Hit and Run (video), Jersey City, NJ

[Tbof]

She shouldn’t resign, this is a state with bail reform. You run someone over and you are it in no time. That city is a mess, worked there for over a year and that was enough for me

[professerr]

Originally Posted by tommyrod74

Someone makes a (very) bad decision, gets hit, is left to (maybe) die, and no sympathy? Spoken like someone who's never made a mistake of consequence.

In any case, I don't think we were actually debating whether or not he deserves sympathy, but whether or not it was OK for the driver to leave. Which it wasn't.

Pretty sure Nomad's post was a mistake, though remains to be seen whether he realizes that or is going to double down...

Anyway, the car that hit the rider was on a one way street and the rider did seem to look for cars -- he just looked the wrong way instead of where traffic was coming from.

Bizarre how driver didn't even break or swerve. Must be more to her story

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by R3awak3n

The guy was working for uber eats, was just trying to make a living and regardless, what if he just bought the bike and was a pandemic move? Are you better for ridding your bike before the pandemic?
And this we need medals for ridding in nyc, its not that bad and in ways better than a lot of places (like jersey city actually).

I feel sympathy because he is a human being that just got hit by a car. Also because he is delivering food, a dangerous job that pays crap, so mr westchester you should have some compassion as well

X1000

And looking down on a new cyclist, showing no sympathy for someone just looking to make buck doing a essential / crap job, and coming down from Bronxville (my firm prob designed the bldg he lives in, the 1st rental property allowed in the village for decades) reeks of elitism instead of acceptance. Better safety and infrastructure for everyone won’t start until those attitudes change.

[Mr. Pink]

It was a co-op. With a Yonkers address, you'll get that part. And I have been called many things, but, I take umbrage at being slurred with "elite".

[verticaldoug]

I still think there is a bigger picture here and that is the delivery firms who are approving of this behavior.

They create an algorithm which essentially forces delivery people to run lights, go wrong way to meet the delivery time.

The apps have the data which shows the routes the delivery person took. So if they are not policing the dangerous riding, then they are tacitly approving of it and cities should go after the firms.

(I am not going to fault a person trying to scrape by, but I will fault a firm which abuses everyone.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...e-world-report
)

Isn't this the real issue? Firms which create unsafe conditions.

[Nessism]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

I still think there is a bigger picture here and that is the delivery firms who are approving of this behavior.

They create an algorithm which essentially forces delivery people to run lights, go wrong way to meet the delivery time.

The apps have the data which shows the routes the delivery person took. So if they are not policing the dangerous riding, then they are tacitly approving of it and cities should go after the firms.

(I am not going to fault a person trying to scrape by, but I will fault a firm which abuses everyone.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...e-world-report
)

Isn't this the real issue? Firms which create unsafe conditions.

Uber didn't make that guy run the red light.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by Nessism

Uber didn't make that guy run the red light.

They didn't make him, but approve of it to save time and get the delivery there.
It's one of the most important factors for maintain your rating.
You are incentivised to run lights and go wrong way on one way streets to save time.

[Nessism]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

They didn't make him, but approve of it to save time and get the delivery there.
It's one of the most important factors for maintain your rating.
You are incentivised to run lights and go wrong way on one way streets to save time.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

[Blue Jays]

Glad the cyclist is seemingly OK after that bad hit.
He needs to obey traffic signals and be a safe rider.

The politician who fled the scene should be quickly arrested.
She should be accordingly charged with all applicable crimes.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by tommyrod74

Someone makes a (very) bad decision, gets hit, is left to (maybe) die, and no sympathy? Spoken like someone who's never made a mistake of consequence.

In any case, I don't think we were actually debating whether or not he deserves sympathy, but whether or not it was OK for the driver to leave. Which it wasn't.

In the USN, when we had an accident, part of the process is to find out where and when the chain of events that lead to the accident started...This started with the dude running the red light..so, he's the cause and then the driver made the second bad decision...Didn't look like the cyclist looked left/right before going out into the intersection either.

This is probably all over 'social media'...and response from her or her 'office'??
'Leaving the scene', known driver...seems there should be a response by LE..

[Peter P.]

Originally Posted by Nessism

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

It's all "wink and a nod" and "plausible deniability" stuff.

It happens all the time including where I work, and the person at the bottom is the one under pressure to perform.

Example: Where I work, we repair equipment to be used in hazardous environments. It is designed to not ignite fumes or cause explosions.

So we get an item in for repair and due to supply chain issues, repair parts to keep the equipment safe is not available.

The owner of the company tells the technician to use non-compliant parts and to NOT tell the customer. Nothing in writing; he's told what to do and the owner walks away.

So if an accident occurs who do you think will get fired; the company owner or the technician?

By the way, this wasn't the first time the owner tried to screw the customer. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, and the technician refused to perform the repair, and quit.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by Peter P.

It's all "wink and a nod" and "plausible deniability" stuff.

It happens all the time including where I work, and the person at the bottom is the one under pressure to perform.

Example: Where I work, we repair equipment to be used in hazardous environments. It is designed to not ignite fumes or cause explosions.

So we get an item in for repair and due to supply chain issues, repair parts to keep the equipment safe is not available.

The owner of the company tells the technician to use non-compliant parts and to NOT tell the customer. Nothing in writing; he's told what to do and the owner walks away.

So if an accident occurs who do you think will get fired; the company owner or the technician?

By the way, this wasn't the first time the owner tried to screw the customer. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, and the technician refused to perform the repair, and quit.

I dont know what size of company you work for, but generally most companies have some way to report ethics violations like that without fear of retaliation.

[Peter P.]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

I dont know what size of company you work for, but generally most companies have some way to report ethics violations like that without fear of retaliation.

I'm not sure company size matters; if the order comes from the top as it did in my story, everybody below either plays along or risks a scarlet letter, retribution, or worse. A perfect example at the upper end would be the Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein case.

There's no such thing as an independent HR department; the power comes from the top.

BTW, there are only 30 or so employees in my company.

[verticaldoug]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/202...bying-campaign

The Netflix Documentary is pretty good place to start.

For plausible deniability, Uber can moniter the routes taken by the delivery person. If they aren't, it's because they don't want to know.

It's a bit like finance, the top guys don't really want to know, so plausible deniability and ignorance were strategies employed. Company is fined, but you are not fined.

Some of this is changing now in the UK since the FCA no longer recognizes ignorance as an excuse. You are paid to know, so know is the interpretation of the law.

[Veloo]

"I come up to a light, and I have the right of way"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4eZlG3vJU8