My, my the cyclist couldn't see the big red truck and ran into it while cycling... Oh please!

That didn't take long. When there's blood in the water,  sharks start circling. .

OK..  So someone knows the smell of money..This is why I'll go into hiding for a few months if and when I hit a jackpot..

 I will take taxi's because I will be able to afford to. Especially to and from the Lottery office. Everywhere else also.

BAN BIKE LANES

If it was the Chinese delivery man he would of picked up the Egg rolls and kept going.

Some good advice before you claim your JP win is to consult a good investment adviser, talk to a lawyer, get advice from a tax accountant - things like that, "get your ducks in a row".  I've always thought a consultation with your insurance agent should be on the list too...specifically about increasing liability coverage on your vehicle for cases just like this as well as that on your home, just in case someone "trips on a crack" in your sidewalk.

and this is why winners should get at least 5M$ in umbrella insurance!  Not only is his truck BRIGHT RED, it also is big.  The chances of someone NOT seeing that truck unless the bike rider were riding blind - are pretty slim.  UMBRELLA INSURANCE!

This is total BS. just trying to get paid. This is what happens when the whole world knows you won the JP. Was the bike propelled by rocket boosters?

Very tacky of the lawyer to mention he was a lottery winner.  What does that have to do with what happened?  It could have been a penniless person being careless too.

lol I LOVE drivin the car i have, HOWEVER, yep. This...right here, car service works wonders at times! 

I see this man settling. I don't know why , but i am seeing him settle $$$ sooner than later,for the early 40s young man whose

injured.adios

If you win the lottery , I highly suggest you do what few smart Russians  do. Get a dashcam recorder.

There are lowlifes in every walk of life, you got to protect your self if become a target for them.

That's a fact. A few year's ago l saw this guy step into oncoming traffic at an intersection and was hit, from talking to some folks at the scene: the driver " was at fault" because regardless- when a person is hit; someone has to pay. I call that irresponsible behavior. Jr may well have acquired an Attorney after Mac- cart ran off at the mouth with his " these lottery winners. ."

**** This is just another reason why I love Anonymity. 

Every lottery winner or people of means should consider getting an LLC.  Over the years I've seen several winners pictures and as an example it will say Johnson LLC.  It makes it hard or sometimes impossible to get to someone's assets.

Probably attempting to get Jr to Settle. 

WOW ............

Anthony Perosi, U got $39 mil outta $136 million won<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<............Congrats, but don't spend it ALL on a bicycle>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Better yet, Psyko can give U a good Cannondale 4 FREE & have

2 left 4 me!!!!!!!!! Anyway....counter sue D sucker 4D $136 million cause he scrached UR truck door>> !!!

LLC are not bullet proof from lawsuits, particularly when injury is involved.

The bottom line here is this: Reasonable efforts by both the rider and the Owner of the vehicle.  Did the rider attempt to avoid the incident? Had the driver at the time been aware of his cautionary efforts in opening and closing the door. Variables were in play and any good judge would address both sides on cautionary efforts. 

We are human first, capable of injury or great deeds, money doesn't change that....

thats why you always get chaufered when  you win big, and you  lease your house. then gold diggers can sue the  car company and property owner not you.

Right Goose- leasing a property does not absolve you of responsibility. People in Stockton who walked away from their homes during the Countrywide Real estate collapse were not off the hook- they still had to pay despite not living in those houses anymore. Lease companies are not idiot's, they looked at all the angles before going into the business.They cannot be left holding the bag for their clients lack of vision. Read the fine print next time you lease Anything. ..

W/ a big win you need a lawyer anyway, be sure to get one that can take care of this kind of stuff, have them on retainer.

One thing I'm sure they'll tell you is that you need insurance w/ an excessive claims clause.

Fed up w/ people on bikes that think they're bulletproof !

all the more reason to invest in heavy metal or something high speed & goes just about any whar

antique store license plates are mandatory

Let's hope for both of them that Mr Perosi,Jr. has good liability coverage for this accident.

His Insurance co is going to have to defend the lawsuit.

Mr Perosi best seek legal counsel to make sure his Auto Carrier defends the case in good faith and let's him know in advance if his policy limits  will be exhausted by the damages, which in all probability will occur.

If the verdict exceeds the limits of his policy, hope his personal attorney defends him as well so that all his winnings are not all awarded to the Plaintiff.

Those bikes can sometimes sneak up even if you check for clearance, either with the side view mirror, or gradually opening the door, ever so slowly to peak out for cyclists. 

NY is a pure comparative negligence state. The Jury in NY will no doubt, award the Plaintiff a big award for his injuries, loss of income, and consortium. 

Yeah, we always have to be careful when operating a motor vehicle.

A perfect example for why jackpot winners should be allowed to remain anonymous. If your win is publicized, some one, somewhere, some how, is going to be looking for a payday.

Now, common sense tells me, if I'm on a bicycle in a bike lane, and I DON'T want to run into someone's car door, I ride far enough away from the cars that it won't happen. DUH!!!

It is the same thing you do when walking down the aisle of a parking lot. If you hear a car motor running, a car start up, or you see a cars back up lights come on, you either stop, or move out toward the middle of the aisle so the person doesn't back up into you. Because there may be a good chance the person does not see you. You can't just assume the driver will see you in their back up camera. They might not have one. Pay attention!!! YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE OF YOUR SURROUNDINGS!!!

If you're in a bike lane look ahead. Did you see someone pulling into a parking space, did you see someone's tail lights go out? If so, then someone may be getting out of the car!!! Move away from the car and you won't run into the door. What is so hard about that?

Drivers are supposed to give bike riders at least 3 feet of space when they pass them on the road, maybe cyclists need to give cars at least 3 feet of space also. 

Bike lanes are about 5 feet wide and most car doors are about 3 feet wide. This type of accidents must happen thousands of times everyday in US cities. I can't take a side on this lawsuit until more information comes out or maybe video evidence is obtained and shared with us.

That sucks.  But I agree,  countersue for the damage to the door.

I ride every day believe me when I say cyclist go to fast in and out of Traffic. The bike lanes are a good way to get doored I've came close a few times but I don't hug the cars. Because cyclist is such a small item its really my responsibility to be careful. guarantee this guy was riding to fast. now wants payment

Btw I ride 10 to 15 Miles a day 4 to 5 days a week and no not because I got a DWI.

     This is how it should be.

oh no. Just make sure you look out ur mirrors . you need to any ways as other cars may be coming and no one wants to win the door prize lol or we could say the cyclist won the door prize in this case

This certainly sets a precedence.  I generally stay away from bike lanes, as they are on high volume roads.  I haven't had any close calls with the "door prize", but I think from what I have read about road safety, that is is more of the bikers responsiblity to avoid the cars then the other way around.  Thats another reason I avoid bike lanes.  There is really no way for a biker to avoid the moving cars and avoid the parked car open door at the same time.

How can they have a bike lane between the road and the parking spaces without expecting lots of accidents?

I have yet to see someone riding a bicycle on the road that obeys traffic laws!

WTF? They took a 100 Million out for taxes? That is BULL<snip>! 

What a <snip> this biker is.

Why don't they just play the lottery themselves if they want a payday.  It's way too easy to win in New York, all you gotta do is buy a ticket there & bam you win!

That 136 million was probably the annuity amount. If he took the cash amount the taxes weren't 100 mil.

i have no idea. Usually the bike lane is usually sandwiched between the curb and the parking space making it tricky for anybody exiting from the passenger side. 

But that's what car insurance is for. The jackpot winner shouldn't have to worry. I think

Most bike lanes in NYC are poorly designed, one of the reasons cyclists are killed routinely. Area's in Brooklyn like Park Slope are one of the focal point areas for the Mayor's Vision Zero plan. I wouldn't doubt if this cyclist is a proponent of the plan and this is his way of pointing out how 'dangerous' cars are. He should just be lucky he didn't end up as a stain on the street. Sue for medical if he doesn't have coverage but that's all.

Wonder why he didn't file a claim with his insurance company ??? Now you will have any and everybody coming out trying to sue.

someone jumps a fance on your ressidence, and cuts there arm. they're trespassing. but you as property owner get sued. masybe they  break a leg jumping down, but uyou have a high fence. do they sure the leaseor or leasee? any unsafe   property injury claims must surely go against the owner, not the tenant.

That last sentence had me rolling!

These bikers are a scourge, they fly down the street at breakneck speeds and then it's your fault when they screw up and get hurt. He should have rolled over him with the truck. 

Several cities here have bike lanes, but I don't see how a bike running into an open car door is any different than another car hitting an open door. The person on the bike should have known of the possibility of a car door opening. My guess is the biker found out the car owner won the lottery and is hoping for a large settlement.

Because the insurance company didn't just win the lottery.

Shake-downs come in many flavors.  If there's a big winner there will be people standing in line in hopes of throwing themselves in front of your car and then claim it was your fault.  Sue the bicyclist for damaging the door and speeding. 

Wow, this story stinks. The guy probably just got his money this week and there's a someone out to sue him already. Too bad because that could happen to anyone of us.

However, I hate bicyclist. They make me nervous when I'm driving near them. Especially when they're in packs!

I hear about these types of accidents all the time on the New York News.

Great video Joshua. I'm gonna get a dashcam too.

The article has all the information that's necessary, assuming it's true. If you open your door into traffic you're the one at fault.

I get the feeling most of you guys on here don't understand what 'dooring' is. It's not something you can just avoid, and in fact it has caused the death of at least one cyclist in NYC. The fault of being doored is totally on the person in the vehicle. Too many people open their door without checking to see what is coming, and most of them should be thankful that there is a bike lane there or else instead of just injuring someone else, they'd be often losing their doors from vehicle traffic.

What's the worst about dooring a cyclist, is the person opening the door rarely cares about the harm they cause to the cyclist or damage done to the bike. Hate cyclists or not, you're ignorant if you believe they are constantly at fault in these events. Hundreds of tickets are written for them in New York and Chicago recently enacted a law that even causing a cyclist to swerve out of the way of your door opening will get you a $300 ticket (dooring them gives you a $1000 ticket).

This video below is a perfect example for you people to understand. Zero time to react by the cyclist.

And perhaps another, from the view of a cab that thankfully didn't kill the cyclist thrown off his bike after being doored.

ttech, your videos prove that these bicyclist are dangerous on the road especially in the city. They weave thru traffic and don't obey the same laws as cars do and that's why they cause these accidents.

I say ban cyclist in the city streets!!!

Pain in the butts!

This is where they should ride their bikes. In the country for Gods sake!

Well Mr. Perosi,looks like u may have to pay something.An if u do look at it this way,after court,if it goes that far,u can take a nice vacation anywhere on the planet.Good Luck.

He'll end up having to pay something. The cyclist got injured while riding in the bike lane where he has the right to be and Perosi was careless in opening his door without checking first.  He won't do that again as it'll be an expensive lesson to learn.  I'm sure lawyers look into how much someone is worth before they sue them on behalf of their client, or before they even take the case.  I would imagine lottery winners are special prey as they're viewed as only having won their money so they don't deserve to have all of it.

Yeah, a Dashcam would be a worthwhile thing to install, as well all the video surveillance he can muster.  I'm sure someone will "trip" on his property one day.

I subscribe to a website feed "English Russia".  They post all sorts of videos and photos, clandestine visits to Chernobyl, the war in the Ukraine, several from that huge meteor a yr. or two ago,  things like that, but they also have a lot of Russian dashcam compilation videos.  I've spent hours watching them and the "road rage" abounds.   They have the cams b/c of all the bogus "accidents".

I agree 100% the cyclist in the first example had no time to stop because he took a huge chance going between the stopped and parked cars. In the second it looks like the cyclist tried to create his own lane too but neither example showed a bike lane. Laws vary in states, but I believe the two wheel vehicles laws apply to cyclist where there is no bike lane. 

I can't comment on the New York and Chicago laws because you didn't say how they apply to a cyclist trying to create his own three foot lane.

The cyclists in the videos posted were obeying 100% of the traffic laws. You have a hatred for cyclists, I get it, but they were at 0% fault in those videos. The people in the vehicles were the ones doing something wrong (in both cases they would be given a citation if police witnessed it), so stop acting all high and mighty like people in vehicles aren't dangerous and that every cyclist is pure evil. Those videos only prove that you don't know what you're talking about.

The second one was taken in Chicago, on a street that has a bike lane. But even if it didn't have a marked bike lane, in Chicago, like most cities, cyclists have the right to ride where the bike lane would be. The only roads they aren't allowed to do that on are places like highways, that are also closed off to pedestrians. In Chicago, at least 20% of all cycling crashes are caused by dooring.

Any time you are exiting a vehicle, you are required to check to make sure you're not going to hit or block anything coming. In both of those cities (Chicago and NYC), the people in the vehicle are regularly decided to be at fault in dooring incidents, even if no formal bike lane exists. Though there have been one or two cases in Chicago where the wording of the law has meant both the cyclist and the person in the vehicle both receive tickets. But the fact is, the person in the vehicle doing the dooring is regularly found to be at fault in these cases.

"The second one was taken in Chicago, on a street that has a bike lane. But even if it didn't have a marked bike lane, in Chicago, like most cities, cyclists have the right to ride where the bike lane would be."

The car was parked and the bike came up as the driver was opening the door.

"Any time you are exiting a vehicle, you are required to check to make sure you're not going to hit or block anything coming."

How can anyone prove the driver didn't "make sure" before opening the door?

"But the fact is, the person in the vehicle doing the dooring is regularly found to be at fault in these cases."

But the case we're talking about is in New Jersey.

Oh come on, Dude.. how fast was this cyclist going? That guy was speeding. Cyclists should have to obey speed limits just like drivers, it's so obvious he was at risk going at that speed, and he failed to observe the vehicles brakelights being on..why should cyclists get awarded in lawsuits for cycling like mindless retards,, it's his fault he got hurt. How is a passenger in the back seat of a vehicle supposed to see a bicyclist bulleting past him

they need to Amend these cycling laws so it doesn't turn into a bunch of frauds zipping near cars trying to get a lawsuit, maybe they should make Bicycling licenses just like Drivers licenses..and forve cyclists to take a drivers Ed course regarding bike and traffic safety  if they want to integrate so badly.  Most drivers are not aware of the newly imposed bike laws 

another Bloomberg follie  the blue collar working man has to deal with..yuppies can sue you for falling off their bikes And tearing they're polo shorts now

"How can anyone prove the driver didn't "make sure" before opening the door?"

The fact that he opened the door in front of the cyclist is obvious proof that it wasn't safe to open the door. It's possible that he looked, but he obviously didn't do a good enough job of making sure it was a safe. Opening your door into traffic is the same kind of violation as speeding. You're guilty simply because you did it, even if you didn't mean to do it.

"But the case we're talking about is in New Jersey."

I'm pretty sure that Brooklyn is still in New York.

Yes, the car was stopped. What does that matter? Every dooring incident happens when the car is stopped/parked. And every single one of those dooring incidents found the person opening the door at fault. The cyclist in that video wasn't in the wrong. What you saw in that video is what motor-vehiclists get ticketed for across the country. Blame the cyclist if you want for "coming up as the driver was opening the door", but the law sees it as the driver opening up the door into the cyclists' path.

And well, most would assume that since he opened the door and hit someone, causing them to fly off their bike, that they didn't look to make sure it was safe to do so. Unless you're saying that along with any fine for dooring someone, he should also have a higher fine (and possibly a serious charge) for purposely injuring someone.

The case we're talking about is actually in Brooklyn, which is in New York, which has this law:

Section 1214. Opening and closing vehicle doors. No person shall open the door of a motor vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonable safe to do so, and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of the vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers. [Source]

Thankfully for motor-vehiclists of NYS, that fine is only $150, but as I mentioned before, lawsuits and the resulting settlements have gone into the six figure area. I'd love if they increased that to the level that Chicago has, as people clearly don't take the current law - and resulting fine - seriously enough.

And back to the other video, where the person passes on the right of the stopped cab, I looked up the exact law for DC, and under D.C. Municipal Regulations Section 1201.3 it states a cyclist may pass a vehicle on either the left or right side.

I love how many people on here just blindly throw rationality and the law out the window because they have a deep seeded hatred for cyclists.

I obviously hit a raw nerve on you ttech. You seem so defensive and abrasive. How many times have you been "doored"?

No matter how you slice it ttech (dooring or not) bicyclist are adrenaline junkies who treat traffic as a playground and obstacle course. They don't have regard for anyone's safety including their own. Witness:

"The fact that he opened the door in front of the cyclist is obvious proof that it wasn't safe to open the door."

The real fact is most cars have four doors, two doors have no mirrors and the mirror on the front passenger door is for the driver. Who is at fault when the passenger puts their head out of the window to look back and is hit by a bicyclist?

"It's possible that he looked, but he obviously didn't do a good enough job of making sure it was a safe."

What he saw depends on how fast the bike was going and if it was darting in and out of traffic. How many feet can a bike travel in the time it takes to look in the mirror and open the car door?

"Opening your door into traffic is the same kind of violation as speeding."

Are car drivers going 100 mph in a school zone fined the same in Brooklyn as a passenger in a parked car opening the door?

"You're guilty simply because you did it, even if you didn't mean to do it."

I get it, to avoid "dooring" bicyclists, NY drivers are required to climb out of their sun roofs, and crawl over the hood. I mistakenly thought the New Jersey jackpot winner was in NJ, but I wasn't trying to con the readers into believing it's illegal to exit a vehicle when parked near a bike land in NY.

It would be better to just ban bicycles, to save these bicyclists from themselves.  The bicycle coalition has it where bicyclists aren't responsible for their actions,  but it is always the drivers fault when they get hit or injured for their reckless bicycle riding. 

"The second one was taken in Chicago, on a street that has a bike lane. But even if it didn't have a marked bike lane, in Chicago, like most cities, cyclists have the right to ride where the bike lane would be"

There was barely enough room to open the driver side door of the parked car because there was a car in the next lane. IMO, Having a bike lane on a two lane street with a third lane for parking is an accident waiting to happen. I watched the video "Getting doored by taxi Union Square" and it was rear left passenger door that opened hitting the bicyclist. That guy was swerving all over the place trying to avoid pedestrians and the traffic made it almost impossible to see the cab door opening.

Watching that video, who is at fault when a bicyclist hits a pedestrian?

In that video, the person in the cab is clearly at fault. Opens her door into a bike lane without making sure it was safe to do so.

That person is hardly swerving all over the place, especially when he comes upon the cab. He had to avoid two pedestrians that were in the wrong for crossing the bike path without looking. That's the same as crossing the street at a non-designated area, I don't think they can get a ticket for crossing a bike lane that way, but they are still responsible for yielding to the oncoming traffic. Later there is a car stopped in the bike lane (against the law, btw) and he has to leave the bike path (legal) to pass it. He clearly is watching traffic to make sure he safely enters the roadway (again, legal).

If a cyclist hits a pedestrian, it's basically the same as a motor vehicle hitting one. Was the pedestrian on the cross walk and was that person responsibly crossing said crosswalk? Cyclists have the duty to yield to pedestrians just as motor vehicles do, but you can't blame a cyclist (or a motor-vehiclist) if the pedestrian moves into the crosswalk unsafely. In fact, the pedestrian could be found at fault in those cases. I've also seen cases where both the cyclist and the pedestrian are at fault, this typically happens when the pedestrian isn't using a crosswalk (illegal) and the cyclist is riding the wrong way (also illegal) and so the person looking to cross the street isn't looking for opposite direction traffic, thus thinking it's safe to illegally cross.

Congrats, you win ignoramus of the year award.

I'm not going to play your childish game of finding images to try and prove a point, but you could find images showing that pedestrians and motor-vehiclists doing the same. Of course, any normal person with a working brain understands that it doesn't mean every person is the same.

What's funny is that your very first image is during a cycling race and the car is one of those media cars, and was at fault for that crash. That isn't even the first time a safety/media vehicle covering a cycling race has crashed into a cyclist. But you know, it's fun to be ignorant, so go on living in your fantasy land if it helps you feel better. I do love how ignorant you are of things like street races with vehicles, those who do stunt jumps in vehicles, the event from a few days ago where a motor vehiclist plowed through a group of pedestrians, and those drunk drivers who drive the wrong way on highways. But again, sorry to interrupt your ignorance.

Yes ttech it's true that I'm ignorant of the cyclist protocols, laws and modus operandi that you are aware of. You must be a cyclist attorney or an annoying cyclist.

No matter how intelligent your argument is, a cyclist is at such a disadvantage when it comes in contact with an automobile or concrete. Almost all accidents are met with death or serious injury.  Still you continue to repeat it's the car drivers fault all the time but the car driver isn't dead, the cyclist is. A cyclist has no steel or airbags to save his life.

It's for their safety that they shouldn't be allow to cycle in traffic.

If that's what you guys are into, have at it. I'm sure another accident will be on the news tomorrow.

Life is too short for cyber fighting.

Sorry about the photos. My ex-wife complained that I was too visual too.

It's ok for you to interrupt my ignorance. You have entered my fantasy and are welcome in my fantasy.

Have a brew and a great weekend ttech.

This is how I roll when I want exercise.

My wife said "So you want a riding lawn mower"?. It's My birthday present.

I agree with you pickone4me! Save the bicyclist from harming themselves and innocent people who don't even see them coming!

As that cyclist activist ttech said repeatedly "it's not the cyclist fault, it's the motor vehicle drivers fault".

No responsibility for their actions! Amen!

Congrats, you win ignoramus of the year award.

"Thank you ttech, thank you!"

I wasn't the only one to disagree with ttech but he chose me as the most ignorant person on this blog. I feel very honored and special.

Do I get a check? Trophy? Anything?

Anyway, thanks again ttech!

"He clearly is watching traffic "

The bicyclist (and you too) obviously missed the cab was stopped and had its blinker lights on. I didn't expect the bicyclist to see the cab behind pulling into the right lane to go around the parked cab, but I'm betting you were hoping I didn't see it either. I have no idea if the person in the cab knew NY's bike lane laws or not, but I saw a reckless bicyclist who put himself in danger.

"In that video, the person in the cab is clearly at fault. Opens her door into a bike lane without making sure it was safe to do so."

It's obvious you're very passionate about biking in busy large city traffic, but you could have at least watched the entire video. The cab was clearly parked outside the bike lane with the blinkers on and the cab driver said he told the passenger to watch out for the bike. The passenger said she didn't understand what the driver meant and the bicyclist did not want anybody to call the police.

According this story, Kieran Del Pasqua lost use of "both arms, required surgery and now has screws in his elbow". With all those injuries, why didn't Del Pasqua immediately call the police or have the ambulance driver contact them to meet him at the hospital?

Not an attorney and mostly drive a motor-vehicle. Though I do possess a brain and rationality, and realize that cyclists doing something wrong do not represent cyclists as a whole, just as motorists doing something wrong do not represent motorists as a whole.

And no, most accidents on bikes do not end with death or serious injury (also, not sure why you think that because the cyclist is the one that gets injured in dooring incidents that it must be their fault... that's some of the dumbest logic I've ever heard). Plenty only result in bumps and bruises, maybe some road rash. Same with accidents between multiple motor-vehicles. But I don't hear you whining about them, despite the numerous recalls of the entire vehicle or the safety measures in them.

But I get it, you don't want to admit that cycling is pretty safe until a driver, distracted by their phone, GPS, fixing their make-up in the mirror, or any of the other things that regularly distract drivers, causes an accident involving a bicycle. It doesn't fit your view of them, so naturally you want live in a world without that fact and instead blame every single accident involving a bicycle on the cyclist.

He (like every other cyclist) likely just expected the person in the cab to follow the law and not unsafely open the door. Cyclists have to deal with almost the exact scenario every single day, it's just that usually the person in the vehicle is following the law and paying attention to their surroundings. It's like saying you should slow down at every single green light you drive through just in case someone breaks the law and runs a red light. You're essentially victim blaming here, as the cyclist was following the law and was only doored because someone wasn't paying attention as the law requires them to.

Not sure what your second comment is supposed to be saying. The cab driver followed the law by not parking in the bike lane, told the people to watch out for the bike, they didn't hear and didn't safely open the door, doored the guy, and the guy on the bike didn't feel like calling the cops (he says because the cops are corrupt). What happens after the video isn't relevant to what the first few seconds of the video shows, which is someone opening the door in an unsafe manner, resulting in the dooring of a cyclist lawfully using the bike lane.

And in the video, I'm unsure exactly who would take the blame, the taxi driver or the girl opening the door. It's possible they would share the blame. The law says a taxi driver shouldn't pick up or drop off fares in the bike lane. The wording doesn't clarify if it simply means they shouldn't be stopped in the bike lane (which is illegal for any vehicle to do, resulting in a $115 fine) or that they shouldn't stop in a manner that puts the open door in the path of a cyclist in the bike lane (which other laws referring to bike lanes say is legal for commercial vehicles, which as NYC taxis pay CMVT, I would assume they would be regarded as a commercial vehicle). At the same time, the law does say that nobody should open their door in an unsafe manner, which is what the girl did. Many states/cities could do some good and clear up certain laws regarding bicycles/bike lanes.

Of course, even in places where the wording is clear as can be, there have been instances where the cyclist is blamed for being doored (in particular, this instance in San Francisco where GEICO tried to blame the cyclist for being doored, despite the law being extremely clear that the person in the vehicle was completely at fault, and even more so as the driver parked illegally in the bike lane). Basically, it's annoying to see cyclists get treated as second class citizens and be blamed for following the law. I keep mentioning Chicago, they seem to understand biking more than other cities, with the harsher penalty for dooring and taking the initiative to build bike lanes that are much safer than the current ones in most cities where it's just a painted section of road. Instead of it going 'sidewalk/parked car/bike lane/road' it's 'sidewalk/bike lane/parked car/road', along with a buffer between the parked car and the bike lane.

Until more cities build similar lanes, we're going to constantly have these issues of dooring and blaming one person or the other. At the very least, cities should go the route of "buffered" bike lanes. Santa Monica has these, where I used to ride daily, and it was nice having that extra room as there were certainly people that didn't look and opened their door as I was riding up to/by them.

As for why Del Pasqua didn't immediately call police, maybe he didn't think the damage done to him was significant and didn't want to involve police (as we see in that video, and many others on YouTube, a lot of dooring accidents don't get police involved). He could easily have not realized the damage due to adrenaline, it's not uncommon to have a serious injury but don't feel the affects or realize how serious the injury is until later. People have gotten shot or had broken ribs and not realized it due to adrenaline. 

Myself, if I was ever doored and required an ambulance, calling the cops is what I would do almost immediately, but everyone is different. For stuff like people unsafely opening their door into a bike lane, the most I've done is yelled at them to pay attention, usually by simply yelling 'watchout!'.

And to clarify, as I'm sure it could be confusing with the way I wrote it, I realize NY has bike lanes like the ones mentioned, but the section where the dooring incident happened didn't have a buffer zone between traffic and the bike lane (which a buffered zone wouldn't have caused the dooring incident, as since the name suggests, it gives a buffer between the cyclist and doors being flung open).

ttech, so you admit you're "not an attorney" but you won't admit that you're a cyclist. Hmm?

Opps, I was mistaken. You corrected me. You said "most accidents on bikes do not end with death or serious injury". If this is so then why should we care if someone doors you cyclist or runs you guys down?

Even if cycling is safe as you say, when an accident happens, the cyclist is going to lose because he's only made of flesh and bones. The cyclist has no protection no matter who's "fault" the accident is. The person in a car has the vehicle as his first line of protection.

If your only line of defense is to blame the motor vehicle driver, then a lot of cyclist are going to get hurt.

Also, you didn't mention my lawnmower bicycle. You don't like it?

ttech, nice pictures! I see what you're saying now. Good job.

I support your idea of "sidewalk/bike lane/parked car/road". That is much safer for cyclist and motorist.

You didn't mention if you like my riding mower?

Ha, yes, I did get a good chuckle from your riding lawnmower. It's certainly unique, though I do have to question the traction you'd get on that thing.

Here are cyclists acting like a you know what.  It is ignorant to say they aren't at fault.  I have seen these fools endanger themselves riding on highways where actual vehicles are going by at 55mph plus.

Here is another one

And another

Right on!  I follow my state bicycle advocate and the other national ones they like to pal around with.  I also created a blog  to point out their errors in their "visions" and junk legislation that won't improve bicycling safety, and instead is an assault on drivers, and a war on cars. 

I want to point out that because they flat out refuse to educate non-drivers about the dangers of being around motorized traffic, these problems with non-drivers are always going to exist.

If motorists would get dash cams, and post these bad bicyclists on youtube,  and show this stuff to our state politicians,  we could really put the brakes on bad bicycling and force accountability out there.

It is irritating when they say a bicycle is a vehicle, except when they conveniently create loop holes to decide a bicycle is not a vehicle, but yet they expect to have full right to use the road ways!

The guy in the Lambo isn't acting that much better, honestly. But anyways, what is your argument here, that not all bicyclists obey the law? Nowhere did I say they all do. Not all motorists obey the law, either. Why, just the other day someone drove their car into a group of pedestrians with the intent to kill them (and kill them, he did). Please, let's not act like cyclists are the only people to ever not obey the law or do stupid stuff, it really destroys any argument you want to try and make.

I guess by your logic, I should assume you are just as terrible a driver as the people in this video?

No, of course not. That would be foolish to lump every single motorist into the same category just because terrible drivers exist. Same with lumping every cyclist into the same category just because some disobey traffic laws and act reckless.

I forgot how wild ignorance ran on here and I now remember why people left. It's like trying to deal with a child, but worse because I imagine you are a grown adult and should know better.

Oh I see, you are responding with emotions/feelings, people that respond in that way are incredibly irrational and won't understand logic, and reasoning.  The bicycle advocates are VERY good at spinning things,  if someone says bicyclists do this, they will come back with well motorists do this and this, in which they imply that it is ok for bicyclists to do.

Wow pickone4me! Powerful videos. Good point!!

Not responding with emotion, responding with reason... which seems to be completely lost on you. It's your blatant ignorance that creates the emotion.

And who exactly are these lobbyists you speak of and who is saying it's okay for bicyclists to disobey the law? Because I haven't seen any of that here, only people being childish and ignorant, refusing to accept that both motorists and cyclists consist of people who disobey the law and act reckless, and people who don't.

Haha ttech!!! See my fantasy world isn't so bad. It's kind of unique! I thought you'd like that.

Welcome to my fantasy world!!!!!!

Speaking of fantasy, if I could only win MegaMillions tonight....

Can't say I would turn down living in a fantasy world right now. Good luck tonight, hopefully I finally get at least a dollar back.

ttech, a dollar back? I want you to win 2nd prize (I get 1st prize of course)!!

ttech? Are you a Red Raider?

Awful kind of you there.

And yes, I'm a Red Raider (which is getting harder and harder to admit these days).

Your definition of "reason" must really be far to the left.    You just have to look through their blogs, and facebook posts,  they don't explicitly come out and say it, but they imply it.

Bicyclists are the ones that wanted to use the road ways,  and then found out, hey there are these pesky motor vehicles, and don't understand the two will never be able to coexist without mudslinging.    I see bicyclists consistently recklessly endanger themselves where I live.  Yes I see other motorists breaking the law whenever I am out driving too. 

As for education, vision zero does not educate non-drivers, neither do vulnerable user laws.  Not educating non-drivers is where they will always FAIL, because no matter how much education is forced down drivers throats it won't save non-drivers who are stupid, and endanger themselves.  These people are martyr's for the bicycle advocates/coalition to attack driving more.

Even if you don't win or won't ever win the lottery, I recommend getting a dashcam recorder, especially if you live in the uinted states.

Have to agree here.

ttech, I don't want to fight with you and I hope we can agree to disagree because here is the issue to every single person who's been a driver for more than a day: a motorist can follow every single rule of law to a T and simply be considered at fault because the law says so. 

Remember crash for cash?  The reason that was so successful is because regardless of what the other driver did to cause the crash, the person rearending another vehicle was immediately at fault. You can be driving the designated 15mph in a residential neighborhood, but you're at fault if a kid zips in front of your vehicle and gets hit. Now based on what you're saying, a motorist can be doing everything he's supposed to be doing, but if he injures a cyclist, it's automatically his fault.

Does the cyclist have no responsibility? Either legally or intellectually?

Quite frankly, I don't care what the laws are, I'm not going to be pointing fingers at either party until I know how fast the cyclist was going, if Perosi looked before opening his door, how soon the cyclist sought medical treatment and if he even attempted to have his bills covered through insurance first. I'll tell you something else, if I was on that jury and found out he was traveling too fast to allow sufficient time to stop, I'd make sure he wouldn't get the payout he's so obviously fishing for.

My definition of reason is the same one that's in Webster's or Oxfords. I point out that some cyclists don't represent all cyclists, and people choose to continue to believe that all cyclists are evil and reckless.

Yes, sometimes cyclists are responsible for motor-vehicle related accidents, and other times the person in the vehicle is responsible. You seem to be ignoring that just because there are cyclists that are reckless, that a very large population of cyclists obey the law, and you would prefer to outright ban biking. That even though there are many more motor-vehicle with motor-vehicle accidents or incidents where a motorist is clearly disobeying the law, you don't believe vehicles should be banned. You somehow realize that with motor-vehicles, there are some bad eggs and they shouldn't all be banned because of those bad eggs, like you believe with cycling.

You believe stricter laws should be put on cyclists, but places like the Netherlands show that you only need take lives more seriously, creating more dedicated bike lanes and stricter laws on the motorists to greatly reduce cycling deaths (theirs is 12 deaths per 1 billion kilometers cycled versus 60-100 deaths per 1 billion kilometers in the US, even without mandatory bike helmet laws). In the US, even when a motorist is clearly at fault for a cyclists death, the cyclist is often treated as nothing more than an animal, so I'm not sure how you believe current US laws are attacking motorists in favor of cyclists. If making sure motorists are held accountable for the things they cause is "attacking" them, then I guess I'm fully on board with that, as not only should lives matter of people killed by motorists, but also because doing so has shown that it can create a much safer road for everyone.

Of course, I will agree that more education needs to be done, but for both motorists and cyclists (which is what the Netherlands does). And I keep mentioning Netherlands because they are pretty much the best reference for how to create a safe roadway for both motorists and cyclists, having one of the safest traffic systems in all of Europe.

I have no problem with disagreements, just the claiming of one group being 100% correct and the other being 100% in the wrong.

As I said in my last comment (which was posted after you posted yours), there are many, many instances where a motorist causes the death of a cyclist and the driver isn't held accountable for that person's death. They will get a ticket for clearly being in the wrong, but then are basically told that it's okay they just killed that person. That doesn't exactly sound like what you're saying with "a motorist can be doing everything he's supposed to be doing, but if he injures a cyclist, it's automatically his fault".

Accident reports are hardly filled with cyclists crashing into peoples' cars in hopes to get money. Many motorist/cycling accidents aren't even reported. I guess I can see where you may think the motorist is often found responsible for an accident with a cyclist, but that's hardly what stats show. I already mentioned the video that clearly showed a motorist responsible for dooring a woman in San Francisco and how GEICO still put the blame on the cyclist. San Diego has numbers that show cyclists are responsible for over half of the 2,500 accident reports from 2011 to 2014. The same has been found in Pittsburgh, though interestingly, in the UK, it's most often the motorist that is at fault. In Minneapolis, both motorist and cyclist shared almost equal responsibility for accidents.

Again, as I mentioned in the other post, the best way to approach cycling in the US is to treat cycling (and the lives of cyclists) seriously. I don't believe any city has even done the basic intersection design that the Dutch have, which is the below. Some cities are starting to take cycling seriously and creating truly dedicated lanes, but that number is few. There is evidence to support the more cyclists are treated like a part of the road, the safer cycling becomes and the less likely they are to disobey the law. That's what should be done, not removing and banning a completely valid form of commuting.

As for the incident at hand, it's obviously hard to place blame without knowing anything else about what happened, but it does sound like a basic case of a cyclist being doored.

It is not US Laws that are attacking motorists, it is the  bicycle advocates in certain states that create bad legislation.  I have read that vision zero some of the bicycle advocates are peddling around, it has a "vision" of zero traffic fatalities.  Vision zero has no plans to educate non-drivers in their 2 year action plan. 

As for the netherlands, the setup they have can stay there.  The bicycle coalition wants motorists to be subservient to bicyclists,  what was that equal rights thing about the road way?

I didn't see your latest posts, and to be honest I don't know if I'm going to bother reading it because I realized we've really strayed very very far from what the real topic is and what this is really about. I don't think for a minute that this guy would be suing if Perosi hadn't been a publicized lottery winner. The fact that  his ambulance chaser to made that despicable comment about the lottery winner thinking he's above the law says it all. The truck has insurance and I'm willing to bet this cyclist does too.

I know you think cyclists don't set out to injure themselves but the flipside is motorists don't set out to injure other people either. When one is blatantly negligent they should be held accountable, but it's not as if Perosi is some kind of sadist and purposely opened the truck door just to hit the guy. This boils down to someone with a lot of money being sued because he has a lot of money.

"He (like every other cyclist) likely just expected the person in the cab to follow the law and not unsafely open the door."

Expecting people in cars to do anything their way is why there are so many examples of bicyclists running into open car doors. In the example I saw, had the bicyclists slowed down when he saw the blinking lights on the cab and assumed the possibility the rear door would open, he could have avoided the accident. And had the passenger known the bike lane laws that accident would never happen.

It's the bicyclists that are putting themselves at risk by expecting drivers to conform to them. Some of the collisions had to result in serious injury and knowing a car driver or passenger was fined won't fix.

"As for why Del Pasqua didn't immediately call police"

I was comparing the OP the video where the bicyclists didn't want the police called. With all those injuries Del Pasqua require an ambulance.

"calling the cops is what I would do almost immediately"

Most people would unless they weren't injured but later found out the driver just won a huge lottery jackpot.

As I pointed out with how often motorists are responsible for the death of a cyclist but aren't held accountable, I can't blame some cyclists for attacking their laws. I can understand why you'd be mad at those people, but I'd be more mad at the government who isn't doing enough to provide adequate bike lanes that make it safer for both sides of the argument. And as much as you may dislike the Dutch way of things, but those laws you see as attacking motorists actually made everything a lot safer for everyone on the road, which is hard to see as a bad thing. Though of course, the US does like to think they are the greatest in every aspect and would hate to admit that cycling can be a very safe form of commuting if you just don't treat it like a joke (which many EU countries laugh - and cringe - at our take on traffic laws regarding cyclists). But hey, America finally legalized same sex marriage 15 years after the Dutch did, maybe we're on track to realize their take on cycling is also good for everyone.

The reason there are so many examples of cyclists being doored is because the drivers/passengers are ignorant of the law. Again, what you're doing here is blaming the victim. Cyclists arent "expecting drivers to conform to them", they're expecting them to follow what the law says.

And at the end, are you saying the cyclist faked a ton of surgery? A lot of people don't call the cops immediately, even when they are injured or their bike is damaged. You could also say that most people who weren't responsible for this kind of accident wouldn't hang up and dodge police calls inquiring about the incident.

I don't know why you're trying to argue that dooring is the fault of a cyclist, even though I've shown numerous times, for numerous states, that dooring is the fault of the person opening the door in an unsafe manner. That's the law, that's what is written in the court of law. It's like trying to say that robbing a bank is sometimes okay.

I'm not trying to say that Perosi is bad, but the law doesn't care if someone opened the door with intent. The law is that you must always safely open your door, which he did not. It resulted in the injuring of a cyclist. This incident was fully avoidable if he had checked his mirror for traffic before opening it, something the law says he is required to do every single time he opens his door while on a street.

Whether or not the lawsuit is completely motivated by money, we can't know that (though I will admit the lawyer sounds like a greedy SOB). But we can look at everything else and see that a cyclist was doored, which is illegal, and is the fault of the person opening the door. I don't know how this is even a discussion, since Perosi admitted that the dooring took place, that he opened the door and which caused Perosi to crash into it. People seem to be ignoring the acts of Perosi is what caused this guy to have screws put into his elbow, has lost him work, and possibly the full use of his arms, for the rest of his life. I'm not saying he should get millions, I'm saying that Perosi is responsible, and from there, the courts should decide how much money should be rewarded to the victim for medicals costs, pain and suffering, and loss of work.

Taking up a less dangerous hobby would be smart.  I question the speed this cyclist was going.  I also believe this was motivated by money.  The cyclist is not blameless here.

"And at the end, are you saying the cyclist faked a ton of surgery?"

The suit says "to regain use of both arms" which means he lost use of both arms and allegedly because he rode into an open car door. There is zero evidence a police report was made at the scene of the accident and because the suit says "Perosi also hung up on police when they called for the same information", it obvious the report was made long after. Doesn't common sense dictate calling police before leaving the scene or meeting them at he hospital?

"I don't know why you're trying to argue that dooring is the fault of a cyclist"

It's called old fashioned common sense, somebody parked their vehicle and they and/or their passenger want to exit. When I drive by parked cars, I know there is a possibility a door will open so I'm not saying accidents are the bicyclist fault, but simply asking why they are unaware of the obvious?

"that dooring is the fault of the person opening the door in an unsafe manner."

Saying it and proving it was "in an unsafe manner" are two different things. Depends on how the evidence is presented, but it's usually the bicyclist at risk so a judge may rule they were riding their bike in an unsafe manner. At 15 MPH they are traveling at 22 feet per second and if they are depending on the driver or a passenger to see them, it doesn't say much for them caring about their own safety.

If the law code includes the subjective "in an unsafe manner", it opens the "reasonable doubt" door which means the defendant's lawyer will ask Del Pasqua "why he didn't call the cops".

Just so I am understanding this correctly, you're now on the theory that this cyclist was following this guy around and speeding past his vehicle in the hopes that the person would then break the law and open their door into him?

"It is not US Laws that are attacking motorists, it is the  bicycle advocates in certain states that create bad legislation." 

And if the law says the very subjective "opening a car door in an unsafe manner", it's terrible legislation.

And wouldn't common sense say that a woman who is raped should immediately call the police and have a rape kit done? Yet that doesn't happen all the time. When the police report was filed shouldn't even matter. Perosi admitted to dooring the cyclist. The cyclist had injuries that required surgery. That's all that really matters.

Cyclists are fully aware of the possibility of being doored. The people in the video you posted admit that. I've mentioned the issue myself and how I was happy that Santa Monica has buffered paths. But why does that matter? There is a possibility a driver will be distracted and not notice the light is red or they don't realize they have a stop sign, causing them to plow into you as you drive through a green light or other intersection. But do you stop or slow down at every single intersection you have the right of way on just because of a possibility that exists? Maybe you do, just as some cyclists slow down when driving by vehicles, but most don't and you are not obligated to and if that possibility becomes a reality, the person following the law isn't to blame.

By not looking back and ensuring he wasn't going to obstruct any traffic at all, he opened the door in an unsafe manner. The fact that he hit someone by opening his door, means that it was in an unsafe manner. I don't know which street exactly this happened on, but I believe it's likely it happened on a 25mph street, which means if the cyclist was going 15mph, he was going well under the posted speed limit. I wouldn't exactly call that unsafe.

And back to the why didn't he call the cops argument? It's pointless. The easiest answer to that is the one I already stated, adrenaline often masks serious injury. The cyclist didn't think he was that badly injured and the extent of the injury wasn't found out about until later, at which point the cyclist decided to take action against the defendant for medical bills and other costs. Obviously I'm not an attorney so that's not exactly what would be said, but that's the gist of it. Look at the Gothamist post about this story and you'll see stories of other cyclists who got doored, one mentions believing they were fine, but after so long they realized their hand was broken, and as they neither exchanged info with the driver nor filed a report, the cyclist was left paying for surgery himself. It's not super rare to not involve police in these types of incidents.

Given what we know about this incident, which really isn't a whole lot but likely enough to take a guess at what happened, I would be very surprised if this doesn't end in an out-of-court settlement. I think it mostly comes down to how much they are going after him for, but as the cyclist had to have screws inserted into his arms and doesn't have full use of them, he's sympathetic, and Perosi already admitted to opening the door on him. And Perosi hanging up on police as they were trying to get the details of the accident also won't go well for him in court.

And for all we know, the wife called Perosi only to see about having his insurance over the bills, and have only resorted to the lawsuit because he refuses to accept his role in the incident (which I highly doubt insurance would cover this anyways, since it's not basic medical bills, but also the fact that the cyclist may be affected by this for the rest of his life). The story doesn't make it clear if they contacted Perosi before the lottery claiming, only saying "days after the crash". It was eight days after the crash that the winnings were claimed, then five days after that (so 13 days after the crash) that the lawsuit was filed.

"I don't think for a minute that this guy would be suing if Perosi hadn't been a publicized lottery winner. "

Right. Why would somebody sue a motorist who injures them if all the motorist has is auto insurance?

"The truck has insurance and I'm willing to bet this cyclist does too."

I don't know about the alternate universe you live in, but the cyclist's health insurance will only pay his medical bills (less deductibles, co-pays, or whatever). There's a chance he might have his own auto policy, in which case the no fault coverage will pay some of his lost income. None of that will pay him a dime for pain and suffering, whether he has a quick recovery or has limitations and pain that last the rest of his life.

"it's not as if Perosi is some kind of sadist and purposely opened the truck door just to hit the guy."

I've got great news for you. If a motorist ever injures you, you won't be required to sue them even if they did do it on purpose. OTOH, if they're still responsible for any damage they do, even if it is just an accident.

There are many, many instances of cyclists suing non-lottery winners for being doored. A lawsuit against those responsible for dooring someone is fairly normal. In Philadelphia a couple of years ago, the jury awarded a cyclist $2.4 million. Two years ago in Chicago, $700,000. Last year in Florida, $3.5 million. Then there are various others where the amount is $100,000-$200,000. All were your basic dooring incidents.

In a more perfect world, yes, the insurance of the vehicle owner would pay for these damages, but it rarely does. I've mentioned the GEICO incident a few times where video evidence showed it was 100% the fault of the driver, yet they refused to pay out medical cost for the cyclist.

The big issue with insurance companies is when you get into unquantifiable's... the things that you can't really put a number on. Things like the damage to the bike and the immediate medical costs the cyclist had to pay for surgery are something that insurance might pay for. But he also lost work time, and possibly the full use of his arms for the rest of his life, as well as any pain and suffering he will go through for the rest of his life. Those things, insurance doesn't care about and those things are often what people are sued for in accidents.

"He (like every other cyclist) likely just expected the person in the cab to follow the law and not unsafely open the door."

I don't expect the other drivers to follow the law driving in my SUV, but there is no comparison to which is much safer in a minor crash. And I still can't see how a bicyclist can prove somebody in the car opened their door unsafely.

"Cyclists have to deal with almost the exact scenario every single day, it's just that usually the person in the vehicle is following the law and paying attention to their surroundings."

If a bicyclist is that much danger every day, why do it? Just saying.

You keep saying "obeying the law", but unsafely opening a car door is actually deliberately dooring a bicyclist. Saying they looked, but didn't see the bike when a bicyclist can't prove they didn't hardly makes the person in the car at fault.

"Basically, it's annoying to see cyclists get treated as second class citizens and be blamed for following the law."

To me it looks like the bicyclist expect more than the four wheel vehicles that pay licenses, registration fees, and tax on gas. What I can't understand from this topic and video I watched is why neither bicyclist called the police and went directly to the hospital.

So you don't expect other drivers to follow the law when you drive? That must mean, then, that when you drive through a green light or an intersection where you don't have a stop sign, you stop anyways just in case one of the cars required by law to stop, doesn't stop?

And to prove someone opened the door we just have to look at one thing: did they open the door into traffic? If the answer is yes, as it is in this article, then you have your proof that they opened the door unsafely. It's that easy.

As for why cycle every day? Because there's a danger involved with many things people do every day and not everyone is paranoid? Taking public transportation is a danger every day to people, risking theft or assault, yet they do it. As mentioned above, motorists have to deal with the very real danger every day that someone will crash into them. Though dooring happens often, it doesn't happen to everyone and many bicyclists go just as long as people in motor-vehicles without having an accident.

And no, "unsafely opening a car door is actually deliberately dooring a cyclist" is incorrect. To deliberately door a cyclist the person would have had to check traffic, realize the cyclist is coming, then make the choice to open the door onto him. Unsafely opening a door is accidentally dooring a cyclist, but an accident caused by the carelessness of the motorist opening the door.

And saying if the person looked and didn't see the cyclist, but still accidentally doored the cyclist, that it isn't the motorists fault, I have to disagree with that (just as the law regularly does). If you are in your car at a stop light and attempting to turn right (assuming your state legally allows that), and you look left but don't see anyone, then turning right you get hit, you don't get out of blame just because you failed to see the other person. If you are backing up in a parking lot and accidentally hit a vehicle you didn't see in your mirror, it's not okay to dodge blame because you missed seeing that vehicle.

Yep, cyclists often expect much more from motorists... mostly that they follow the law and stop driving in the bike lane, stopping in the bike lane, and to not practice general disregard for safety by opening their door into traffic without checking to first make sure it's safe. But again, as you say, cyclists don't have to pay those taxes so I can see where motorists might have a grudge against cyclists (as at least a few on here do).

As I've said numerous times, people are different. Not everyone feels the need to get police involved in everything. I've been in a handful of fender benders (none caused by me) and none of them the police were called. Many cyclists get doored and don't call police or an ambulance. People get robbed, assaulted, threatened, and shot at without calling police, or an ambulance. Not calling the police has zero bearing on whether or not something illegal or against the law happened. Here's a suggestion to you, stop trying to understand why people that aren't yourself do the things they do. You're rarely going to know, because as I've said before and I doubt this is the last time you need to be told, everyone is different, and nobody is going to act exactly like you.