It sucks but unless he hurt you, hit your bike, or you have any sort of footage what is the police suppose to do?
It’s worth noting that most American states have a “3 foot law” that requires vehicles to pass bikers with at least 3 feet of space. (Often, drivers are also required to completely change lanes when doing so, although that varies more by state and by the width of the lane on that particular road.) If a driver in one of the 39 states runs a biker off the road, even if they never physically contacted the person on the bike, they almost certainly violated the “3 foot law.”
Yes, police often won’t investigate or bring charges, and yes, it sucks, but most of those dangerous drivers are indeed breaking the law.
I never questioned that. I even went with OP’s story, chose to believe they told the complete truth. But they complained about police not doing anything and the shitty reality of it is that without any kind of evidence the police cannot do anything.
I think we’re both in agreement about the result, but we shouldn’t forget that testimony is evidence. The chump behind the wheel will deny it, so you’ll have conflicting testimonial evidence, but until recently, this was usually all the evidence any prosecutor had. We’ve gotten too used to video evidence and now police won’t act without it, even though it’s not legally required. It just provides a convenient excuse for cops not to bother when they don’t care.
OK, you’re right. Ideally, the police should just follow up and not predict the result since that’s the judge’s job, not theirs.
I don’t think there are many countries with such a low crime rate where police can really work that close to the book though. And I think there are “better” examples for “ACAB” in the US.
It’s worth noting that most American states have a “3 foot law” that requires vehicles to pass bikers with at least 3 feet of space. (Often, drivers are also required to completely change lanes when doing so, although that varies more by state and by the width of the lane on that particular road.) If a driver in one of the 39 states runs a biker off the road, even if they never physically contacted the person on the bike, they almost certainly violated the “3 foot law.”
Yes, police often won’t investigate or bring charges, and yes, it sucks, but most of those dangerous drivers are indeed breaking the law.
I never questioned that. I even went with OP’s story, chose to believe they told the complete truth. But they complained about police not doing anything and the shitty reality of it is that without any kind of evidence the police cannot do anything.
I think we’re both in agreement about the result, but we shouldn’t forget that testimony is evidence. The chump behind the wheel will deny it, so you’ll have conflicting testimonial evidence, but until recently, this was usually all the evidence any prosecutor had. We’ve gotten too used to video evidence and now police won’t act without it, even though it’s not legally required. It just provides a convenient excuse for cops not to bother when they don’t care.
OK, you’re right. Ideally, the police should just follow up and not predict the result since that’s the judge’s job, not theirs.
I don’t think there are many countries with such a low crime rate where police can really work that close to the book though. And I think there are “better” examples for “ACAB” in the US.