We're not arguing whether or not she did the right thing after the fact. She had a second or two at the most to react from the time he appeared from behind the parked cars on the street. I don't think many civil juries would say that given the circumstances that she was at fault for the accident.

Okay, if we're chucking the manual, yes, accept that you might get rear ended to avoid running into a human in front of your car. You've got crumple zones and their liability insurance will cover the damage.

I’m just giving you scenarios that happens everyday. You can’t control someone tail hating you so chuck that manual and test out the window

Swerving in that scenario would be irresponsible. She was on a neighborhood street, and not even traveling that fast. Just apply the brakes.

Rear ending someone will always be the fault of the driver who didn't stop, not the one who does. This is basic stuff in the manual and on the test. Keep a safe following distance, be aware of what's in front of your car.

Now let me give you this scenario…

If she swerved because she couldn’t stop and ended up on the side walk hitting a couple people perhaps killing one because his ignorance who would we be mad at?

Another scenario.. a car railing you and if she breaks she’s getting hit hard from behind(no pun intended)

I am on board that he was irresponsible in an idiotic way. Put himself in danger, wasn't aware, etc. It's not a good idea. But there are a lot of reasons we require a license and liability insurance to drive a car and don't for riding a bike. If she'd slammed on her brakes but still hit him, there's really no outrage, no story here. He fucked up. But the higher burden is always on the heavier, faster mode of travel. Pedestrians bear less responsibility than bicyclists and they bear less responsibility than drivers. She needed to try to avoid hitting the human that showed up in her path, regardless of the color of the light.

“Or operate a vehicle in a way that can result in such a collision”

She has a green light and is basically doing the speed limit. On what planet is that part reckless.

> There’s also a car illegally parked in the crosswalk on the corner obstructing her view from where this clown was coming from. 95% of drivers would have tagged him.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Most drivers probably would have hit him.

But technically drivers are supposed to slow down when approaching an intersection with obstructed views. Having the green light doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility to take reasonable steps to avoid hitting someone.

So I wouldn’t be surprised if the cyclist’s lawyer tries to make that argument.

Even though slowing down might not have avoided the collision, it would have reduce the severity of the injuries. The fact that she hit him and didn’t even tap the brakes afterward is a really bad look for her.

Weed smell depending on the area.

Can we just agree that bikers need to be just as aware. Not giving her slack but he was heavily at fault

Right. She's spaced out, heavily impaired, blind, a complete sociopath, or some combination.

Her face was up in the video so no phone excuse.

But the only way she didn't see him is if she was paying no attention to the road, or she's actually blind.

Or not seeing him… the fact that the break lights didn’t even flash red as if she didn’t even touch her break to think about it is what makes me think this

Shiiiiit there’s a couple parts of JC i wouldn’t stop lol

I have probably watched the various angles more than I've seen the Zapruder film. "Heavily impaired" is the only thing that makes any sense.

Did you watch the video? She didn’t even flinch. Do you drive? Try not tapping your break for 10 seconds while driving through the city. It’s an instant reaction even if you’re going to hit a pothole. The fact that her brain didn’t even hesitate to keep driving makes me question if she saw him or if she was heavily impaired.

We still have Hoboken Terminal, though technically it's right across the border

Driver has a legal obligation to not impact other persons or property. Or operate a vehicle in a way that can result in such a collision.

Same reason you’re responsible for an accident if you slid on ice or snow. You’re responsible for safe operation of the vehicle regardless of external elements. You have to slow to a speed in which you can safely operate, or if that’s not possible, get off the road until it is.

One persons negligence doesn’t absolve the driver of this responsibility.

She’s responsible by law for hitting him regardless of the light.

He could get a ticket, but that’s really it.

She’s absolutely responsible for the accident thanks to unsafe operation of the vehicle and being unable to stop and/or not looking before crossing the intersection. At a bare minimum it’s reckless driving. This is textbook stuff.

Why do I feel we have the most crooked ppl working for us in the nation all the time?

It's going to be a tough council meeting when they vote on the settlement.

[deleted]

Wow, awesome thread folks! I've added it to the rec section of the New Resident FAQ.

Nonsense. If I recall correctly, it's about 2.7 seconds from him coming into view until the impact. Even if that's not enough time to fully stop, it's enough time to apply the brakes or at least come off the accelerator. She doesn't even have the excuse of looking at her phone or something. Her hands were at ten and two, eyes straight ahead. She plowed through the guy at full speed and kept going.

Perhaps there is evidence of wrongdoing by the city.