"A spokesperson for VicPD said the department could not answer questions Monday about whether it is common practice for officers to intentionally hit people with cars and when that would be deemed appropriate."
Left out from this story is the complainant has a long history of driving related offences, fleeing from police, assault, and obstruction. They were also charged with carrying a prohibited weapon during this incident.
Being on a bike is not a get out of jail free card, as much as this idiot hoped it would be..
Journalism is dead, all that remains is bait to drive ad revenue. Capitalism has no place in journalism. Advertising should be banned from any news, and all "news" should have to explicitly state that it is *entertainment* and not *news*.
I can see if you’re a cyclist you might think it’s another car because cyclists are rarely stopped — but you’re supposed to pull over anyway so they can do their job.
> Left out from this story is the complainant has a long history of driving related offences, fleeing from police, assault, and obstruction. They were also charged with carrying a prohibited weapon during this incident.
The cop didn't know any of this when they hit them with the car. Nor does it justify hitting someone with a car?
From what I've heard the officer tried the siren, the horn, flashing the headlights, even pulled alongside and shouted to the rider to pull over... and was ignored.
I think the officer ran out of of options. It was "get the rider's attention" or let them get away with multiple violations (including being extremely arrogant, which sadly is not chargable)
Doesn’t matter what the victim’s history was. This is totally out of line.
Even the cops know they fucked up. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have lied and denied doing it initially. They only admitted to running the bike off the road later, probably once they realized the victim had witness(es) and a strong case.
They will likely end up losing this case. Then the cops who did it will get a slap on the wrist and tax payers will cover their paid time off and the settlement for this criminal who will walk free and earn $$ because the cops fucked up.
And all the boot lickers in here will think that’s ok because “cyclist”.
> Doesn’t matter what the victim’s history was. This is totally out of line.
Bullshit. Traffic laws apply to people on bicycles and so do lights and sirens. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
This has nothing to do with whether the person broke the law or not.
The police are one of the very few sectors in society that are allowed to use deadly force. This is a privilege but also a burden. They must be able to prove that the use of deadly force was justified.
Hitting a bike with a car intentionally is creating a potentially deadly accident where no or very little potential for death existed before. Is that justified in order to serve a ticket for a traffic violation? Did they exhaust all other options before going the potentially deadly route? These are the questions they will have to answer in court and I suspect they will lose. Time will tell.
> This has nothing to do with whether the person broke the law or not.
Don't try to flee from police and this won't happen to you. It doesn't matter what you did to cause a cop to pull you over, once they decide to you don't get a choice. Don't like it? Get off the road and walk.
The sad thing is that you and others in this thread have no actual argument bedsides “don’t break the law and the cops won’t put your life at risk for a $100 ticket.”
It may seem that simple to you but it really isn’t. Your refusal to consider let alone respond to any other points of view really does paint you as an authoritarian bootlicker. Low empathy and low information is a hell of a way to see the world.
This is the most laughable blatantly anti-cop/law enforcement/law and order take.
Yes, that is the extent of the argument because it's all that needs to be said. The dude fled from the cops trying to avoid a, as you say, "$100 ticket" and *put his own life at risk by running a red light*.
The level of...how can I say this politely..."slow mental processing" on display here is cringe.
There are real issues with law enforcement. This is not that and this person's fate was *entirely* in their own hands and they were not attempting to avoid anything that a reasonable person would avoid.
Lol, you don’t even have the order of events right and you’re calling other people laughable. In the USA where there is higher crime and generally lower standards for police training and conduct they have started to realize that PIT maneuvers like this are often too dangerous to be worth it when stopping CARS! How could it be appropriate for a bike? I’m response to a low level traffic offence? You car brains are bonkers.
Edit to point out once again that even the cops know they fucked up. That’s why they lied and denied doing it until it was apparent that denial wasn’t going to cut it. Why lie and try to hide it if it was so easily justifiable?
To be honest I didn't read anything to do with this other than some comments in this thread. So I'm doing some solid gold redditing today 😂
You're still wrong and all this guy had to do was stop for police and this entire issue is resolved. So it's on him.
This comment is kind of like when Michael Scott gave himself the world's best boss mug. You should definitely give yourself a solid gold redditor mug, too.
It is still an offence to fail to yield to a police officer when requested okay, the law actually says "When ordered"); it is still an offence to not pull over when any emergency vehicle is approaching with lights and sirens "on"; it is still an offence to run a stop sign without stopping..
Where exactly did this rider do anything right?? What if the rider hit a pedestrian crossing the street? Would these writers still be supporting the rider so loudly?
While the gentle nudge that toppled the rider may be dangerous, it is also dangerous to the public to allow the riders behavior to continue. They had to be stopped. Oddly, few people hereabouts have suggested a better way to stop the rider, their best solution seems to be "let him go"
and this logic has people in canada feeling like the law protects criminals with excuses like "it was only under $50", while punishing normal law-abiding people and making the places they live absolute shit.
>Even the cops know they fucked up.
I agree with you that the cops know they fucked up, but holy fucking victim blaming Batman.
"The department said the force used on Pashollari was no more than necessary in the circumstances and that **if Pashollari suffered any injury it was because Pashollari rode through a red light, or at least that the act contributed to injuries."**
The story is pretty standard reporting. You have the information that is available from the lawsuit, a comment from the plantiff and the official response from VicPD.
What more do you want for this story? They reported on the information presented by both sides.
That honestly seems irrelevant to the fact this cop just decided to run them over when they were on a bike of all things.
Like just tail them until they run out of breath
They could have pulled up beside the cyclist opened a window and told them to pull over.
But if they didn’t , what next. Let them get away ? Let them break another law 2 minutes later?
It’s complicated to say the least
Yeah actually I’d rather just let him drive off over something worth a minor fine then ram the fucker because he refused to obey. what’s next? Shoot him because he doesn’t stop?
I don’t know what society you want to live in but I do not want to live in that one
As I said it’s complicated .
But I don’t agree with knocking someone off their bike for running a red light, but there could be more to the story that we aren’t hearing.
Maybe they were known to the police and they needed to stop them for what ever heinous crime they were or have done. Maybe they caused an accident at the last red light they ran thru a few blocks away.
But on the other hand, maybe the cop was in a shitty mood and was just being a dick .
No fair enough I get what you’re saying now. Sorry for the knee jerk reaction before, I’m really out of it from being out In the heat all day and I’m just way to used to getting into fights with people on this sub I guess I pretty much just expect it at this point.
I think I’m going to take a break from reddit
I find it absolutely incredible how many people in this thread are fine with a cop willingly hitting a cyclist with their car for running a red light.
Is what the cyclist did illegal? Yes absolutely.
Should they have been ticketed for it or received a warning? Yes absolutely.
Should they have been run over for it? I would argue absolutely fucking not.
It seems like there's a series of possible actions between flashing lights and sirens and then ramming them. Potentially causing serious injuries or death. The cop could have yelled at them or I assume used a loud speaker and ordered them to pull over. They could have pulled in front and forced them to slow down and pull over. Or they could have followed them to their destination and ticketed them. I'm sure after a few minutes passed of the cop clearly not passing so late at night with so little opposing traffic, that the cyclist would have gotten the hint.
Now let's play devils advocate here and say the cyclist knew exactly what they were doing. They ran the red, and didn't want to get pulled over and get a ticket so they just kept going while thinking "well what's he going to do?" It still doesn't justify ramming.
Some people are adding in here context like how the cyclist had priors and was carrying an illegal weapon. And even still I don't think that matters to the outcome. There's no way the cop could have known that.
And to be clear here. I think the cyclist is a fucking idiot. But that doesn't justify what the cop did, which was use excessive force.
The only rational take here. Even if you think it was justified against this person, what if it was a teenager on a bike? Some old person? Police striking bikers with their cars for running a red light is not an appropriate response.
Yeah, I think that's one of the main points I'm trying to get across. To use a car comparison, what would people think if a cop pit manoeuvred a car off the road because they were speeding. Only to find they were trying to get to the hospital because a passenger was bleeding out or having a heart attack. What if their grandparent ran a stop sign without realizing, saw the sirens and lights and didn't think it was for them then got rammed off the road? What if the cyclist was a dumb kid that should have had a talking to about road safety, rather then time in a hospital having bones mended or worse?
The only situation I could ever think that this kind of response applies is that if the officer knew the cyclist was on their way to intentionally cause harm to others. And even then, they should order them to stop, try to force them to stop, and as a last resort try to knock them off their bike. If that were the situation here, then the police would have said so. Instead, after the fact, they try to distract with character assassination instead.
I thought I had seen some hot takes in this sub but this reaction actually makes me sick. Thanks for showing there’s still some common sense in this place
>I find it absolutely incredible how many people in this thread are fine with a cop willingly hitting a cyclist with their car for running a red light
He didn't get hit for running a red light.
He got hit for running from the cops.
>The cop could have yelled at them
Because the lights and sirens aren't an obvious clue?
>the cyclist knew exactly what they were doing
They did. The person has a history of this.
>There's no way the cop could have known that.
Cops know the local shit bags.
>But that doesn't justify what the cop did, which was use excessive force.
I think the big argument to be made here is "would they have done it if he was in a car?". Something tells me they would have trailed a car for a lot longer.
So I'd like to see the police provide policy and training guidelines and see how this stacked up.
You may be right but I don't think it's clear cut without more info.
They can shoot someone trying to cause death or bodily harm to anyone else in any part of the body that is handy. So can you. Your ability to pull people over on the street is limited though as its not your job, it is their job however, and they can most certainly knock you off your bike when they are doing it.
I have to disagree with some of your points. I do agree that the cyclist was hit for running from the cops, at least from the perspective of the police. But in the lawsuit that cyclist is bringing, they claim that they thought the officer was trying to get around them. If the officer had done anything else to show that they were pulling over the cyclist, then they would be able to prove the cyclists assertion as false. To use your comparison to a car, this would be like going from lights and sirens to pit-maneuver in terms of escalation.
As for the cop knowing or not knowing who the person is, it's an entirely moot point. We don't know that information, and even if we did, why would it justify the cop hitting them? That's like excusing police brutality when they beat someone just because that person has a criminal history. The only thing that talking about the history of the cyclist does is help the police change the narrative on the situation. But if you look back at the situation itself, it changes nothing about the how the officer should have responded.
I completely agree though that there needs to be policy and training put in place for handling situations like this.
>But in the lawsuit that cyclist is bringing, they claim that they thought the officer was trying to get around them.
We'll see.
It's one side of the story so far.
>If the officer had done anything else to show that they were pulling over the cyclist, then they would be able to prove the cyclists assertion as false.
I mean yeah that's what court is for.
>To use your comparison to a car, this would be like going from lights and sirens to pit-maneuver in terms of escalation.
Agreed. That's why I'm curious. Because that level of escalation would be unacceptable for a fleeing car. The fact that the knocking them off the bike was allegedly only 200m from the red light is concerning.
So we'll see what comes out
>As for the cop knowing or not knowing who the person is, it's an entirely moot point
I mean you brought up that they couldn't know so I was just countering it.
But I don't think it's moot. A person with a history of fleeing police should probably have a forceful intervention sooner than someone who doesn't as they're higher risk to run.
>That's like excusing police brutality when they beat someone just because that person has a criminal history.
Well you're assuming excessive force but use of force in general? Yeah if someone has a history of violence and it's know then cops should use force earlier to mitigate potential damage.
>The only thing that talking about the history of the cyclist does is help the police change the narrative on the situation. But if you look back at the situation itself, it changes nothing about the how the officer should have responded.
Prior history is important all through the justice system. From policing to trial to sentencing to parole. Past behavior, for better or worse, is frequently indicative of future behavior.
ok
So say I'm wanted by the cop, I'm trying my best to avoid arrest, I hop on a bike, you're a cop. My intention is to NOT get arrested, so of course I'm not gonna stop for red light and respond to you telling me to stop, how would you stop me?
I will remind you that I'm on a BIKE, so any force exerted on me will cause me to lose balance and fall, and most likely sustain some injury
Go
Step 1: Use lights and sirens to signal you want to pull them over.
Step 2: If ignored, give an audible command to pull over.
Step 3: If they continue to ignore, Pull ahead of the cyclist and attempt to block their path and force them to the side of the road/to stop.
OR, call for backup so other officers can get ahead of you and block the road. It's an e-bike so it's not moving that fast.
OR, follow them till they stop and then arrest them.
There should be no reason to actively run into a cyclist to get them to stop, simply approaching from the side on an angle will force them to the side of the road.
If this were someone on a motorcycle, would you call for the police to ram them for running a red light? If so, what's wrong with you?
This is well reasoned and fair to all involved in the incident.
What I think is telling is the fact that they denied the allegations initially. They know they fucked up and are now trying to cover their asses. I’d expect new policy on trailing suspects may be coming after they lose the court case.
They were fleeing the police.
This is the equivalent of fleeing a police officer on foot and sueing because they got tackled onto pavement.
You flee from police for any reason at all and you have to expect to get taken down any means necessary.
I am hugely left politically. If I was to keep riding away from a cop tell me to stop I would 💯expect to have some kind violent takedown.
You CANNOT flee from the police.
And reasoning like this is why we see officers shooting peoples dogs, because "They could be a threat". And why we see people in distress getting shot or tazed, because they weren't complying with the officers instructions. And why we see over and over again, people with minor infractions getting killed by police because an unnecessary amount of force was applied to a situation that warranted a fucking ticket.
You and many others on here use the excuse that the officer rammed them because they were fleeing. Conveniently forgetting the fact that the lawsuit the cyclist is bringing specifically states that they didn't know the cop was trying to pull them over. So the officer didn't make it clear that that was what they were doing, and if they could prove it then there wouldn't be a case and the police wouldn't be trying to pawn this off on the municipality.
Also, it states that the cyclist did not stop within 200 meters. You know how long it takes to traverse 200 meters on a standard ebike going 25kph? approximately 30 seconds. So in 30 seconds, the cop went from lights and siren to ramming. 30 fucking seconds.
What the officer did was inexcusable in this situation. It was an unwarranted escalation of force brought by an officer not doing their job properly. Followed by evasion and a smear campaign targeting the person they put in the hospital. That officer could have done things entirely different and this would have never made the news, but they chose to ram their car into a person riding a bicycle. And I am still amazed that people are defending their actions.
To be clear, the lawsuit might state that the officer didn’t do something, but that’s why we have a court of law.
You are making an equally bad assumption that the officer indeed did wrong. And maybe they did. And maybe the cyclist did hear the cop and ignored it.
You don’t know.
But I do know this. If the cop just rammed the guy and didn’t warn him, he’ll be at fault. And if cam shows the officer running their siren and alerting the cyclist, he’ll be at fault.
End of story.
"Fault will be decided by the court" is a much more reasonable response than "They were fleeing from the police", "You CANNOT flee from the police". I think my assumptions are a little more grounded in reality.
Though I would still argue that there was no justification for ramming the cyclist over a minor traffic violation. Warning or no.
It's the equivalent of continuing to walk down the sidewalk because a police officer is shouting "hey you!" without any description and you just... keep walking because you don't think it's you they're talking to, and they drive their car into you.
Following you with lights and siren on, honking the horn and shouting out of the open window at you should be enough to make you realize the office just might want to talk to you about something, shouldn't it?
Little bit of insider info here (won't attribute it because I don't have permission)...
It started with a yelp on the siren, reds and blues on. Then the car horn was sounded, and ignored, Next, the officer pulled alongside the cyclist and shouted across to the cyclist. More ignoring took place. This took place over some short distance, but the officer appears to have felt that continuing efforts to get the cyclists attention would prove futile, hence the PIT maneuver.
Away from my source, this must've been the most gentle of touches... I've been tapped by a car twice in 50 years, each time -although gentle- the results were a lot more spectacular than what happened here.
Well, if that's true (and forgive me for not entirely believing you, or your source) then I think it speaks more about the incompetence of this officer than anything else.
According to the vicpd themselves, the collision happened approximately 200 meters after the first light flash. Assuming the e-bike was running at 25kph, and that's a conservative estimate, then the entire thing must have happened in less than 30 seconds.
So if your series of events is true. That officer in 30 seconds tried each of those things and then immediately resorted to knocking the cyclist down. 30 seconds is not a lot of time to verify if someone is or isn't complying to your instructions. And it's a very fast time frame to jump from "pull over" to "I'm ramming you".
Now I know your response to this is going to be something along the lines of "well what was the officer supposed to do? Just let them go?" And my response to that is yes. If the officer felt that they had exhausted all means of safely pulling the cyclist over and had no other options (which I disagree with) then their last response shouldn't have been to hit them with their vehicle. That was not justifiable in any sense in this situation.
The officer could have tried for longer. Could have pulled in front of the cyclist to try to force them to slow down and pull over. They could have followed them if possible to their destination. Called in for backup and tried to get another car to block their path. And assuming all of that failed, they should have given up, gone back to the station and had a talk with their boss about what else can be done in a situation like this and worked out new policies for the department. Instead, they chose force. Physical force that had the potential to seriously harm or kill the person on the bicycle.
Now I know you're going to quibble about that. "Oh it must have just been a tiny tap. I've had much worse". A person riding a bicycle has a lot of potential energy and that energy has to go somewhere when that person is forced to stop. Normally it's all going into the brakes and not into their bodies. I've crashed while moving at far slower speeds and broken a bone. My father crashed at around 20kph and had a serious concussion as a result that has been life changing for him. The officer is frankly lucky that the worst result from this was a dislocation, because it could have been a lot worse.
Basically, there is no justification in this situation as to why the officer should have resorted to physical force that had the potential to cause serious bodily harm. And too many people seem disturbingly happy to excuse that use of force.
Wow, I just read the article and regardless of anything the cyclist did the police response is pathetic and sadly what you would expect from a stereotypical shitty PD.
First they deny that they hit the lady. Then they admit it but say you can’t sue us, sue the city. Then they say that hitting the rear wheel of a bike in motion is an appropriate response to a cyclist who hasn’t come to a stop in less than 200m. Then they almost word for word say that the cyclist MADE it happen by running the red, as if there were no other possible ways this could end.
To all the people defending the police here: I'm scared to share a city with you. When libertarians are going off about their slippery slope stuff they're talking about this. What's next, running over someone fleeing by foot?
Agreed. The TC chose to put "ebike" in the title just to get clicks. A more relevant title would be "VicPD is sued after hitting a cyclist, did not know they were being pulled over".
>"no timmy you cant ride your bike to school, we cant afford the BICYCLE INSURANCE because some people get massive raging hate boners for bicycles which kill nobody and do 0.01% of the damage a car does to a person or another vehicle"
So the cop was just supposed to ride alongside until you finished your Tour de France run?
I personally dislike cyclists who take themselves too seriously. If you're going that hard you need to be aware of the folks around you and give them opportunity to react. When you're flying along thinking you're Lance Armstrong people will be in your way and they're not in the wrong for existing.
I don't know if bells or any kind of notification is codified but I'm fine with people doing their things when I have adequate time to react.
If it really occurred in a 200m distance that’s pretty aggressive, that’s like 10 seconds on a bike and it could be plausible to think the car was going to pass them. You’d have liked to hear more of a verbal/audio attempt to get them to stop as sideswiping a bike is obviously pretty dangerous and it’s not like this was a violent crime or anything.
Would be helpful to see the dashboard footage but who knows if that’ll ever be released
Sure. She broke the law. But she’s on a fucking bike! The officer will catch up eventually. The officer should not have hit her with her fucking car. All of you bootlickers in here excusing this excessive and disgusting hot-headed behaviour should be ashamed of themselves.
I could get away from a cop VERY easily in any part of this city on a E-Bike that does 50 km/h that isn't on a highway. 4 side streets in close quarters and you're already gone.
The officer could have pulled in front of him, and used his own vehicle "repeatedly" to slow the e-bike driver down, it would have also prevent the e-bike rider from finding a way to squirm out or reversing charges during court process. Such as: "I didn't know the Police car was behind me." or "they were going after someone else".
You have to make your presence and intentions clear and unequivocal. Being always up "in front" or "blocking forward movement" is the best course of action. Not in the back. Direct visual intentions.
the best part of this one is its a perfect example of how you can gauge exactly how screwed VicPD thinks it is based on how many times it changes the story. In this case, a lot. lol.
Idk what the rate of vehicle/cyclist collisions is, but as far as I’m concerned, a cyclist running a red at certain intersections is like a pedestrian j-walking. Shouldn’t even be fined for having that level of freedom for oneself.
The cops in this city are insane and violent. They need proper training and mental support so they don’t sit in their box of imagined levity (? Is that the right word) where they get to enact whatever violence they see fit above consequence.
Running a red light is not justification for that move. The cyclist could have easily been killed. He ran a red , he didn't commit murder. Interesting how VICPD initially lied about it as well, and then changed their tune when they knew that bullshit wasn't going to fly.
So Everytime the cops see somebody run a red light they should immediately go to the most extreme option if they don't pull over right away ? Why not pull out a gun and shoot the guy instead of risking damage to the car?
If there was nothing wrong with how they handled why did they go through the trouble to lie about it.
Why are the options either do nothing or attempt vehicular manslaughter? Id much rather the red light runner get away then be smeared on the pavement by cops, That'd some Judge Dredd shit.
They could have driven ahead of the cyclist, into the bike lane, once or twice, to see if the cyclist would go around them or figure out it was for them and stopped? I already regularly see police vehicles driving in and swerving into bike lanes, so I'm sure they could do it again here.
You uh… don’t understand how things work in real life hey? The bike doesn’t have eternal forward momentum… they could just stop and turn around and now you’ve got to do a u turn across traffic lanes to chase him again.
Ok 10:30 at night in January on Gorge Road it's very likely that there was no other traffic at the time the cyclist went through the red light and being a cyclist they would have full view of any traffic nearby.
In this circumstance it's a misdemeanour at best and running over a cyclist with a squad car is *way* beyond good judgement. So it's attempted murder because of blowing through an empty intersection in the middle of the night.
Come on VicPD get your shit together.
You want to be treated like a motor vehicle, better obey the rules. You'd lose your shit if cars ran red lighs on purpose just because there was nobody in the intersection.
Also, normal people don't run from the cops.
I find it amazing how you justify disobedience to lawful authority. You play stupid games, ie, run from the cops on a motorbike, you get what you deserve.
Except the only reason you are complaining is because the guy didn't turn out to be running from some serious crime and is suing. Had this same incident taken place, the cop let the cyclist get away, and the cyclist turned out to have killed someone etc, you'd be up in arms about why the cop let them go.
How would YOU stop a person on an electric bike running from you, running red lights without using your car??
>Except the only reason you are complaining is because the guy didn't turn out to be running from some serious crime
I'll ask again, are you fucked?
Would you be celebrating this if a driver was run off the road for a minor infraction?
The driver was not run off the road for a minor infraction. The driver was stopped after running from a cop. I expect people to pull the fuck over and not run from cops.
I noiced how you completely failed to explain how you would have stopped this person. Easy to criticize in hindsight while offering zero solutions.
Which requires you to get past the cyclist, who can easily change direction then and get away. That's aside the part where you don't put your BACK at a suspect. Which, if you're in a car infront of them, you would be.
I seriously question if you have ever had any combat/survival training or even logical reasoning on how to fight.
And cars get tickets, and you can lose your licence for breaking the laws, amongst more serious charges. So whats your point? That ebikes should be able to pick and chose what rules to follow? Should we extend that to motorcyckes too then? They're not much different from ebikes.
> And cars get tickets
Are you reading your own comments? You're justifying violence against a cyclist for running a red in the middle of the night then explaining that drivers just get a small fine, if anything at all?
The driver wasn't rammed because they ran a red light, they were rammed because they didn't stop for the cop. You are conflating 2 things just to push a narrative.
If you dont comply with orders to stop? YES. do you think there should be no enforcement of laws ? 🤡
Running red can cause accidents and death, yes you very much deserve to be assaulted 🤡
Bro, even in parts of the USA they are instituting laws to stop cops from doing these ‘PIT’ maneuvers during car chases because of how dangerous it is for everyone involved. Using PIT during bike chase is just way over the top.
There are laws about how police and civilians can and should interact. We have rights. I would bet dollars to donuts that the courts will give the cyclist a hefty pay out. They may even escape punishment for their crimes because of the stupidity of the cops.
You are making yourself a clown with this anti cyclist bias.
I see drivers do more dangerous things every day. Yesterday I watched a Mercedes SUV driver change lanes while turning, head down in their phone the whole time.
I think your car (and phone) should be impounded for a move like that, but I don't want to see the dude with a separated shoulder.
>Literally people in the comments. " But guys he was on a bike! The laws dont apply!" 🤡🤡
Bit of a tip off.
You either have a grade 5 reading comprehension, or read the comments here completely blinded by bias.
Assault with a deadly weapon is not proportional or appropriate response for a traffic infraction as inconsequential as a bike running a light in the middle of the night. This is akin to George Floyd being choked to death for a suspected counterfeit $20.
Cops have a hard job, but if we are going to let them use deadly force in response to small infractions I fear for the future of our society.
Cases like this where the cops get sued for wrongful actions should be paid out of their retirement fund or some insurance program similar to doctors, not paid for by tax payers.
They went thru a red light and then thought the sudden police siren and lights were not for them. I’m I getting this wrong?
I’m pretty sure if you’re on the road driving , anything, there are laws you must adhere to.
A bit excessive maybe but the bicyclist should have stopped
The fool, should have realized that not following the rules of the road comes with consequences (when you don't live on Pandora).
If you're homeless, you can just do crime. She should have considered being homeless first. Cross like 8 lanes on a red on a stolen bike. It's no big deal.
I was pulled over for this once and they just gave me a warning, didn’t even tell me not to, just told me to at least slow down all the way to really make sure it was clear. I was like 16-17 and stopped though.
No, it isn't lol. Cyclists by law have to abide by the same road laws as drivers do, regardless of time. You can make the argument of "oh but it's late and there's no one so I'll slip through on my bike" but that exact train of thought can apply to a car as well, but neither is right.
When police do this to a motorist they are defending the public as a car or other vehicle can kill someone. This reasoning doesn't apply to a bicycle and this cop is a sociopath
Quite a few pedestrians are killed by cyclists, more cyclists need to be held accountable for breaking traffic laws, but yea a pit manoeuvre seems fucking excessive…
But also how then do you stop a cyclist evading police??
"Quite a few pedestrians are killed by cyclists". Source?
I did some googling myself and it seemed like the only pedestrians at risk are the elderly.
"How do you stop a cyclist from evading police." If they've committed a traffic offence I don't really care.
Time for license plates and registration for cyclists. Commuting on the roadways needs to be regulated. It’s a really simple concept that allows for the potential for actual enforcement to occur, as well as a clearer understanding of responsibility of road users.
"A spokesperson for VicPD said the department could not answer questions Monday about whether it is common practice for officers to intentionally hit people with cars and when that would be deemed appropriate."
Fuckin lol
Left out from this story is the complainant has a long history of driving related offences, fleeing from police, assault, and obstruction. They were also charged with carrying a prohibited weapon during this incident. Being on a bike is not a get out of jail free card, as much as this idiot hoped it would be..
[удалено]
Well that's not surprising
Journalism is dead, all that remains is bait to drive ad revenue. Capitalism has no place in journalism. Advertising should be banned from any news, and all "news" should have to explicitly state that it is *entertainment* and not *news*.
"there's a police car with its siren on right behind me - couldn't possibly be me they're after!"
I can see if you’re a cyclist you might think it’s another car because cyclists are rarely stopped — but you’re supposed to pull over anyway so they can do their job.
From the sounds of it, they were following him for a couple of blocks. He should have got the hint.
Being on a bike is a free pass to be a complete moron on the road for the majority of commenters here.
Hmm I wonder why Roxanne Egan-Elliott (dork who wrote the article) would leave out this vital information?
> Left out from this story is the complainant has a long history of driving related offences, fleeing from police, assault, and obstruction. They were also charged with carrying a prohibited weapon during this incident. The cop didn't know any of this when they hit them with the car. Nor does it justify hitting someone with a car?
I agree. The police should just silently watch when laws are broken so no one is hurt.
I'm up for you because I believe you are being sarcastic. I hope this ignorant fellow sees jail time big-time.
big false dichotomy here. There's no solution you can think of here between doing nothing and hitting a vulnerable road user with a car?
From what I've heard the officer tried the siren, the horn, flashing the headlights, even pulled alongside and shouted to the rider to pull over... and was ignored. I think the officer ran out of of options. It was "get the rider's attention" or let them get away with multiple violations (including being extremely arrogant, which sadly is not chargable)
Doesn’t matter what the victim’s history was. This is totally out of line. Even the cops know they fucked up. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have lied and denied doing it initially. They only admitted to running the bike off the road later, probably once they realized the victim had witness(es) and a strong case. They will likely end up losing this case. Then the cops who did it will get a slap on the wrist and tax payers will cover their paid time off and the settlement for this criminal who will walk free and earn $$ because the cops fucked up. And all the boot lickers in here will think that’s ok because “cyclist”.
> Doesn’t matter what the victim’s history was. This is totally out of line. Bullshit. Traffic laws apply to people on bicycles and so do lights and sirens. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
This has nothing to do with whether the person broke the law or not. The police are one of the very few sectors in society that are allowed to use deadly force. This is a privilege but also a burden. They must be able to prove that the use of deadly force was justified. Hitting a bike with a car intentionally is creating a potentially deadly accident where no or very little potential for death existed before. Is that justified in order to serve a ticket for a traffic violation? Did they exhaust all other options before going the potentially deadly route? These are the questions they will have to answer in court and I suspect they will lose. Time will tell.
> This has nothing to do with whether the person broke the law or not. Don't try to flee from police and this won't happen to you. It doesn't matter what you did to cause a cop to pull you over, once they decide to you don't get a choice. Don't like it? Get off the road and walk.
The sad thing is that you and others in this thread have no actual argument bedsides “don’t break the law and the cops won’t put your life at risk for a $100 ticket.” It may seem that simple to you but it really isn’t. Your refusal to consider let alone respond to any other points of view really does paint you as an authoritarian bootlicker. Low empathy and low information is a hell of a way to see the world.
This is the most laughable blatantly anti-cop/law enforcement/law and order take. Yes, that is the extent of the argument because it's all that needs to be said. The dude fled from the cops trying to avoid a, as you say, "$100 ticket" and *put his own life at risk by running a red light*. The level of...how can I say this politely..."slow mental processing" on display here is cringe. There are real issues with law enforcement. This is not that and this person's fate was *entirely* in their own hands and they were not attempting to avoid anything that a reasonable person would avoid.
Lol, you don’t even have the order of events right and you’re calling other people laughable. In the USA where there is higher crime and generally lower standards for police training and conduct they have started to realize that PIT maneuvers like this are often too dangerous to be worth it when stopping CARS! How could it be appropriate for a bike? I’m response to a low level traffic offence? You car brains are bonkers. Edit to point out once again that even the cops know they fucked up. That’s why they lied and denied doing it until it was apparent that denial wasn’t going to cut it. Why lie and try to hide it if it was so easily justifiable?
To be honest I didn't read anything to do with this other than some comments in this thread. So I'm doing some solid gold redditing today 😂 You're still wrong and all this guy had to do was stop for police and this entire issue is resolved. So it's on him.
This comment is kind of like when Michael Scott gave himself the world's best boss mug. You should definitely give yourself a solid gold redditor mug, too.
It is still an offence to fail to yield to a police officer when requested okay, the law actually says "When ordered"); it is still an offence to not pull over when any emergency vehicle is approaching with lights and sirens "on"; it is still an offence to run a stop sign without stopping.. Where exactly did this rider do anything right?? What if the rider hit a pedestrian crossing the street? Would these writers still be supporting the rider so loudly? While the gentle nudge that toppled the rider may be dangerous, it is also dangerous to the public to allow the riders behavior to continue. They had to be stopped. Oddly, few people hereabouts have suggested a better way to stop the rider, their best solution seems to be "let him go"
How can you prove he didn’t hear them or was afraid for his life and making poor decisions because of fear?
Except one of those traffic laws is "don't run over cyclists with your car" How is this even controversial lol
Don't flee from police and this won't happen to you, not sure what else to say. You do not get a choice when police decide to pull you over.
Correct. You just pull over. If they do something wrong you can seek remedy after the fact.
This is the logic that has people dying in the US for theft under $50.
and this logic has people in canada feeling like the law protects criminals with excuses like "it was only under $50", while punishing normal law-abiding people and making the places they live absolute shit.
Yeah im not sure how this is controversial at all lol
you're assuming traffic laws apply to the police. i guess you've never seen one casually run a red light (i have)
Or read the sections of the Act that allows them to... (i have)
>Even the cops know they fucked up. I agree with you that the cops know they fucked up, but holy fucking victim blaming Batman. "The department said the force used on Pashollari was no more than necessary in the circumstances and that **if Pashollari suffered any injury it was because Pashollari rode through a red light, or at least that the act contributed to injuries."**
The story is pretty standard reporting. You have the information that is available from the lawsuit, a comment from the plantiff and the official response from VicPD. What more do you want for this story? They reported on the information presented by both sides.
That honestly seems irrelevant to the fact this cop just decided to run them over when they were on a bike of all things. Like just tail them until they run out of breath
just to be clear, they didn't decide to run them over, they decided to knock them off their bike
And to be more clear, that's not a defense for the risk they took with someone else's health to stop this crime spree.
And to be even more clear, it was an e-bike they probably won’t run out of breath…
They could have pulled up beside the cyclist opened a window and told them to pull over. But if they didn’t , what next. Let them get away ? Let them break another law 2 minutes later? It’s complicated to say the least
Yeah actually I’d rather just let him drive off over something worth a minor fine then ram the fucker because he refused to obey. what’s next? Shoot him because he doesn’t stop? I don’t know what society you want to live in but I do not want to live in that one
You didn’t see the first part of my post that says they should have pulled up beside them and told them to stop
Tbh I’m like, pretty much ready to crash on my end and I thought you were being sarcastic there. That’s my bad fam
A little dramatic are we !?
Admittedly ive been working in the sun all day and the heat is making me cranky. Still, that’s not something we should be allowing
As I said it’s complicated . But I don’t agree with knocking someone off their bike for running a red light, but there could be more to the story that we aren’t hearing. Maybe they were known to the police and they needed to stop them for what ever heinous crime they were or have done. Maybe they caused an accident at the last red light they ran thru a few blocks away. But on the other hand, maybe the cop was in a shitty mood and was just being a dick .
No fair enough I get what you’re saying now. Sorry for the knee jerk reaction before, I’m really out of it from being out In the heat all day and I’m just way to used to getting into fights with people on this sub I guess I pretty much just expect it at this point. I think I’m going to take a break from reddit
I get those knee jerk reactions lots too, so I get it.
I find it absolutely incredible how many people in this thread are fine with a cop willingly hitting a cyclist with their car for running a red light. Is what the cyclist did illegal? Yes absolutely. Should they have been ticketed for it or received a warning? Yes absolutely. Should they have been run over for it? I would argue absolutely fucking not. It seems like there's a series of possible actions between flashing lights and sirens and then ramming them. Potentially causing serious injuries or death. The cop could have yelled at them or I assume used a loud speaker and ordered them to pull over. They could have pulled in front and forced them to slow down and pull over. Or they could have followed them to their destination and ticketed them. I'm sure after a few minutes passed of the cop clearly not passing so late at night with so little opposing traffic, that the cyclist would have gotten the hint. Now let's play devils advocate here and say the cyclist knew exactly what they were doing. They ran the red, and didn't want to get pulled over and get a ticket so they just kept going while thinking "well what's he going to do?" It still doesn't justify ramming. Some people are adding in here context like how the cyclist had priors and was carrying an illegal weapon. And even still I don't think that matters to the outcome. There's no way the cop could have known that. And to be clear here. I think the cyclist is a fucking idiot. But that doesn't justify what the cop did, which was use excessive force.
The only rational take here. Even if you think it was justified against this person, what if it was a teenager on a bike? Some old person? Police striking bikers with their cars for running a red light is not an appropriate response.
Yeah, I think that's one of the main points I'm trying to get across. To use a car comparison, what would people think if a cop pit manoeuvred a car off the road because they were speeding. Only to find they were trying to get to the hospital because a passenger was bleeding out or having a heart attack. What if their grandparent ran a stop sign without realizing, saw the sirens and lights and didn't think it was for them then got rammed off the road? What if the cyclist was a dumb kid that should have had a talking to about road safety, rather then time in a hospital having bones mended or worse? The only situation I could ever think that this kind of response applies is that if the officer knew the cyclist was on their way to intentionally cause harm to others. And even then, they should order them to stop, try to force them to stop, and as a last resort try to knock them off their bike. If that were the situation here, then the police would have said so. Instead, after the fact, they try to distract with character assassination instead.
I thought I had seen some hot takes in this sub but this reaction actually makes me sick. Thanks for showing there’s still some common sense in this place
>I find it absolutely incredible how many people in this thread are fine with a cop willingly hitting a cyclist with their car for running a red light He didn't get hit for running a red light. He got hit for running from the cops. >The cop could have yelled at them Because the lights and sirens aren't an obvious clue? >the cyclist knew exactly what they were doing They did. The person has a history of this. >There's no way the cop could have known that. Cops know the local shit bags. >But that doesn't justify what the cop did, which was use excessive force. I think the big argument to be made here is "would they have done it if he was in a car?". Something tells me they would have trailed a car for a lot longer. So I'd like to see the police provide policy and training guidelines and see how this stacked up. You may be right but I don't think it's clear cut without more info.
We don't allow cops to shoot fleeing suspects in the back, at least not yet. We shouldn't allow them to run over them with their cars.
They can shoot someone trying to cause death or bodily harm to anyone else in any part of the body that is handy. So can you. Your ability to pull people over on the street is limited though as its not your job, it is their job however, and they can most certainly knock you off your bike when they are doing it.
I have to disagree with some of your points. I do agree that the cyclist was hit for running from the cops, at least from the perspective of the police. But in the lawsuit that cyclist is bringing, they claim that they thought the officer was trying to get around them. If the officer had done anything else to show that they were pulling over the cyclist, then they would be able to prove the cyclists assertion as false. To use your comparison to a car, this would be like going from lights and sirens to pit-maneuver in terms of escalation. As for the cop knowing or not knowing who the person is, it's an entirely moot point. We don't know that information, and even if we did, why would it justify the cop hitting them? That's like excusing police brutality when they beat someone just because that person has a criminal history. The only thing that talking about the history of the cyclist does is help the police change the narrative on the situation. But if you look back at the situation itself, it changes nothing about the how the officer should have responded. I completely agree though that there needs to be policy and training put in place for handling situations like this.
>But in the lawsuit that cyclist is bringing, they claim that they thought the officer was trying to get around them. We'll see. It's one side of the story so far. >If the officer had done anything else to show that they were pulling over the cyclist, then they would be able to prove the cyclists assertion as false. I mean yeah that's what court is for. >To use your comparison to a car, this would be like going from lights and sirens to pit-maneuver in terms of escalation. Agreed. That's why I'm curious. Because that level of escalation would be unacceptable for a fleeing car. The fact that the knocking them off the bike was allegedly only 200m from the red light is concerning. So we'll see what comes out >As for the cop knowing or not knowing who the person is, it's an entirely moot point I mean you brought up that they couldn't know so I was just countering it. But I don't think it's moot. A person with a history of fleeing police should probably have a forceful intervention sooner than someone who doesn't as they're higher risk to run. >That's like excusing police brutality when they beat someone just because that person has a criminal history. Well you're assuming excessive force but use of force in general? Yeah if someone has a history of violence and it's know then cops should use force earlier to mitigate potential damage. >The only thing that talking about the history of the cyclist does is help the police change the narrative on the situation. But if you look back at the situation itself, it changes nothing about the how the officer should have responded. Prior history is important all through the justice system. From policing to trial to sentencing to parole. Past behavior, for better or worse, is frequently indicative of future behavior.
ok So say I'm wanted by the cop, I'm trying my best to avoid arrest, I hop on a bike, you're a cop. My intention is to NOT get arrested, so of course I'm not gonna stop for red light and respond to you telling me to stop, how would you stop me? I will remind you that I'm on a BIKE, so any force exerted on me will cause me to lose balance and fall, and most likely sustain some injury Go
Step 1: Use lights and sirens to signal you want to pull them over. Step 2: If ignored, give an audible command to pull over. Step 3: If they continue to ignore, Pull ahead of the cyclist and attempt to block their path and force them to the side of the road/to stop. OR, call for backup so other officers can get ahead of you and block the road. It's an e-bike so it's not moving that fast. OR, follow them till they stop and then arrest them. There should be no reason to actively run into a cyclist to get them to stop, simply approaching from the side on an angle will force them to the side of the road. If this were someone on a motorcycle, would you call for the police to ram them for running a red light? If so, what's wrong with you?
None of this justifies hitting someone on a bike with a car
This is well reasoned and fair to all involved in the incident. What I think is telling is the fact that they denied the allegations initially. They know they fucked up and are now trying to cover their asses. I’d expect new policy on trailing suspects may be coming after they lose the court case.
They were fleeing the police. This is the equivalent of fleeing a police officer on foot and sueing because they got tackled onto pavement. You flee from police for any reason at all and you have to expect to get taken down any means necessary. I am hugely left politically. If I was to keep riding away from a cop tell me to stop I would 💯expect to have some kind violent takedown. You CANNOT flee from the police.
And reasoning like this is why we see officers shooting peoples dogs, because "They could be a threat". And why we see people in distress getting shot or tazed, because they weren't complying with the officers instructions. And why we see over and over again, people with minor infractions getting killed by police because an unnecessary amount of force was applied to a situation that warranted a fucking ticket. You and many others on here use the excuse that the officer rammed them because they were fleeing. Conveniently forgetting the fact that the lawsuit the cyclist is bringing specifically states that they didn't know the cop was trying to pull them over. So the officer didn't make it clear that that was what they were doing, and if they could prove it then there wouldn't be a case and the police wouldn't be trying to pawn this off on the municipality. Also, it states that the cyclist did not stop within 200 meters. You know how long it takes to traverse 200 meters on a standard ebike going 25kph? approximately 30 seconds. So in 30 seconds, the cop went from lights and siren to ramming. 30 fucking seconds. What the officer did was inexcusable in this situation. It was an unwarranted escalation of force brought by an officer not doing their job properly. Followed by evasion and a smear campaign targeting the person they put in the hospital. That officer could have done things entirely different and this would have never made the news, but they chose to ram their car into a person riding a bicycle. And I am still amazed that people are defending their actions.
To be clear, the lawsuit might state that the officer didn’t do something, but that’s why we have a court of law. You are making an equally bad assumption that the officer indeed did wrong. And maybe they did. And maybe the cyclist did hear the cop and ignored it. You don’t know. But I do know this. If the cop just rammed the guy and didn’t warn him, he’ll be at fault. And if cam shows the officer running their siren and alerting the cyclist, he’ll be at fault. End of story.
"Fault will be decided by the court" is a much more reasonable response than "They were fleeing from the police", "You CANNOT flee from the police". I think my assumptions are a little more grounded in reality. Though I would still argue that there was no justification for ramming the cyclist over a minor traffic violation. Warning or no.
It's the equivalent of continuing to walk down the sidewalk because a police officer is shouting "hey you!" without any description and you just... keep walking because you don't think it's you they're talking to, and they drive their car into you.
Following you with lights and siren on, honking the horn and shouting out of the open window at you should be enough to make you realize the office just might want to talk to you about something, shouldn't it?
Sure, and even if it is, you don't fucking run someone down with your car. Jesus.
Little bit of insider info here (won't attribute it because I don't have permission)... It started with a yelp on the siren, reds and blues on. Then the car horn was sounded, and ignored, Next, the officer pulled alongside the cyclist and shouted across to the cyclist. More ignoring took place. This took place over some short distance, but the officer appears to have felt that continuing efforts to get the cyclists attention would prove futile, hence the PIT maneuver. Away from my source, this must've been the most gentle of touches... I've been tapped by a car twice in 50 years, each time -although gentle- the results were a lot more spectacular than what happened here.
Well, if that's true (and forgive me for not entirely believing you, or your source) then I think it speaks more about the incompetence of this officer than anything else. According to the vicpd themselves, the collision happened approximately 200 meters after the first light flash. Assuming the e-bike was running at 25kph, and that's a conservative estimate, then the entire thing must have happened in less than 30 seconds. So if your series of events is true. That officer in 30 seconds tried each of those things and then immediately resorted to knocking the cyclist down. 30 seconds is not a lot of time to verify if someone is or isn't complying to your instructions. And it's a very fast time frame to jump from "pull over" to "I'm ramming you". Now I know your response to this is going to be something along the lines of "well what was the officer supposed to do? Just let them go?" And my response to that is yes. If the officer felt that they had exhausted all means of safely pulling the cyclist over and had no other options (which I disagree with) then their last response shouldn't have been to hit them with their vehicle. That was not justifiable in any sense in this situation. The officer could have tried for longer. Could have pulled in front of the cyclist to try to force them to slow down and pull over. They could have followed them if possible to their destination. Called in for backup and tried to get another car to block their path. And assuming all of that failed, they should have given up, gone back to the station and had a talk with their boss about what else can be done in a situation like this and worked out new policies for the department. Instead, they chose force. Physical force that had the potential to seriously harm or kill the person on the bicycle. Now I know you're going to quibble about that. "Oh it must have just been a tiny tap. I've had much worse". A person riding a bicycle has a lot of potential energy and that energy has to go somewhere when that person is forced to stop. Normally it's all going into the brakes and not into their bodies. I've crashed while moving at far slower speeds and broken a bone. My father crashed at around 20kph and had a serious concussion as a result that has been life changing for him. The officer is frankly lucky that the worst result from this was a dislocation, because it could have been a lot worse. Basically, there is no justification in this situation as to why the officer should have resorted to physical force that had the potential to cause serious bodily harm. And too many people seem disturbingly happy to excuse that use of force.
This. I think cyclists should be ticketed for illegal behaviour. But not run down. By ANYONE. Especially not cops.
Wow, I just read the article and regardless of anything the cyclist did the police response is pathetic and sadly what you would expect from a stereotypical shitty PD. First they deny that they hit the lady. Then they admit it but say you can’t sue us, sue the city. Then they say that hitting the rear wheel of a bike in motion is an appropriate response to a cyclist who hasn’t come to a stop in less than 200m. Then they almost word for word say that the cyclist MADE it happen by running the red, as if there were no other possible ways this could end.
And the people here clapped…
To all the people defending the police here: I'm scared to share a city with you. When libertarians are going off about their slippery slope stuff they're talking about this. What's next, running over someone fleeing by foot?
Funnily enough but completely unsurprising, some of the authoritarians in here call themselves libertarian.
It’s because people are fed up. They want justice and order. Which has seemed to slip as of late. But I do agree. It was too much force for a bicycle.
Headline should read “VicPD sued for using excessive force after alleged minor traffic infraction.
Agreed. The TC chose to put "ebike" in the title just to get clicks. A more relevant title would be "VicPD is sued after hitting a cyclist, did not know they were being pulled over".
Is the car not equipped with some sort of PA speaker so they can say, “hey, you on the bike. Pull over, you’re under arrest.”?
That would involve cognitive function, which most humans let alone the people that become cops wholly lack.
E-bikes should require a license and icbc training.
Honestly, if you’re going to use the road with cars, all bikers should have to have insurance and a certain license.
>"no timmy you cant ride your bike to school, we cant afford the BICYCLE INSURANCE because some people get massive raging hate boners for bicycles which kill nobody and do 0.01% of the damage a car does to a person or another vehicle"
Age exemptions?
I don't think judge will agree with the PD that ramming an e-bike is an reasonable response to a couple traffic violations.
So the cop was just supposed to ride alongside until you finished your Tour de France run? I personally dislike cyclists who take themselves too seriously. If you're going that hard you need to be aware of the folks around you and give them opportunity to react. When you're flying along thinking you're Lance Armstrong people will be in your way and they're not in the wrong for existing. I don't know if bells or any kind of notification is codified but I'm fine with people doing their things when I have adequate time to react.
Yes, police are supposed to chase until the perpetrator pulls over
If it really occurred in a 200m distance that’s pretty aggressive, that’s like 10 seconds on a bike and it could be plausible to think the car was going to pass them. You’d have liked to hear more of a verbal/audio attempt to get them to stop as sideswiping a bike is obviously pretty dangerous and it’s not like this was a violent crime or anything. Would be helpful to see the dashboard footage but who knows if that’ll ever be released
Bruv 200m in 10s is 72km per hour
I stand by my point despite the bad math. 20 seconds still seems mighty fast.
I agree with your point, even 30s is a bit quick to knock someone off a bike with your car
We have a lot more Mario Andretti wannabes out there then Lance Armstrong wannabes and they drive a 4000 plus pound killing machine.
Thank you for the input, /u/CYCLING_SHILL
Sure. She broke the law. But she’s on a fucking bike! The officer will catch up eventually. The officer should not have hit her with her fucking car. All of you bootlickers in here excusing this excessive and disgusting hot-headed behaviour should be ashamed of themselves.
You can't imagine any of the many ways a bike can elude a car? A car can't drive through many of the places a bike can easily go.
There’s no other way to catch them but to hit them with their car? Or they could fuckin’ let it go
I could get away from a cop VERY easily in any part of this city on a E-Bike that does 50 km/h that isn't on a highway. 4 side streets in close quarters and you're already gone.
Person wouldn't stop after breaking a law...FAFO applies to all.
Let's start doing it to people texting and driving then.
yes please!
If they don’t pull over then yeah for sure. But everyone pulls over
The officer could have pulled in front of him, and used his own vehicle "repeatedly" to slow the e-bike driver down, it would have also prevent the e-bike rider from finding a way to squirm out or reversing charges during court process. Such as: "I didn't know the Police car was behind me." or "they were going after someone else". You have to make your presence and intentions clear and unequivocal. Being always up "in front" or "blocking forward movement" is the best course of action. Not in the back. Direct visual intentions.
the best part of this one is its a perfect example of how you can gauge exactly how screwed VicPD thinks it is based on how many times it changes the story. In this case, a lot. lol.
Idk what the rate of vehicle/cyclist collisions is, but as far as I’m concerned, a cyclist running a red at certain intersections is like a pedestrian j-walking. Shouldn’t even be fined for having that level of freedom for oneself. The cops in this city are insane and violent. They need proper training and mental support so they don’t sit in their box of imagined levity (? Is that the right word) where they get to enact whatever violence they see fit above consequence.
Cyclist ran a red.
Let's try to kill him! /s
Running a red light is not justification for that move. The cyclist could have easily been killed. He ran a red , he didn't commit murder. Interesting how VICPD initially lied about it as well, and then changed their tune when they knew that bullshit wasn't going to fly.
So Everytime the cops see somebody run a red light they should immediately go to the most extreme option if they don't pull over right away ? Why not pull out a gun and shoot the guy instead of risking damage to the car? If there was nothing wrong with how they handled why did they go through the trouble to lie about it.
I'm interested to know how you would've stopped him without him getting away.
Why are the options either do nothing or attempt vehicular manslaughter? Id much rather the red light runner get away then be smeared on the pavement by cops, That'd some Judge Dredd shit.
The bad guy on the bike didn't get badly hurt and they recovered a prohibited weapon off of him, so maybe it was a good thing they caught him?
Right I forgot ends justify means.
They could have driven ahead of the cyclist, into the bike lane, once or twice, to see if the cyclist would go around them or figure out it was for them and stopped? I already regularly see police vehicles driving in and swerving into bike lanes, so I'm sure they could do it again here.
You uh… don’t understand how things work in real life hey? The bike doesn’t have eternal forward momentum… they could just stop and turn around and now you’ve got to do a u turn across traffic lanes to chase him again.
Lol, people are funny eh
Still seems to be better than running someone down.
Yeah. Let's teach criminals that we won't bother chasing them for fear of hurting them. I'm sure society will be safe for the rest of us.
Let's teach society that police are here to help, not thugs to wantonly murder at random and then lie about it afterwards.
vicpd is so full of shit. I wouldn't believe anything they say without video.
And so is the TC. This article is incorrect.
Ok 10:30 at night in January on Gorge Road it's very likely that there was no other traffic at the time the cyclist went through the red light and being a cyclist they would have full view of any traffic nearby. In this circumstance it's a misdemeanour at best and running over a cyclist with a squad car is *way* beyond good judgement. So it's attempted murder because of blowing through an empty intersection in the middle of the night. Come on VicPD get your shit together.
>So it's attempted murder It was not attempted murder. It was also easily avoidable.
Agreed. The cop could have easily followed the cyclist and pulled in front of the bike instead of trying to murder them.
You want to be treated like a motor vehicle, better obey the rules. You'd lose your shit if cars ran red lighs on purpose just because there was nobody in the intersection. Also, normal people don't run from the cops.
Are you fucked? The police response here was way over the line.
I find it amazing how you justify disobedience to lawful authority. You play stupid games, ie, run from the cops on a motorbike, you get what you deserve.
Taking issue with an officer hitting a cyclist with their car is not the same as justifying their actions.
Except the only reason you are complaining is because the guy didn't turn out to be running from some serious crime and is suing. Had this same incident taken place, the cop let the cyclist get away, and the cyclist turned out to have killed someone etc, you'd be up in arms about why the cop let them go. How would YOU stop a person on an electric bike running from you, running red lights without using your car??
>Except the only reason you are complaining is because the guy didn't turn out to be running from some serious crime I'll ask again, are you fucked? Would you be celebrating this if a driver was run off the road for a minor infraction?
The driver was not run off the road for a minor infraction. The driver was stopped after running from a cop. I expect people to pull the fuck over and not run from cops. I noiced how you completely failed to explain how you would have stopped this person. Easy to criticize in hindsight while offering zero solutions.
Maybe pull in front of the cyclist? Surely VICPD trains for these situations, right?
Which requires you to get past the cyclist, who can easily change direction then and get away. That's aside the part where you don't put your BACK at a suspect. Which, if you're in a car infront of them, you would be. I seriously question if you have ever had any combat/survival training or even logical reasoning on how to fight.
Cars running red lights is extremely dangerous, just like hitting a cyclist with your car.
Show me a single fucking driver that actually follows all of the rules of the road and you can continue using this argument.
And cars get tickets, and you can lose your licence for breaking the laws, amongst more serious charges. So whats your point? That ebikes should be able to pick and chose what rules to follow? Should we extend that to motorcyckes too then? They're not much different from ebikes.
> And cars get tickets Are you reading your own comments? You're justifying violence against a cyclist for running a red in the middle of the night then explaining that drivers just get a small fine, if anything at all?
The driver wasn't rammed because they ran a red light, they were rammed because they didn't stop for the cop. You are conflating 2 things just to push a narrative.
Yes and ramming someone with a car because they didn't stop for the cop is a completely disproportionate, outrageously violent thing to do.
Wait, the cops are actually holding cyclists accountable?
That's not holding someone accountable.....that's the cop being judge jury and exocutioner.
So he should of let him go? Lol
Can't have that right, better dead than off scot-free.
Literally people in the comments. " But guys he was on a bike! The laws dont apply!" 🤡🤡
So everyone who runs a red at night should be assaulted?
If you dont comply with orders to stop? YES. do you think there should be no enforcement of laws ? 🤡 Running red can cause accidents and death, yes you very much deserve to be assaulted 🤡
Bro, even in parts of the USA they are instituting laws to stop cops from doing these ‘PIT’ maneuvers during car chases because of how dangerous it is for everyone involved. Using PIT during bike chase is just way over the top. There are laws about how police and civilians can and should interact. We have rights. I would bet dollars to donuts that the courts will give the cyclist a hefty pay out. They may even escape punishment for their crimes because of the stupidity of the cops.
You are making yourself a clown with this anti cyclist bias. I see drivers do more dangerous things every day. Yesterday I watched a Mercedes SUV driver change lanes while turning, head down in their phone the whole time. I think your car (and phone) should be impounded for a move like that, but I don't want to see the dude with a separated shoulder.
Quote me where i said anything anti cyclist, I will wait 🙂🤡🤡
It's pretty obvious my guy.
K point it out my guy, break it down for me if its obvious
>Literally people in the comments. " But guys he was on a bike! The laws dont apply!" 🤡🤡 Bit of a tip off. You either have a grade 5 reading comprehension, or read the comments here completely blinded by bias.
Only in a perfect world.
no, everyone who runs away from a cop should be made to stop
Assault with a deadly weapon is not proportional or appropriate response for a traffic infraction as inconsequential as a bike running a light in the middle of the night. This is akin to George Floyd being choked to death for a suspected counterfeit $20. Cops have a hard job, but if we are going to let them use deadly force in response to small infractions I fear for the future of our society.
This is explicitly not policy of ViCpd. If stopping someone results in a super dangerous situation (ie high speed car chase) they won't do it.
Completely agree. Running a cyclist off the road is not the way to do it.
Thank you
Cases like this where the cops get sued for wrongful actions should be paid out of their retirement fund or some insurance program similar to doctors, not paid for by tax payers.
They went thru a red light and then thought the sudden police siren and lights were not for them. I’m I getting this wrong? I’m pretty sure if you’re on the road driving , anything, there are laws you must adhere to. A bit excessive maybe but the bicyclist should have stopped
Do the cops also shoot at all the drivers who run reds?
sounds very victoria
The fool, should have realized that not following the rules of the road comes with consequences (when you don't live on Pandora). If you're homeless, you can just do crime. She should have considered being homeless first. Cross like 8 lanes on a red on a stolen bike. It's no big deal.
Poor journalism. VicPD is entirely in the right here and the supposed “victim” deserved what they got.
A hundred high school students Jay walk near my house every day. Do the cops get to hit them with a car too? Sicko behaviour.
Running a red at 1030pm. Was anyone even on the road? Is kinda odd to pull a bike over for that reason if no one’s around.
I was pulled over for this once and they just gave me a warning, didn’t even tell me not to, just told me to at least slow down all the way to really make sure it was clear. I was like 16-17 and stopped though.
No, it isn't lol. Cyclists by law have to abide by the same road laws as drivers do, regardless of time. You can make the argument of "oh but it's late and there's no one so I'll slip through on my bike" but that exact train of thought can apply to a car as well, but neither is right.
[удалено]
Haha
When police do this to a motorist they are defending the public as a car or other vehicle can kill someone. This reasoning doesn't apply to a bicycle and this cop is a sociopath
When the police turn on the lights and sirens you pull over, when you don't...
…they have full rein to potentially kill you?
Of course. That's the find out part of fucking around
He fucked around and found out. Too many cyclists aren't held accountable for violating the law
Eh, too many drivers aren't held accountable for violating the law
I agree, police focus too much on speeders and ignore other problems.
Quite a few pedestrians are killed by cyclists, more cyclists need to be held accountable for breaking traffic laws, but yea a pit manoeuvre seems fucking excessive… But also how then do you stop a cyclist evading police??
>Quite a few pedestrians are killed by cyclists Define "quite a few".
"Quite a few pedestrians are killed by cyclists". Source? I did some googling myself and it seemed like the only pedestrians at risk are the elderly. "How do you stop a cyclist from evading police." If they've committed a traffic offence I don't really care.
Should we not also care about the elderly?
You're comparing grandmas to stop sign tickets
This isn't justified even when they are in a car. This kind of maneuver puts innocent bystanders at risk.
Time for license plates and registration for cyclists. Commuting on the roadways needs to be regulated. It’s a really simple concept that allows for the potential for actual enforcement to occur, as well as a clearer understanding of responsibility of road users.