A critical issue here is that he was reported (as a black SUV) a week earlier for trying to run over a cyclist in similar circumstances.
So you billybobs trying to make this into an accident are as stupid as you seem.
He's a serial criminal. There'll be others at the trial who'll rat him out, and he'll be found guilty and sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead.
The troll had to go to sleep. He will be back on soon, making up various handles, trying to rile people up by claiming that the driver wouldn't have noticed the impact. Over, and over.
Have you actually watched the video?The cyclist is moving to the right and the car is moving to the right - how within the known laws of physics does the bike hit the car?I assume the majority of the those supporting the motorist fall into 3 categories:1 - Pro Trump trolls2 - Insecure running dorks that feel threatened by cyclist3 - Typical self-entitled drivers who care only about themselves when behind the wheel.
Seeing is helpful wrote:
hrunner wrote:the guy hit and run - end of story. he didn't even hit his brakes. I don't see any brake lights in that video. the rest maybe can be argued about, but he hit something hard enough that he had to notice
The impact was the bike to the side of the car. Therefore the car didn't run into anyone and it's logical that the guy in the car wouldn't feel it, which is what he said in the interview.
Just because there are 'some of us' who think that the cyclist was arrogant doesn't mean that we consider the driver's actions justifiable. It's just hard to feel any sympathy for the cyclist.
old guy 71 wrote:
Just because there are 'some of us' who think that the cyclist was arrogant doesn't mean that we consider the driver's actions justifiable. It's just hard to feel any sympathy for the cyclist.
+1
There was enough idiot in that situation to go around.
So what is the running equivalent of what this cyclist did?
He was within the law, but was reckless and not acting in a safe manner.
So from what we know now:
1) This was this guy's initiation ride into anarcho-cycling
2) His buddy was there to film the whole thing with publicity in mind
3) The first vehicle (white truck) didn't fall for the bait, or least managed to still see the camoflauged cyclist riding incitefully.
4) The guy had GREAT training for how to take the bump and fall, especially for a first-timer in live action. WWE should hire him!
5) Nevertheless, after the camera cut away (when he looked barely hurt and was easily walking), they seem to claim he had "serious" injuries and posted some publicity pics from a supposed hospital.
Why do we only have 0:21 seconds of video? What happened in the hours before? How many more cars did they try to troll before getting "lucky" with this minor sideswipe that turned into an international incident? You have cops storming the guy's home at 1am, you'd think this was DEFCON 12 or something.
Although I said in #4 the guy knew how to handle the wreck well, he should have moaned around on the ground longer when the camera was on, rather than popping up and walking off right away. A good defense attorney won't miss that.
If you watch the video, the cyclist moves slightly back to the right as the truck passes and maintains that line until hit by the car. He did not swerve into the car. The sound is very low on this video, but if you turn it up high, the sound of the impact is loud and has a very metallic crash sound. Unless the driver was impaired, it would be almost impossible not to hear or see it. If you've ever hit anything metallic, the sound travels through the bodywork of the car. Unless the stereo is blaring or you're impaired, you're going to notice it. There are four possibilities.
1. Intentionally hit rider. Left scene thinking he'd never be ID'd.
2. Swerved to scare rider. Inadvertently hit him. Fled scene, either from panic or impaired.
3. Never saw rider until too late. Heard impact, but fled scene, either panicked or impaired.
4. Never saw rider. Never heard impact.
In order, I'd give 1 and 2 equal weight. 3 would be a less likely possibility. I wouldn't seriously consider 4 unless the driver was DUI.
Runner T wrote:
So what is the running equivalent of what this cyclist did?
He was within the law, but was reckless and not acting in a safe manner.
____________________________________________________________
What about a guy running slow on the track in lane one when the local track club is trying to do intervals?
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.
Yes, often you "miss" the second car, because you hear the first one, and the second is thus drowned out by it. It's not a "short mental lapse" when I do it IMO, it's just a certain unexpectedness (and looking over a shoulder drags you that direction, though that didn't happen here).
Similarly, it would be easy to "miss" the second bicyclist, as he was wearing road-coloured gear and riding in a no-man's land.
BTW, I don't think he veered, I think it is a camera angle issue (the right guy veered more IMO, which may be part of it). Note also that the guy involved in the collision was watching the white truck go by somewhat intently (though looked back normally before the incident), while the camera guy didn't.
Dumpstermuffin wrote:
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?
No. He didn't even see the cyclist. How could he have reported him?
back woods wrote:
One guy, in some twisted misinterpretation of what happened, displayed mildly bad judgment. The other guy attempted to kill him.
Only in your twisted interpretation. In the real world, the cyclist paid for his error(s), being the "victim" of his own making from being in an unexpected location by not riding (lawfully) single file, and not wearing high-visibility coloration.
The video is clear wrote:
Only in your twisted interpretation. In the real world, the cyclist paid for his error(s), being the "victim" of his own making from being in an unexpected location by not riding (lawfully) single file, and not wearing high-visibility coloration.
This needs to be brought up more. It wasn't just (or even mainly) the fact the guy was near the yellow line. It was also that he was double file, which makes it triply easy to overlook him. You see the lawful guy, and don't even register than some loony-bin might be riding abreast instead of in tandem.
whyohwhy wrote:
A critical issue here is that he was reported (as a black SUV) a week earlier for trying to run over a cyclist in similar circumstances.
Again, this is about as factual as the story that he claimed they threw a bike at them (his 1am guess as to what might have happened, when discombobulated by police pressuring).
No one would seriously put forth that as "evidence". In fact, even associated him to the incident (rather than just the SUV with license plates) is something that needs proving, though here he admitted it.
Runner T wrote:
So what is the running equivalent of what this cyclist did?
He was within the law, but was reckless and not acting in a safe manner.
A runner that darts across crosswalks on a green light without regard for intersecting vehicles making left or right-hand turns. Yes, any vehicles in that situation are required to yield to pedestrians, but many drivers will not be prepared for pedestrians moving that fast.
Great, the troll is back up.
Runner T wrote:
So what is the running equivalent of what this cyclist did?
He was within the law, but was reckless and not acting in a safe manner.
No, he wasn't within the law. Riding two abreast (independent of where in the lane) is not permissible.
The running equivalent doesn't exist, because runners aren't that stupid (unless you run in traffic).
fisky wrote:
There are four possibilities.
1. Intentionally hit rider. Left scene thinking he'd never be ID'd.
2. Swerved to scare rider. Inadvertently hit him. Fled scene, either from panic or impaired.
3. Never saw rider until too late. Heard impact, but fled scene, either panicked or impaired.
4. Never saw rider. Never heard impact.
In order, I'd give 1 and 2 equal weight. 3 would be a less likely possibility. I wouldn't seriously consider 4 unless the driver was DUI.
#1 seems extremely unlikely/stupid even w/o today's constantly videotaped world. Maybe if he had no license plates or something, and there was only one guy there. But with two cyclists, he'd have to be an idiot to think it was opportune to play it "video game" style and get away with it.
#2 makes even less sense. If this were the case, he wouldn't hit him in upper region of front right tire. It would be closer to back rear, unless he was *really* bad at the maneuver (even the bicyclist suddenly speeding up wouldn't change it by more than a few feet).
#3 looks as reasonable as #4 in my opinion, but you have to give the guy the benefit of the doubt as to his story, unless you are a rabid cycle-fanatic who hates cars with a passion. Especially in a court of law, where intent has to be proven.
As to the sound, *inside* the vehicle it might be a different sense than in the video's audio (which could have amplification issues, given the initial lowness).
The video is clear wrote:
Only in your twisted interpretation. In the real world, the cyclist paid for his error(s), being the "victim" of his own making from being in an unexpected location by not riding (lawfully) single file, and not wearing high-visibility coloration.
No false equivalenting wrote:
No, he wasn't within the law. Riding two abreast (independent of where in the lane) is not permissible.
The running equivalent doesn't exist, because runners aren't that stupid (unless you run in traffic).
This is just wrong, wrong, wrong. This road is a designated bike route where cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast and were cars are required to pass cyclists in the left lane. There are frequent signs stating as much.
You do know this happened in Leipers Fork...