Nobody should be hit like that..BUT..the arrogance of these a--holes who think its just alright if they hold up traffic on these little roads so that they can get their little morning ride in.
On a road like that, bikers should ride single file no matter what the law is.
This law saying that they can ride abreast should be repealed and replaced.
This is at least an opinion I can see - would it be safer to ride single file - yes. Does it matter for the case - no.
wlm wrote:
Nobody should be hit like that..BUT..the arrogance of these a--holes who think its just alright if they hold up traffic on these little roads so that they can get their little morning ride in.
On a road like that, bikers should ride single file no matter what the law is.
This law saying that they can ride abreast should be repealed and replaced.
Collision expert wrote:
In fact, hitting a "bike" at 200lbs is really no different than hitting a pedestrian at 200lbs. The metal is hardly relevant. Yet you can easily Google-search hundreds of collisions where the driver didn't realize that someone was hit (sideswiping on blindside as here).
You can clearly see that the cyclist was right around the car's right front tire when the collision occurred. The driver would have seen the collision. He wouldn't even have to feel it. No one is dense enough to not notice a collision that occurs within their line of site.
he could see it wrote:
You can clearly see that the cyclist was right around the car's right front tire when the collision occurred. The driver would have seen the collision. He wouldn't even have to feel it. No one is dense enough to not notice a collision that occurs within their line of site.
Yeah, drivers stare at their right front wheels all the time. He was probably looking in the rear-view mirror to check when he had cleared the visible bicyclist (the one w/ Go Pro).
Riding in a blind spot wrote:
he could see it wrote:You can clearly see that the cyclist was right around the car's right front tire when the collision occurred. The driver would have seen the collision. He wouldn't even have to feel it. No one is dense enough to not notice a collision that occurs within their line of site.
Yeah, drivers stare at their right front wheels all the time. He was probably looking in the rear-view mirror to check when he had cleared the visible bicyclist (the one w/ Go Pro).
Human beings have peripheral vision. If I'm looking straight ahead, I can see something that hits my car over the right front tire.
Why would he be looking in his rearview? You use your sideview to see when you've cleared something that you're passing, which would put the cyclist even closer to his direct line of vision.
Riding in a blind spot wrote:
he could see it wrote:You can clearly see that the cyclist was right around the car's right front tire when the collision occurred. The driver would have seen the collision. He wouldn't even have to feel it. No one is dense enough to not notice a collision that occurs within their line of site.
Yeah, drivers stare at their right front wheels all the time. He was probably looking in the rear-view mirror to check when he had cleared the visible bicyclist (the one w/ Go Pro).
He was probably also looking up the road ahead to make sure no oncoming traffic, as he was over the double yellow.
he could see it wrote:
Why would he be looking in his rearview? You use your sideview to see when you've cleared something that you're passing, which would put the cyclist even closer to his direct line of vision.
You clearly are an unsafe driver.
Before pulling in front of a vehicle you have passed:
make sure you can see the vehicle in your rear view mirror
Passing (New York DMV)
When you pass, move completely into the left lane. Before you return to the right lane, signal and look at your interior rear-view mirror and make sure you can see the front bumper of the vehicle you passed.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2105643_pass-car-twolane-road.htmleHow wrote: Confirm that you have passed the other car. Check your rear view mirror to make sure that you have completely passed the car and have enough clear space to safely re-enter your lane.
May is National Bike Safety Month and it is critical for cyclists to understand the importance of helmets and visibility to safe bike riding. For example, the latest technological advance in bike safety lighting is now at everyone’s fingertips: the new BikeGearz High Intensity 5 LED Red Flashing Bicycle tail light is visible up to half a mile, even in bad weather.
Not May wrote:
May is National Bike Safety Month and it is critical for cyclists to understand the importance of helmets and visibility to safe bike riding. For example, the latest technological advance in bike safety lighting is now at everyone’s fingertips: the new BikeGearz High Intensity 5 LED Red Flashing Bicycle tail light is visible up to half a mile, even in bad weather.
The bicyclists never read their own propaganda.
I am not a cyclist. I'm a runner and I don't own a bike. I am well known to bitch about cyclists downtown as so many do not obey the rules of the road. I hate it. In the usual course I would be the last person to defend a cyclist, and I'm not going to defend one today, as I don't need to. It's painfully obvious the driver hit the cyclist on purpose, knew he hit him, and left the scene. It does not matter that the cyclist wasn't as far right as possible, the simple truth is that you can't slam into someone with your car who is pissing you off. People are going a long way to try to defend this driver, I have no idea why, it just makes you look foolish. I still hate cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road, but purposely slamming into a cyclists with a vehicle is a whole other level of criminality that nobody should condon or try these pathetic, weak arguments to excuse. The driver was wrong, criminally wrong. Full stop. Nothing to discuss. It's terrible to think we have become so intolerant that so many would be on here trying to excuse what this driver did. People should be better than this.
The driver was wrong, criminally wrong. Full stop. Nothing to discuss.
Back in the factual world, the driver didn't even see the bicyclist, who was riding where he shouldn't have been, and in camo-style clothing.
But if it fits your narrative parrot-call, then keep saying that he "intentionally (or purposely) slammed" into the cyclist or something.
hrunner wrote:
who cares - you hit someone from behind, you are generally at fault. you have to your vehicle under control at all times. 'I didn't see' isn't an excuse. It is your responsibility to control your vehicle. and of course beyond that, if you do hit something, you certainly can't hit and run
This is true for a careless driving charge or some charge of negligence (which will get the driver almost no time or perhaps none at all). But proving intent in court will be necessary to bring up more serious charges....and obviously if there's intent, then a hit-and-run charge would also be a given.
If you seriously think that "someone could have got killed" is an argument, you can say the same about any allegedly "safe" traffic. Vehicular "accidents" kill hundreds of thousands worldwide every year. Just don't drive, don't ride, stay away from vehicles, etc., if you want to be truly "safe".
Too bad, we won't shut down wrote:
The driver was wrong, criminally wrong. Full stop. Nothing to discuss.Back in the factual world, the driver didn't even see the bicyclist, who was riding where he shouldn't have been, and in camo-style clothing.
But if it fits your narrative parrot-call, then keep saying that he "intentionally (or purposely) slammed" into the cyclist or something.
The spandex mafia has done an artful job on soc-med to put out its "facts" before anyone can contest their validity. The video is pretty clear. Clearly the driver didn't see the misplaced bicyclist, as otherwise he would have stopped after bumping him.
This thread is insane wrote:
I am not a cyclist. I'm a runner and I don't own a bike. I am well known to bitch about cyclists downtown as so many do not obey the rules of the road. I hate it. In the usual course I would be the last person to defend a cyclist, and I'm not going to defend one today, as I don't need to. It's painfully obvious the driver hit the cyclist on purpose, knew he hit him, and left the scene. It does not matter that the cyclist wasn't as far right as possible, the simple truth is that you can't slam into someone with your car who is pissing you off. People are going a long way to try to defend this driver, I have no idea why, it just makes you look foolish. I still hate cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road, but purposely slamming into a cyclists with a vehicle is a whole other level of criminality that nobody should condon or try these pathetic, weak arguments to excuse. The driver was wrong, criminally wrong. Full stop. Nothing to discuss. It's terrible to think we have become so intolerant that so many would be on here trying to excuse what this driver did. People should be better than this.
I agree, any reasonable person looking at the footage could see this was a road rage incident.
Also, while I still think the cyclists precipitated the encounter by hogging an entire lane unnecessarily - after rewatching several times, I think it's possible that the cyclist that got hit may not have even been aware of the second car that followed the first truck, and this is perhaps the reason he appeared to veer closer to the centre line prior to the collision. This has happened to me on a number of occasions on my bike - i.e. where I'm aware of a large vehicle about to pass and have a short mental lapse assuming there won't be another one following immediately after. This has led to some close calls for me, where I have veered into the lane absentmindedly coming close to being hit by a second passing vehicle.
So, for all the folks saying the cyclist was breaking the law, wouldn't the law-abiding thing for the driver to have done was to call the police and report the cyclist?
The pro-driver argument fails when you replace car with knife. (Can't say gun because you get the stand your ground folks saying it would be OK to have shot the cyclist out of fear of safety). So, if a cyclist is being inconsiderate and possibly riding illegally by riding in the middle of the road, can you pull over, stab the cyclist and then continue driving, leaving the cyclist stabbed on the side of the road?
What if the cyclist had been biking through a poor neighborhood and the driver was a black man with an arrest history and the black driver with the criminal past hit the cyclist, sped off and was then pulled over by a police officer. Has the driver done something that gives the police officer the right to approach the vehicle with a gun drawn and is the officer correct in stating that he is in fear of the driver because of the driver's recent hit and run, and if the officer shoots the driver, will the just prior hit and run be used in the officer's defense? If the cyclist was truly at fault, the driver would never have been pulled over and approached by the police officer and the driver's prior criminal history would've be relevant and the officer wouldn't be in fear. But the fact is, people defending the driver identify with the driver, but change the driver to someone they don't identify with and in a scenario where an officer shoots the driver, the same people defending the driver in this Natchez Trace example now defend the police officer who shoots the driver - bottom line: it's ok to hurt those in the minority: non-motorist, the poor, POC will never be "far enough to the right of the road"; the homogenous majority will always have the right away.
Let's look at the facts. How many bicyclists are "rammed" by cars? Not many.
It's happened to me. I was riding (legally) on a road with two lanes in my direction. I was riding as close to the shoulder as was safe. A guy in a vehicle pulled up tapped me off the road and drove off. I went tumbling down the embankment, which was grassy and not to steep, and was not too bad off. My bike was doubled up and I had to walk about ten miles to get home. The contact was clearly intentional.
These jerks abound and some of them are posting in this thread.
[quote]Star wrote:
Looks like full justice all around.
The cyclist wasn't riding safely and was hogging the lane and making it difficult for cars to pass.
He got what was coming to him.
The driver did not pass safely and is at fault for the accident and will get cited as such.
There can be two bad guys in one scenario.[/quote
You should be ashamed of yourslef for writing this. One guy, in some twisted misinterpretation of what happened, displayed mildly bad judgment. The other guy attempted to kill him.
I guess the silver lining in all this is that we won't see either one of these guys in the road again.
Luddited wrote:
If you seriously think that "someone could have got killed" is an argument, you can say the same about any allegedly "safe" traffic. Vehicular "accidents" kill hundreds of thousands worldwide every year. Just don't drive, don't ride, stay away from vehicles, etc., if you want to be truly "safe".
"Someone could have got killed" is absolutely relevant to potential criminal charges when you act with intent. This is certainly assault with a deadly weapon, but it could easily be attempted murder. The precise definitions of criminal offenses vary by jurisdiction, but if you were to shoot someone, you would almost always be charged with attempted murder, regardless of whether it was clear that you intended to kill--the intent is inferred from doing something so dangerous. Hitting a cyclist from behind at that speed could be viewed the same way.