Clearly the automobile was moving quite fast when it struck the cyclist. I've seen similar damage when a car struck a cow at 55mph. I'm not familiar with the street in question, but it seems likely the speed of the automobile was not anticipated by the cyclist.
If as it seems the cyclist was rear-ended, it isn't actually relevant whether he was in the bike lane or not. Rear-ending is illegal and dangerous, period. Speed awareness is mainly important at intersections. Away from intersections, all vehicle operators are responsible for maintaining a safe distance between their vehicle and those ahead.
My original point was just that the automobile was moving quite fast. Thanks for seeking clarity!
Yeah, it was weird. The car went under the cow, and the cow destroyed the windshield and damaged the leading edge of the roof. The driver did not require medical attention. The cow walked off but died within two days. I'm sure in other cases the driver and cow both might have been killed immediately.
Come on, while there are plenty reckless police officers, there also plenty of reckless cyclists, we don't even know what happened.
It possible the officer hit him, but it is also possible he didn't see the car, misjudged its speed or merge from a side street.
Let save judgment for when we know what happened. And poor officer is right, regardless if he was at fault or not, he has a heavy burden to carry.
If the officer did wrong, I will be glad to see him pay societies price for such a mistake, but until then- I'll just be blown away by the continual lack of empathy and pragmatism shown here.
> Come on, while there are plenty reckless police officers, there also plenty of reckless cyclists
The standard is slightly higher when you are a police officer. For example, I don't think I've ever seen police cars follow at a safe distance. It's clearly a foreseeable outcome that if the car in front needs to brake hard there will be a collision, yet people would say it is an unfortunate accident if they happen to hit the car in front of them.
Driving your car under control means exactly that. Give bikers a wide berth. Slow down if it is unsafe to pass. Stop tailgating. Slow down in general.
>The standard is slightly higher when you are a police officer.
I never said the standard wasn't higher- Also, I'm glad I don't live where you live, the police tend to drive very conservatively where I live, unless there is due cause.
>Driving your car under control means exactly that. Give bikers a wide berth. Slow down if it is unsafe to pass. Stop tailgating. Slow down in general.
Did the officer have his siren and lights on? Where I live cars (and bicycles) are required to pull over to allow the police car past. I assume you are not suggesting that a police car responding to an incident should should "Give bikers a wide berth. Slow down..." because that is ridiculous.
I agree with everything but the 'slow down' part. There are plenty of locations where it is safe to drive at a high rate of speed, especially during the day time; however, slow down if it's unsafe to pass? Absolutely. Slow down if you're in a residential zone or location where it's probable to see pedestrians on or near the road? Absolutely. Slow down if conditions make it unsafe to drive at a higher rate of speed (rain, snow)? Absolutely.
Sorry, I should have specified that. I had already wrote too much as it was. I agree with you. I don't mind speeding on highways, but I mind the tailgating on the highways.
I'm surprised that the biker was able to smash the windshield hard enough to cut the driver with the glass. Windshields are laminated so they don't shatter and splinter when hit.