Cyclist intentionally hit by car caught on GoPro camera

Wow, its scary how many psychopathic and idiotic drivers there are about.

You need a license to drive. In legal terms, its a privelge, not a right. As a driver, you pass a test of competency. Clearly, if you cannot overtake a cyclist on a quiet road safely, moving wide enough to ensure that anything unexpected happening doesn't cause a collision, you shouldn't be driving a vehicle.

Then if you really cannot see a collision or hear it or sense it, and leave the scene of an accident without reporting it, there really is something wrong with you and you are a danger to others on the roads.

If theres a possible history of you going around trying to swipe cyclists, and other road users have reported this to the authorities before the latest incident you've been involved in, it becomes obvious this is a lot more than an accident of carelessness.

The notion that cyclists go around deliberately swerving into cars is madness. The repeated notion of "camouflage" is a copycat version of stupidity. Simply drive at an appropriate speed to see other road users, overtake widely enough so as to avoid hitting them.

Added into this, its a quiet road and one hardly any cars use. Cyclists should be in at the side but its not an offence not to be. It might affect civil damages to a small degree but not the issue of liability and not criminal liability.

My guess is this driver had a particular hatred of cyclists, of people who actually go out there and take exercise, who don't pollute the atmosphere while doing so. He deliberately went out to give them a scare and hit one and pretend it was an accident. His false story of someone throwing a bike at his car was no doubt planned to excuse the damage to his car. Again, you ask if someone did throw a bike at his car and damaged it, why didn't he contact the police? None of his story adds up, there is evidence of past behaviour against cyclists and no, the cyclist did not move out and hit himself against the car. That is the usual excuse (along with "I didn't see you") of incompetent and/or dangerous drivers.

I don't particularly want to live in a society where my children are afraid to take exercise because vigilantes think its ok to go out and assault them with a vehicle because something annoyed them previously. I don't want to live in a society where we don't punish people for dangerous driving. I want to see the book thrown at him and a lengthy jail term, and I don't want ever to see him driving again.

It's not a bunch of psychopathic drivers, it is one guy trying to get a rise out of us.

How many times are these "facts" going to be brought up?

The official NPS says *no*, you can't ride two abreast.

There are not "frequent" signs, from a previous post it seems there are two (with a third being built) for the entire 444 miles. The signs do not say you can ride two abreast, they say (for those specific areas, involving sight lines) that individual cyclists can use the whole lane. Moreover, the vehicle *did* change lanes to pass, he just didn't see the hidden guy riding in the wrong place when changing back (thinking he had cleared).

BlaseBill wrote:

You need a license to drive. In legal terms, its a privelge, not a right. As a driver, you pass a test of competency.

I think this episode shows that we should also demand that bicyclists (who operate "vehicles" according to law) should also be licensed.

Then there wouldn't be low-visibility yahoos riding two abreast, in conflict with federal regulation.

BlaseBill wrote:

I don't particularly want to live in a society where my children are afraid to take exercise because vigilantes think its ok to go out and assault them with a vehicle because something annoyed them previously. .

Whether your kids take or give exercise, they don't need to ride their bike in the middle of the road. Are those the only two options: ride your bike in the middle of the road or no exercise?

The driver is a criminal and should be punished. Is he your brother or something? You seem to know everything about his past and his innermost thoughts.

Tired of Road Rage wrote:

Sorry, quotes wrong person. So for you non Nashvillians, this happened 8 miles south of "the bridge". The bridge spans a gap at the Leipers Fork exit. So, in fact, he was in Leipers Fork, a few miles from this sign.

For what distance is the sign applicable?

ntsa wrote:

The driver is a criminal and should be punished.

This is for a court to decide, after hearing both parties (not just the LRC cycle-explainers).

What'd I miss in the first 12 pages? Is it all a debate about whether riding in the middle of the road is legal or illegal?

Does it matter?

If it is legal, it's still courteous to ride near the side of the road. If it's illegal, it's still courteous to not hit someone with your car.

The cyclist is kinda a d!ck either way. The driver is a thug either way and should be locked up regardless of the rule.

ntsa wrote:

BlaseBill wrote:

I don't particularly want to live in a society where my children are afraid to take exercise because vigilantes think its ok to go out and assault them with a vehicle because something annoyed them previously. .

Whether your kids take or give exercise, they don't need to ride their bike in the middle of the road. Are those the only two options: ride your bike in the middle of the road or no exercise?

The driver is a criminal and should be punished. Is he your brother or something? You seem to know everything about his past and his innermost thoughts.

What the heck is "take exercise?"

Probably no one knows wrote:

Tired of Road Rage wrote:

Sorry, quotes wrong person. So for you non Nashvillians, this happened 8 miles south of "the bridge". The bridge spans a gap at the Leipers Fork exit. So, in fact, he was in Leipers Fork, a few miles from this sign.

For what distance is the sign applicable?

you are not funny or interesting... just go away. you aren't adding to the discussion, you are just taking up space

Probably no one knows wrote:

Tired of Road Rage wrote:

Sorry, quotes wrong person. So for you non Nashvillians, this happened 8 miles south of "the bridge". The bridge spans a gap at the Leipers Fork exit. So, in fact, he was in Leipers Fork, a few miles from this sign.

For what distance is the sign applicable?

late to the party wrote:

What'd I miss in the first 12 pages? Is it all a debate about whether riding in the middle of the road is legal or illegal?

The cyclist is kinda a d!ck either way. The driver is a thug either way and should be locked up regardless of the rule.

No, it's an argument on whether the video is enough evidence to determine the driver "should" have known that a poorly visible two-abreast (not just "middle of road") rider was in his vehicle's trajectory, either before or after there was a collision.

But half of LRC just wants to "lock him up" w/o respect to the facts.

The easiest way to intentionally kill someone in the U.S. is to hit them with a car.

At best, the driver will plea to a misdemeanor and the cyclist gets nothing but hospital bills.

Welcome to America. Drive a car or be blamed for your own death.

Different debate, really wrote:

No, it's an argument on whether the video is enough evidence to determine the driver "should" have known that a poorly visible two-abreast (not just "middle of road") rider was in his vehicle's trajectory, either before or after there was a collision.

But half of LRC just wants to "lock him up" w/o respect to the facts.

Exactly. The bi-wheelers got their convenient video and bot-posters out fast, but now the facts are rolling in, and exposing their fakery.

It's very difficult to prosecute someone for intent by a video, and the cyclist was sufficiently at-fault (in three different ways) that otherwise there is no case.

If you can't tell that your Volvo collided with a person and a bicycle then you are not qualified to be driving.

Even on Natchez, it's hard to think any driver would just "assume" there were two-abreasters. They are quite rare (as they should be).

No state reciprocity either wrote:

BlaseBill wrote:

You need a license to drive. In legal terms, its a privelge, not a right. As a driver, you pass a test of competency.

I think this episode shows that we should also demand that bicyclists (who operate "vehicles" according to law) should also be licensed.

Then there wouldn't be low-visibility yahoos riding two abreast, in conflict with federal regulation.

Stop posting nonsense please wrote:

800 dude wrote:

This is just wrong, wrong, wrong. This road is a designated bike route where cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast ...

The official NPS says *no*, you can't ride two abreast.

Acting Chief Ranger Calvin Farmer

“In Mississippi and Tennessee, bicyclists are allowed to use the full lane of traffic to ride in when necessary. Federal regulations require bicyclists to ride single file, and riders are encouraged to move to the right to allow for vehicles to pass.

Stop posting actual information please. It ruins the narrative.

snoreville wrote:

If you can't tell that your Volvo collided with a person and a bicycle then you are not qualified to be driving.

If you couldn't tell that you hit something that's in front of your face, you are not qualified to be driving.

The driver hit a cyclist and kept on driving. Do you believe that the driver of the car didn't know he ran into a person on a bicycle?