This is the way things have gone here in the UK for the past few years. They look for excuses to let the driver off. A few years ago a cyclist got killed a few miles from where I live. He'd ridden up the bridge and the driver had hit him so hard from behind it'd torn his body apart. The cyclist was just riding to work to earn a pittance to support his family.The police kept coming out with excuses: "The sun was in the driver's eyes!" (The sun was coming from behind, and if so why didnt the driver slow down, use his shades?) "The cyclist should have had lights!" (It was fucking daylight, you cretins, plus witnesses said the rider HAD lights on!) "The cyclist had hiviz on but his backpack covered a small bit of it, making it impossible for the driver to see him!" (so he HAD hiviz on, it was visible, daylight and good visibility but the driver couldnt have gone into any of the other 2 lanes and avoided the guy?)

The courts upheld the Police's views and let the driver off

[–] Freylint@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is honestly why I tell people commuting to work to get moto gear. Having an impact rated helmet and pads, padded hard knuckles, and your countries self defense option of choice tucked in your jacket is the only real insurance policy for murderously negligent cagers. Bike helmets aren't suitable for road riding. Although I don't know if CE back armor would help a man who got hit hard enough to "[tear] his body apart". Although I suspect thats more describing the severe road rash that requires expensive moto gear to prevent.

Unseriously: I as a patriotic American keep a 200. caliber AT hand mortar on me for all my bike rides for self defense reasons.