstances were actually causal (which one would hope so, otherwise there are far more murderous sociopaths than anyone would have guessed) how should we parse the difference, and how will we identify potential hazards? Presumably, from the cyclist’s perspective, the story will almost always go like this: “I was riding my bicycle in the correct fashion, in the appropriate lane, equipped with proper safety equipment, and then BAM! They came out of nowhere,” because if they had an opportunity to see the oncoming vehicle, judge whether it’s being operated safely, see where the driver’s attention is focused, and evaluate whether the driver’s awareness has or has not been compromised by the prevailing conditions—one would hope they could have avoided the crash in that space of time.
  - tenacious_tuna 2y ago
    It's part of a wider trend where drivers are given the benefit of the doubt at a societal level: https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2023/09/07/1198102573/when-covering-car-cyclist-collisions https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2023/09/07/1198102...
  - lostdog 2y ago
    I've been in a few close calls, and in every one the driver was not paying full attention to the road and (nearly) swerved into someone riding a bicycle. But reporters use such sympathetic language describing the negligent driver.
    - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
      As a pedestrian in a large city, I have been nearly run over by cyclists a few times, but I don't generalize from that though.
      - gopher2000 2y ago
        Let me generalize on your behalf: Cyclists are maniacs. They want to be given the equal respect of cars in traffic but absolutely don't follow the same rules.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Some cyclists are maniacs, but you only notice the maniacs. It works the other way. Cyclists think all drivers are maniacs for similar reasons.
        emj 2y ago
        Interestingly pedestrians accidents go down when bike paths were installed on streets in NYC. Bike paths are closer and have less protection for pedestrians than car lanes so it is interesting that bicycles make it so much safer to be a pedestrian.

matsemann 2y ago

I get so angry when I ready the reports, and they mostly talk about the victim. "The pedestrian was wearing dark clothing", "the bicyclist wasn't wearing a helmet" (like that would've avoided the accident?), etc. Of course, the victim is most likely being transported away in an ambulance or even dead, so they got little say. And the offender can paint the story with their picture: "the sun was low and blinding", "the cyclist came in at high speed" (probably a third of the car..), etc. So that's what the report will say.

nativeit 2y ago
I’m a little confused at the assertion here. What is happening that shouldn’t be happening, and what should be changed? Should they presume malice, and discount any reference to circumstance? What if the circumstances were actually causal (which one would hope so, otherwise there are far more murderous sociopaths than anyone would have guessed) how should we parse the difference, and how will we identify potential hazards? Presumably, from the cyclist’s perspective, the story will almost always go like this: “I was riding my bicycle in the correct fashion, in the appropriate lane, equipped with proper safety equipment, and then BAM! They came out of nowhere,” because if they had an opportunity to see the oncoming vehicle, judge whether it’s being operated safely, see where the driver’s attention is focused, and evaluate whether the driver’s awareness has or has not been compromised by the prevailing conditions—one would hope they could have avoided the crash in that space of time.
- tenacious_tuna 2y ago
  It's part of a wider trend where drivers are given the benefit of the doubt at a societal level: https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2023/09/07/1198102573/when-covering-car-cyclist-collisions https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2023/09/07/1198102...
- lostdog 2y ago
  I've been in a few close calls, and in every one the driver was not paying full attention to the road and (nearly) swerved into someone riding a bicycle. But reporters use such sympathetic language describing the negligent driver.
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    As a pedestrian in a large city, I have been nearly run over by cyclists a few times, but I don't generalize from that though.
    - gopher2000 2y ago
      Let me generalize on your behalf: Cyclists are maniacs. They want to be given the equal respect of cars in traffic but absolutely don't follow the same rules.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Some cyclists are maniacs, but you only notice the maniacs. It works the other way. Cyclists think all drivers are maniacs for similar reasons.
        emj 2y ago
        Interestingly pedestrians accidents go down when bike paths were installed on streets in NYC. Bike paths are closer and have less protection for pedestrians than car lanes so it is interesting that bicycles make it so much safer to be a pedestrian.