The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.
I’m really not a fan of the cops arguing that the cyclist was partly to blame, though, and a €1000 fine is pretty damn low for breaking someone’s leg and wrecking a good six months of their life.
The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.
I’m really not a fan of the cops arguing that the cyclist was partly to blame, though, and a €1000 fine is pretty damn low for breaking someone’s leg and wrecking a good six months of their life.
The article lists four things about the cyclist.
Admittedly a no-go for me. There a lots of options for anyone.
“Relatively” already gives the impression that we aren’t talking black, just that it wasn’t a signal or hi-vis color.
This wording makes me think the cyclist used one earbud and not both or full headphones. So he could hear his surroundings well.
Not even a fact, but a possibility.
To summarize, he was a traffic participant in a non-signal color, listening to music. That’s it.
Of course cyclist are more vulnerable than cars, but anyone who sees fault in the cyclist behavior is often overlooking similar or worse behavior in drivers.
Nobody ever asks the owner of a black car if they have a death wish or ask someone to turn of the radio, because they can’t hear the traffic as well.
I wish people would hold all traffic participants to the same standards.
For me, riding on the road without lights would be a good point for placing blame on the cyclist. I don’t care what vehicle you are, you’re on the road at night, you need lights.
But would need to be proven, of course. “May not have been working” means literally nothing, could be from the drivers testimony “I didn’t see no lights” kind of thing
“His front light may not have been working”. Officer might as well have written “Cyclist might possibly be a pedophile”.