The one time I managed to get a license plate, the police claimed that without witnesses, they couldn’t do anything. ACAB.
It sucks but unless he hurt you, hit your bike, or you have any sort of footage what is the police suppose to do? Show up, he denies everything and that’s it.
If they could charge him on your claims alone, think about the scary consequences of such a “legal” system.
In most jurisdictions, a note could be put on the driving record. If a pattern on aggressive driving were to be established, a prosecutorial or civil suit effort would have an easier time of litigating against that driver.
In my case, yes, there was paint damage from my bike, which would be evidence.
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 sucks but unless he hurt you, hit your bike, or you have any sort of footage what is the police suppose to do? Show up, he denies everything and that’s it.
If they could charge him on your claims alone, think about the scary consequences of such a “legal” system.
Start a paper trail. If multiple unconnected bikers report them or they are involved in an accident later it is prior evidence of reckless driving.
Even if he denies it when police show up to ask questions it might scare him enough to stop doing it.
By this measure, justice was impossible to achieve before the invention of the cell phone video camera.
Yes, you do need some kind of evidence if you don’t have a witness. And I mentioned other kinds of evidence than video footage.
In most jurisdictions, a note could be put on the driving record. If a pattern on aggressive driving were to be established, a prosecutorial or civil suit effort would have an easier time of litigating against that driver.
In my case, yes, there was paint damage from my bike, which would be evidence.
Edit to add: this was a bit before camera phones.
For sure, that should’ve been more than enough for them to act at least. I’m sorry this happened to you.
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.