V1per41 wrote:
This article is horribly written, extremely biased, and gives no insight into who was actually at fault.
"A cyclist pedaling a $4,000 racing bike..."
Who cares how expensive the bike was?
"...when Jason Marshall, 31, came barreling along..."
Came barreling along? Really?
All we really know is that someone riding a bike hit a pedestrian. Fault here lies in what the light situation was. In my experience, pedestrians are usually far more oblivious to their surroundings and I wouldn't be surprised if the pedestrian in this case just decided to cross the street without looking in either direction.
If the cyclist did run through a red light, then he should be punished to the maximum extent of the law, but without more details, jumping all over him for this is premature.
Exactly what I thought while reading that horrible article. Completely biased.
" slammed into a suburban mom in town shopping for her daughter’s birthday present"
yeah, so...? It might as well say, "you could be out participating in some completely innocent activity when, all of a sudden, out of nowhere a cyclist breaking all the rules of the road purposefully aims his bike towards you to turn you into road kill, because that's what all these a-hole cyclists do."
"These guys think that they have entitlement and they don’t ride in the bike lanes." Isn't it perfectly legal for cyclists to be in the car lanes?
Everyone is always extremely biased against cyclists and this article is clearly no exception. Like Viper said, all we really know is that a cyclist and a pedestrian collided, leaving the pedestrian brain dead.
Maybe the pedestrian had earbuds in and only briefly glanced before crossing the street. I've had people look at me in the eyes and then walk out in front of me (not in a cross section) at the last second when I'm going 20mph on a bike. Going based off of my experiences as a cyclist, I'd be much more inclined to blame the pedestrian. But, like I said, we don't really know anything right now.