no motor?

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...e-cars/1125276

https://liberalburblings.co.uk/2010/1...f-in-comments/

Glad I don't live there too!

Chris516

Ditto!!!

While I am adamant about 'taking the lane', regardless of that, or riding on the sidewalk, the whole area was a danger zone.

009jim

Red light does not mean a thing these days. When traffic lights were first used in Australia, and for most of my life, I think it was rare for people to run a red light. It was probably just negligence. But nowadays every time I go out I see probably at least one person blow a red light. It's worse because I don't drive much and when I'm on the bike I use the bike path. So statistically a lot people are treating the lights as just like; green = go, orange = go very fast, red = I'll take my chances. I saw a cyclist the other day just fly across an intersection and my hair stood on end. There were cars everywhere but he had a green and he made it.

atbman

"Rodriguez, 41, previously had a clean Florida driving record but was cited on Friday for running the red light.

She won't face criminal charges because she wasn't showing signs of reckless disregard, police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said. Rodriguez didn't appear impaired, and witnesses said she wasn't driving extremely fast or weaving in traffic.

"By law, running a red light does not rise to the level of reckless disregard," McElroy said."

Are .... they ... mad???? Since the woman was, according to the story, not "amber-gambling", but crossed some time after the lights had changed, how can her behaviour not be regarded as reckless disregard? Does this mean that you can drive with your finger up your arse, trying, but failing, to scratch what passes for your brains into action, sail thro' a red light without (presumably) noticing it, and it is not criminally irresponsible?

Is there anyone legally qualified on this forum who can explain this?

unterhausen

every time I have run a red light while driving a car, I just didn't see it in time.

carlspeed

Here's the thing. The lady went through the light, hit a car, and then the car she hit is the one that hit the cyclist. If she accelerated through the light some time after it had turned, then went through the light and hit the cyclist, who was in the intersection at that time, she could be charged with Vehicular Homicide, which is this:

The statute pretty much means that you have to do something in the vehicle with an intent to kill or hurt someone. The law will look at her intent as the intent to get through the intersection.

To clarify, I am not saying my opinion, just the way the law describes the action.

Dchiefransom

The screwed up part here, is that the cyclist's family would be suing the car that was hit by the red light runner.

wheel

In a state with the most cycle deaths

"What can government do? A government can't improve the driving habits of every individual who's out there," she said.

Maybe someone should tell her that a DL is a privilege. Right before they fire her.

SCROUDS

I would think that the point at which running a red light rises to the point of being reckless is when there are people or other vehicles in the intersection. How could blasting through a red light with enough force to slam another car and have that car slam someone on the sidewalk into a building not be reckless?

vol

Some of you seemed not to have read the article carefully:

"She was waiting on the sidewalk at Spruce Street and Himes Avenue for the crosswalk light when an SUV driven by Josefina Rodriguez ran a red light. A car hit the SUV, sent it spinning toward the sidewalk. Vega was thrown into a concrete block house. Police found her bike wedged beneath the SUV."

Anyway, it seems, even waiting on the sidewalk can lead one to death. This accident really has nothing to do with riding bike, she was waiting on the sidewalk. Also, I find it pretty risky sometimes to be waiting for the light (or whatever else) when you are holding your bike too close to the road: a car could hit the bike, which is protruding, even if not you.