Yikes, car/driver runs down bike racers during race?

[smontanaro]

Originally Posted by Tandem Rider

Even scarier is seeing an F150 pulling a trailer with a big load, and no electric trailer brakes. You know the brakes on the F150 are not up to the task of stopping 20K lbs in any sort of a hurry.

That's not what Ford is selling. "Towing capacity" means how much weight you can get moving, not how much weight you can safely bring to a stop. /s

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

A Super Duty is an F250, F350 or F450, not an F150. (The guy who hit the cyclists was driving an F150.)

The guy was driving a Super Duty. I think the initial article said F150, but the photos and subsequent NYT article point it out as a SD.

The driver of the truck, a black Ford Super Duty, struck the bicyclists during Bike the Bluff, a benefit race, at about 7:25 a.m. local time, the police said.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by Tandem Rider

Even scarier is seeing an F150 pulling a trailer with a big load, and no electric trailer brakes. You know the brakes on the F150 are not up to the task of stopping 20K lbs in any sort of a hurry.

By far, the scariest is when you see the UHaul Box truck towing a car trailer with an suv on it waggling all over the road.

"have you ever towed anything before? - nah, dont worry about it, you'll be fine driving cross country with about 200x the amount of vehicle you are comfortable with"

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

The guy was driving a Super Duty. I think the initial article said F150, but the photos and subsequent NYT article point it out as a SD.

Okay, but even if it was an F250-F450, he wasn't anywhere close to requiring a CDL for an empty pickup with no trailer.

[robt57]

LD 821, "An Act To Improve the Investigation and Prosecution of Cases That Involve Vulnerable Road Users," unanimously passed in the Maine Senate last night

https://groups.google.com/g/bethel-o...pVzdeOmg?pli=1


http://www.mainelegislature.org/legi...tem=1&snum=130

[Dead Man]

Originally Posted by robt57

LD 821, "An Act To Improve the Investigation and Prosecution of Cases That Involve Vulnerable Road Users," unanimously passed in the Maine Senate last night

https://groups.google.com/g/bethel-o...pVzdeOmg?pli=1


http://www.mainelegislature.org/legi...tem=1&snum=130

as anti-cop as i lean, i feel officer discretion is actually an extremely important part of the job. cops NEED to be able to look at the totality of circumstances in a given sitch and have the leeway to decide criminal investigation and charges are not in the public interest.

requiring to report on specific incidents for oversight is getting close to removing the power of discretion, but aint there. IF it happens to be that under-investigation/charges in car v bike cases is a problem, i could get on board with this.... but im not seeing any evidence its actually a problem.

what makes us think this is actually a problem? reading news articles as they drift into you randomly on the internet offers absolutely nothing by way o actual evidence

[goonster]

Originally Posted by Dead Man

as anti-cop as i lean, i feel officer discretion is actually an extremely important part of the job. cops NEED to be able to look at the totality of circumstances in a given sitch and have the leeway to decide criminal investigation and charges are not in the public interest.

Charges are not at the discretion of the law enforcement officer.

You took a similar tack in another thread, where you got very worked up over the possibility that a driver might be held accountable over the load of lumber that flies off their truck. Sounds very defensive, imho.

The law should "work" both in the aggregate, and when applied in specific circumstances. These cases represent instances where people engaged in an activity we are all here to discuss, are killed by other people failing to meet the lowest standard expected of them: keeping their vehicle between the lines absent mitigating circumstances.

The case that haunts me is the Texas couple who were run down on a wide shoulder, by a driver ogling a new fire station, leaving a 7 year-old orphaned. That driver was charged, but acquitted by a jury three years later. That case, to me (not a legal professional), seems to meet the definition of criminal negligence. Sheriff's office declined to prosecute, then the county DA, possibly under public pressure, did their own investigation and prosecuted.

[Dead Man]

Originally Posted by goonster

Charges are not at the discretion of the law enforcement officer.

YES they are. with the exception of child abuse, domestic violence, and in some areas DUII, no police officer is required to arrest. ever. sure a prosecutor can file charges without a police arrest or investigation, but thats not usually how that goes.

Originally Posted by goonster

You took a similar tack in another thread, where you got very worked up over the possibility that a driver might be held accountable over the load of lumber that flies off their truck. Sounds very defensive, imho.

man up and make your point, bro. "sounds defensive" means.......? what? whats your accusation? that i have a self-interested agenda? that i must have accidentally hurt or killed someone myself? dont come at me with innuendo, say whats on your mind.

seems to me like "defensive" is a convenient way for you to marginalize me and dismiss my point. all ive done here and in that other thread is defend justice - which is NOT synonymous with conviction. throwing otherwise law abiding citizens who make simple mistakes that unfortunately end up causing disasters is NOT in the interest of justice. all it does is falsely alleviate your anxiety over your own mortality. but guess what? its counterproductive by creating significantly more ruined/antisocial people to not jive well in our society.

what do you think a dude does when he gets out of prison, often HIV positive from rape, homeless, careerless, divorced, familyless, a branded "felon," ineligible for most employment and universities, ineligible for public assistance, likely drug-addicted from voluntary or involuntary drug use in prison, etcetcetc? you think he just "goes home" and starts over, wiser and more cautious not to step out of line with his negligence, and life is peachy? his life is GONE on release, and hes at a massive disadvantage for restart. whats he do? he sells drugs and robs people to survive, is what he does. "lock the bums away!"

Originally Posted by goonster

The law should "work" both in the aggregate, and when applied in specific circumstances. These cases represent instances where people engaged in an activity we are all here to discuss, are killed by other people failing to meet the lowest standard expected of them: keeping their vehicle between the lines absent mitigating circumstances.

woah woah woah guy, dont just tack on "absent mitigating circumstances" like thats an afterthought. its THE thought. its literally what im talking about here, aint it? if we were talking about throwing people in prison for malicious or blatantly criminal acts, i wouldnt even be posting in this thread, and you know that.

Originally Posted by goonster

The case that haunts me is the Texas couple who were run down on a wide shoulder, by a driver ogling a new fire station, leaving a 7 year-old orphaned. That driver was charged, but acquitted by a jury three years later. That case, to me (not a legal professional), seems to meet the definition of criminal negligence. Sheriff's office declined to prosecute, then the county DA, possibly under public pressure, did their own investigation and prosecuted.

so the case that haunts you is one where charges WERE filed, arrests WERE made, a case WAS prosecuted and put forth to a jury of peers, and the accused was acquitted by said jury.

do you understand how criminal prosecution works? the state bears the burden of proof of a criminal act, juries are instructed by judges to find the defendant guilty if the state has met that burden in court, and to acquit if the states fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

so due process happened, the state failed to prove a crime was committed, and thats whose fault? what law can be made to address which problem with that scenario? thats law, bro. how it works. sounds like it worked perfectly as intended.

[Dead Man]

this is why JURIES decide guilt, not randos reading news reports and listening to talking heads.

[Bruce K]

We’ve started to stray off the original topic and some of the conversations have gotten a little “testy”.

We’ve discussed this among the mods and fell that until there is new information that this one has pretty much run it’s course.

Feel free to start a new conversation nversation when new information comes forward.

BK