Once again Law Enforcement and Logic do not mix

white_civicIf I told you that someone driving a car ran into a stationary object, would you think the fault rested with the driver or with the stationary object? What if that object was a person? Now whose fault is it? What if that person was actually several people. A large group in fact? And what if I told you the driver had been drinking? Still with me? And what if I told you the driver made no attempt to stop, left no skid marks, and by some eyewitness accounts may have even sped up? Any idea who might be at blame here? And what if this collision sent many of those people to the hospital, some in critical condition, many with broken bones?

So just to clarify. If a driver, who had been drinking ran into a large group of people who were standing still (that is, they didn’t jump in front of the car or anything stupid like that) without making any efforts to avoid them – who do you think is at fault?

If you said the driver, congrats, you have some shred of common sense. If you said it must have been the fault of the people the driver hit, you must work for the LAPD.

This is disgusting.

10 Replies to “Once again Law Enforcement and Logic do not mix”

  1. I think this is beyond disgusting. At least there still is civil court and the .07 and other information can be used as evidence.

  2. It is not law enforcements job to decide who is at fault. Take it to court and let them decide.

  3. Just to play the devil’s advocate here, after reading the article it sounds like it is quite possible that some blame rests on both parties, but I still side with the cyclists.

    One wrong item that shows the ignorance of the officer who filed the report is describing the cyclists as “pedestrians.” Cyclists are afforded and must follow, in general, the same rules of the road as cars. This is where some more information of what happened is necessary. Common rules the cyclists ignore and quite possibly happened in this case: riding single file on the right side with traffic. Group rides very often end up being two, three, four riding abrest. This is not legal. Next is lighting. Depending on your “style” some cyclists abhor reflective or lit safety apparel and equipment.

    I don’t have enough info to know what happened, but if the cyclists were riding side by side in the lane of traffic and/or not wearing adequate lighting reflective equipment, there is a defensible case for the driver.

    1. Brushing up on the California laws for cyclists, depending on the road conditions, traffic, and width of lanes, riding abreast is sometimes legal. Shows what little I know!

  4. A few things left out here…
    The group of cyclist were congregated on the street not actually moving.
    Under a street lamp with a burnt out light.
    The area was around a blind curve. This driver may has been intoxicated, but even a sober driver going the speed limit may have had problems seeing the cyclists in this situation. The credibility of the witnesses would have been diminished from the shock of the event, I hardly doubt they had time to notice the driver speed up in an attempt to injure the cyclists.

    From the news videos at the scene, sure didn’t see these folks wearing the normal safety type equipment that most serious “cyclists” wear. Black goodies and Jean shorts? Where was the light and or bright colored clothing, were their bikes equipped with reflectors and lights? This did happen during the dark time of the morning. At least evident by the photo that was posted.

    1. The one who’s lacking illumination and credibility is Cargoman who’s just blindly regurging a lot of the fallacies — blind curve; condemnation of the cyclists’ for clothing choices; lack of lights; making judgments from grainy low-resolution photography of the collision scene; absolution for the alleged drunk driver; dismissal of the witnesses’ credibility — put forth by trolls to other blogs’ posts.

  5. And according to the LA Times, some of the cyclists WERE wearing reflective attire, which makes it even harder to excuse the driver. Unfortunately, I suspect that the police (cops in general, not just Culver City or LAPD) would just as soon everyone stayed home after 10 pm, and being out on the street (other than driving from point A to point B) late at night is considered by some to be suspicious activity. I can relate some stories from my younger days, but not at this time.

Comments are closed.