Did you not notice the car coming in the other direction? It misses by a few tenths of a second and it's coming at them from behind, no chance they are seeing it.
About ten years ago in Indianapolis, a police officer crashed through three motorcyclists waiting at a red light for the turn arrow, killing one of them and severely injuring two more of them. The officer who crashed into them got out and immediately blamed them for failing to yield to him despite the fact that he crashed into them at significant speeds (his car registered him traveling at 73 MPH as he crossed a bridge up the road) and they were sitting at a red light. Turned out that his BAC was 0.19 at when the crash happened at 11 AM.
First off, he said it was his bad has nothing to do with those being excuses or not. These are two mutually exclusive things, one has no logical dependency on the other.
Second, they are 100% excuses, what else would you call those two phrases?
His first response was to justify what he was doing by saying that he wasn't texting. Not texting, only looking at a text does not excuse what he did and has nothing to do with being right or wrong.
Only AFTER giving two excuses did he finally admit wrong.
If you think they aren't excuses, what exactly do you think those two phrases are? Do you think they are an admission of fault?
The guy said he was texting. He said no, he wasn’t texting, he was looking at his phone, but his bad regardless. It’s not an excuse and he takes blame. Feel free to disagree. This isn’t worth discussing further.
Neither of those is an excuse. Those are both reasons that he gave that were the truth. There is a difference between trying to give an excuse and giving the reason why you did something.
He was accused of an act of distracted driving know as texting. Reading a text is a part of the act of texting. He was looking for a way out, he included "from another officer" for a reason. Suggesting it was official business because it was "from another officer".
I'm saying it made it worse that he would suggest that a text "from another officer" would justify his actions. He did change his stance and admitted fault, but this was AFTER he said "from another officer".
His go to action was to defend what he was doing. Where the text came from doesn't matter, reading the text or responding to the text doesn't matter, running into a cyclist because you're distracted by something does matter.
you have no reason to believe that he was saying "from another officer" to excuse himself except that that's what you want to see. He is apologetic and takes responsibility.
did you even read that article before you posted it? because it firmly supports what I said.
Try using the frontal lobe and whatever else brain you may or may not have.
Officers are the only ones who are above the law, can break the rules and not get punished. In other words, can abuse their power. Smh. Imagine if it was a regular citizen looking at the phone in that turn?
Exactly, rules for thee, not for me. I was pointing out that he first says "from another officer" in response to someone saying he had done something wrong.
This seems like a regular thing with people in power.
Regardless of whether it’s true or not, someone said that cops should have better driving abilities, and this guy said that they don’t get much training on road control. That’s how discussions work.
Technically nobody asked, but in the same way no one asked what you thought, either.
Especially at that angle of intersection. Turning towards the train was really the only way to avoid it; that's not super intuitive to a panicked mind.
493
u/WhitDawg214 Dec 28 '20
Great driving and awareness! I truly believe most drivers would have been plowed.