Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ShameyDeGise t1_j5pp4ba wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,470,779)

YEAH! Why is it always about what I did and trying to hold me accountable as an elected official who rammed into a constituent and decided to drive away without checking that he was OK and never about how the constituent running the red light?

16

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j5pz3my wrote

Replying to BossColo (#1,470,955)

No. The law is pretty clear. Someone else’s moving violation doesn’t indemnify you.

She still had an obligation to not impact the bike by operating the vehicle in a way she could stop in time. Which by the way is a question on the written exam or used to be 15 or so years ago.

So she’s in the wrong for hitting him. She’s also wrong for leaving the scene.

7

BossColo t1_j5q2d1y wrote

Replying to pixel_of_moral_decay (#1,472,241)

Right, and I'm happy the law does its best to protect the most people. But we, as human beings, can understand context. I can't say for sure that I would have been able to avoid hitting him. I can say that I would not have left the scene.

7

DevChatt t1_j5qx7z5 wrote

Not gonna lie I get the point of the thread but I feel really bad just plastering the poor cyclist injury over and over on repeat.

1

StoryofTheGhost33 t1_j5rx6wz wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,470,332)

He's also wearing flip flops. Who rides their bike in the city wearing flip flops. Wasn't he delivering food too? I find that to be the most striking part of this whole thing.

This lady not even tapping her brakes is also bizzare. But flip flops? The whole thing couldn't be made up.

0

t--minus30 t1_j5t84fb wrote

For someone in the position of council whose job is the well-being of the community to do this, hit and run, really reflects their prerogative is first and foremost themselves and lastly, if at all, the community or the member she happens to run over.

2