this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
490 points (90.0% liked)
Comic Strips
12744 readers
3365 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It sucks but unless he hurt you, hit your bike, or you have any sort of footage what is the police suppose to do? Show up, he denies everything and that's it.
If they could charge him on your claims alone, think about the scary consequences of such a "legal" system.
Start a paper trail. If multiple unconnected bikers report them or they are involved in an accident later it is prior evidence of reckless driving.
Even if he denies it when police show up to ask questions it might scare him enough to stop doing it.
By this measure, justice was impossible to achieve before the invention of the cell phone video camera.
Yes, you do need some kind of evidence if you don't have a witness. And I mentioned other kinds of evidence than video footage.
In most jurisdictions, a note could be put on the driving record. If a pattern on aggressive driving were to be established, a prosecutorial or civil suit effort would have an easier time of litigating against that driver.
In my case, yes, there was paint damage from my bike, which would be evidence.
Edit to add: this was a bit before camera phones.
For sure, that should've been more than enough for them to act at least. I'm sorry this happened to you.
It's worth noting that most American states have a "3 foot law" that requires vehicles to pass bikers with at least 3 feet of space. (Often, drivers are also required to completely change lanes when doing so, although that varies more by state and by the width of the lane on that particular road.) If a driver in one of the 39 states runs a biker off the road, even if they never physically contacted the person on the bike, they almost certainly violated the "3 foot law."
Yes, police often won't investigate or bring charges, and yes, it sucks, but most of those dangerous drivers are indeed breaking the law.
I never questioned that. I even went with OP's story, chose to believe they told the complete truth. But they complained about police not doing anything and the shitty reality of it is that without any kind of evidence the police cannot do anything.
I think we're both in agreement about the result, but we shouldn't forget that testimony is evidence. The chump behind the wheel will deny it, so you'll have conflicting testimonial evidence, but until recently, this was usually all the evidence any prosecutor had. We've gotten too used to video evidence and now police won't act without it, even though it's not legally required. It just provides a convenient excuse for cops not to bother when they don't care.
OK, you're right. Ideally, the police should just follow up and not predict the result since that's the judge's job, not theirs.
I don't think there are many countries with such a low crime rate where police can really work that close to the book though. And I think there are "better" examples for "ACAB" in the US.