actually most the hit and runs you see on the news are around that age. what does that mean?

mid 20s chick hit and run.

26 year old male in richmond

what if the driver was drunk? on drugs? of course he would flee.

its real easy for sometime to say "if i were this and that" but alot of people dont realize that when you're actually in the situation, majority of the time you go into panic. That's where people either decide to do crazy things

That means these kids are fxxked up.

I'm not saying I'm a saint, but I had the idea drilled into my head when I was learning how to drive at 16 -- if you get into an accident, you fxxking stay at the scene until it is sorted out.

When someone flees the scene, the natural guess would be drugs and/or alcohol related. Having said that, which offence would result in a more serious charge? A hit an run causing death? or a DUI charge where the injured stays alive?

well im guessing hit and run and death... but don't quote me on that.

:\

With the Canadian Justice System, both would be a slap on the wrist.

BUT

The driver could be charged under the MVA or the Criminal Code.

MVA - failing to remain at the scene of an accident (monetary fine)

CCC - failing to remain at the scene (numerous charges from property damage, to injury, to death of a person).

The difficult thing about charging someone under the CCC is that you have to PROVE intent. In this case, it would appear pretty obvious that the driver had collided with something, but he/she can easily argue that they thought they collided with a stationary inanimate object (ie. parked bike). He can even argue (lying albeit) saying that he got out of the car, looked around, and did not see anyone.

IF the driver was intoxicated, in his head he/she was probably thinking "I either get caught for driving drunk and hitting someone, or leave and MAYBE get caught".

and next we'll hear of either a suspended sentence, a small fine, or a slap in the wrist for this action...

Revscene: Blaming The Victim Since 2001! :thumbs:

Personally I would never ride at night without reflectors and lights. But to say you shouldn't go out at all? Come on.

I don't think traum understood any part of what I said
Posted via RS Mobile

Richmond is notorious for naive cyclists. Vancouver is the worst for asshole cyclists that think they own the road, but there is a huge issue in Richmond regarding cyclists that do the following;

- ride on wrong side of street

- ride on sidewalk

- ride across pedestrian crossing

- no helmet

- no lights during dusk

- no reflective gear

- NO SPEAK ENGLISH

with that said, I don't know if the cyclists in Richmond don't know the rules, or don't care.... or both.. I guess it is similar to the drivers in Richmond. Most don't know (because they don't bother to educate themselves), and the rest don't care.

The city of Richmond needs to step it up to educate/enforce pedestrian and cyclist offences, for their safety more than anything.

The cyclist could be 1000% at fault for all I care. The fucker hit somebody AND fled. Zero sympathy should be given to someone who did something like that.
Posted via RS Mobile

How am I blaming anyone? I wasn't at the scene so I can't pass judgements (ie. whether or not the driver was DUI or if cyclist was wearing the appropriate clothing/bike was properly equipped)

I am just saying as a personal precaution I would not ride weekend evenings...especially at 3am the eve of a holiday when you know your chances of encountering a drunk driver is quite possible.

actually riding at that time, you would think you would be LESS LIKELY to be struck by a vehicle as there are hardly any cars on the road at the time, holiday or not.

Maybe it was a typo, but you didn't say "this is why I don't ride on weekends" you said "this is why YOU don't ride on weekends" as in if you ride on weekends and get hit, it's pretty much your own fault, rather than a personal precaution that you take.

I would think being struck late at night is a more likelihood. Drivers can'r see as well, and are not paying attention as much, and more likely is a drunk driver on the road! And yes any bastard that would hit someone and flee deserves what they get!

so you think it is more likely to get hit by a car at 3am in the morning because of the ODD chance there was a vehicle in your path, and the ODD chance the driver behind that vehicle is intoxicated, instead of rush hour traffic where people are rushing/distracted/fatigued/irritable, to get home?

I'm no professional or investigator so no, Just a thought.

Port Richmond in the states and in 2011? What does that got to do with Richmond, BC? LOL

and that Port Richmond resident as i scrolled down looked like Harry from DUMB and Dumber. mAYBE THATs why he has that hairdoo . A REAL DUMB AND DUMBER MORON.

i saw somebody riding up the wrong side of the street last night at 10pm, wearing black sweatpants and a grey sweater, no helmet, and 0 lights or reflectors

it's easy to instantly point blame, but if i accidently hit somebody doing the above things, while i was the one going down the right side of the road, i would hope i wouldn't be blamed for it. time and time again i come into threads like these and people are pointing the blame to the driver (people automatically assume he was drunk or on drugs? really?) when much of the time, the cyclist/pedestrians ARE to blame. the "victim" isn't always the one who dies, fyi. the time of day has nothing to do with it, the age of the parties have nothing to do with it - all that matters are FACTS. facts that none of us on here (to my knowledge) fully have

and i get that that isn't necessarily the case here because he did leave the scene - but speculation is just that, speculation. so far the only factual evidence i've seen is coming from the media releases by the RCMP - which havn't informed anybody of much, really. whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Posted via RS Mobile