Well where I live the cops sit at the bottom of the hills with radar guns and extort, pardon me, cite, when we go just 7-8% over the posted speed limit even for just a few seconds (37 in a 35 is a ticket and I'm not kidding), and troll private parking lots with automated license plate scanners, then wait in an ambush on the public road for those with expired tabs to pull out of the parking lot. Tell me how do those tactics protect and serve and keep us safe? They don't. It's a revenue source, plain and simple. Everyone knows it.

The cops don't want to pay for the car repair, so they are attempting to make the repair bill someone else's problem. They were probably expecting the guy to just pay up. Instead he went public with the story. Good.
Edit: dang I thought this was the Lavender Room... this should be moved there.

From that story - it is the NY Post after all, not exactly a reputable rag - it's not possible to tell who is at fault. If the cyclist is in fact at fault then why should he not pay restitution?

---

*****
"In case of flood climb to safety"

Arguably he has already paid for it once with taxes, and will continue to do so with ongoing taxes..

Perhaps he could suggest that to them... :)

In fact, looks like he might have goofed:


“I had left the bike lane to make a left turn, and I looked behind me and saw that it was clear, and the farthest car was a fair distance,” he said.
Johnsen said he signaled to make the turn onto North Elliott Place from Flushing Avenue, but before taking the turn, he said, he “was swiped by this car on my left side.”
Appears that he didn't look well enough, or maybe thought the car was farther away than it actually was. Impossible to tell who was at fault from the story - not ticketing is not conclusive, but if he was at fault, he should absolutely pay, whether or not he was hurt.

I believe the Post is more "reputable" than you might think. As it relates to cycling, the paper tends to be very much negative about all things cycling, especially all of the discussions about bike lanes. So, when the Post comes out with a story like this, they must believe this guy was not at fault because it goes against their nature of anti-cyclist orientation.

it's never ending. you'd think as we continue to develop as a species, we'd grow ever more understanding and accepting of one another. but nope.

a cyclist was just hit and killed by a car in my area yesterday, and the local news had the balls to run a story about "cycling rage" immediately following the story this morning. said "while it's less common than road rage, cyclists are becoming more angry as they learn they need to share the road with automobiles."

i kid you not.

The Post may sustain itself on gossip-y stories, but it is still a mainstream and accurate paper. Second, even if that cop car were closer behind the cyclist than he thought, he signaled, then moved left. It is the cop's responsibility to avoid hitting him. The cops never made any indication that he did something wrong. Then they pulled their invoice for the car damage. Therefore what evidence is there that the cyclist was at fault? I really do not understand people on ST who supposedly ride bikes always side against cyclists who are hit by cars when there is no evidence that the cyclist was at fault. I think he should sue the cops.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I have said same in numerous other threads. There is a small faction here that no matter the event, rushes to apologise for the motorist and skewers the cyclist - no matter the facts.

I believe in responsibility and fairness, but if you like to ride a bike, then when in doubt, side with the cyclist - motorists already have the upper hand far too often.

The post also mentioned there have been multiple similar instances - in all cases the fine has been rescinded. New York is having A LOT of growing pains with cyclists - has been having these issues for years I guess. Will continue as the Citi-bike scheme gets underway.

My experience is relegated mostly to Manhattan - Unfortunately - most bike riders (not worthy of being called cyclists) are food delivery guys who have a genetic disposition to: running lights, riding both bike lanes & streets againt the flow or traffic and not using lights. The other big faction is my generation of commuters- these guys at least stick to right flow of traffic, but try to set new track-standing records at every intersection, and when in the bike lane- believe it is justification to ignore traffic signals and cut off pedestrians. Often cops don't help matters, often leaving their cars idling in the middle of a bike lane, or even parking it while making their hourly Dunkin Donuts run.

My N=1: My fiancee was almost run over by two hipsters on their fixies as we crossed 2nd Ave on Saturday. I reminded them that the red light means yield to those in the crosswalk, and their response was to threaten to kick my ass (side note: this was laughable given they probably weigh less than the steel frames they rode). Summary is - most bike riders in NY have a negative effect on the public's perception of cycling, and those of us who play by the rules will still be associated with these other jacka$$es.

---

Thoughts on being an Urban Triathlete

X2 on everything you said.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

It is routine in accidents that damage public property to bill the cost of repairs to the person at fault. Presumably, the rider was at fault if he got billed for the repairs.


It could be worse. A few years ago a driver on I-75 in Detroit swerved in front of a fuel tanker which then crashed under a bridge and exploded. The fire destroyed the bridge. The DOT billed the driver who caused the accident for the cost of replacing the bridge and repairing the highway. The cost was over $1,000,000 but they worked out some sort of settlement.

Revenue sources designed around ensuring automobile registration and following the law. Pay your taxes and stop acting like a self entitled ahole.

+1. God forbid someone enforces you to pay your taxes and obey the law. I doubt you drive 34-35 99.999% and you just happen to get caught for the few seconds over the limit. I'm not saying I've never gone over the limit, just that if you do, don't get pissed off if you're caught

The article implies the rider did not ever get a ticket for the accident, and that the bill was rescinded. Presumably then, based on your logic, the rider was not at fault.

My point was only that it is routine for someone at fault to have to pay for damage caused by an accident. This guy may not have been at fault and that may be why they dropped the bill but paying for something you damaged is the norm, not some wild crazy notion.

While most people think of personal injuries or maybe damage to private property, it is routine for someone who is in an accident to get a bill from the goverment for stuff like damaged road signs, light poles, vehicle damage or, if you blow up a fuel tanker, an entire bridge.

So, if you are running off the road, try and steer clear of the light poles and road signs. They are alot more expensive then you'd think ;-)

I agree that the bicyclist seems to be at fault. It is hard to know.

Since this was a injury accident, I am sure an accident report was filed. I am sure there were some witnesses.

But it is poor public policy for police cars to hit bicyclists regardless of who is at fault. The police car should have given the bicyclist more space - we all want that.

---

Governments are just painful to deal with in matters like this.

This I have to agree with. I've had several run ins with bike messengers that ride through red lights into pedestrians crossing the street (with a green light). I'd have to call these guys animals rather than cyclists.

With that being said, 99% of the time if you hit someone/something your at fault. The obvious exceptions would be someone jay walking, going through a light, etc. etc. It's not clear in this story if this unmarked cop car shot out from the curb and tried to pass the cyclist on the left, or if he needs a new set of glasses. The implication of the story is that he looked and it was clear and this car came out of nowhere. Assuming the cyclist did look and really didn't see anything, it is very plausible that the cop car came shooting out of a driveway or away from the curb and tried to overtake the cyclists despite the fact that he signaled that he was turning.

Do you ever pick the right side on an argument? You have to be one of the worst posters in the history of this site. Let me make this nice and easy for you. The cyclist did nothing wrong in this wreck. The cop car rammed into the cyclist and caused the cyclist to go to the hospital. Then the city bills the cyclist and of course you side with the city. Unreal.

Or maybe the unmarked police vehicle was a fair distance away, but moving at a velocity over the speed limit, enabling the vehicle to catch and attempt to pass the cyclist before he might have reasonably expected to be passed. As someone else mentioned, it is the responsibility of the passing vehicle to carry out the pass safely. Not safe = no pass.