Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j5phz94 wrote

[deleted]

−26

BossColo t1_j5plqbo wrote

Why even mention it? It's not a hot take.

13

[deleted] t1_j5plwq2 wrote

[deleted]

−17

BossColo t1_j5pnw1x wrote

Trust me, it gets mentioned every time. No one is defending the cyclist, the hit is understandable. We're pissed about the run.

30

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j5pz3my wrote

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

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

Ilanaspax t1_j5po1hp wrote

Where were you looking? There’s atleast one idiot on every Amy thread who thinks they are blowing minds with this fresh perspective.

16

ShameyDeGise t1_j5pp4ba wrote

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

StoryofTheGhost33 t1_j5rx6wz wrote

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