Cyclist intentionally hit by car caught on GoPro camera

Peter Giles wrote:

snoreville wrote:http://imgur.com/a/TA0se

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

What was the cyclist in the photo doing in the center of the road that close to the double yellow?

Being a n00b.

Different debate, really wrote:

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.

A car indisputably has a right to drive in the lane. Yet, if a guy passes a car and then swerves into it, wrecks it, and drives off, they get arrested.

What fact might make it okay to hit and run a bicycle and not a car?

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?

As someone who lives near this road and has driven it frequently, anyone with half a brain would feel its applicable for the entire road. I could inderstand someone not from around Nashville to be unaware of the type of traffic to be expected on the road, but this guy is a local. As a local, I expect cyclists to be on the road. I also drive significantly below the speed limit because this is a sight seeing road. Again, as someone who was using this as a cut through and not as a parkway as it is intended.

Tired of Road Rage wrote:

Probably no one knows wrote:

For what distance is the sign applicable?

As someone who lives near this road and has driven it frequently, anyone with half a brain would feel its applicable for the entire road. I could inderstand someone not from around Nashville to be unaware of the type of traffic to be expected on the road, but this guy is a local. As a local, I expect cyclists to be on the road. I also drive significantly below the speed limit because this is a sight seeing road. Again, as someone who was using this as a cut through and not as a parkway as it is intended.

You don't even live remotely close to there.

Exactly. And if you can't see or hear the cyclist you hit here - you deserve to be arrested anyway for driving impaired

late to the party wrote:

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.

A car indisputably has a right to drive in the lane. Yet, if a guy passes a car and then swerves into it, wrecks it, and drives off, they get arrested.

What fact might make it okay to hit and run a bicycle and not a car?

john utah wrote:

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?

This. Obviously if the driver knew, he would have stopped.

The other day two cyclists were going side-by-FREAKIN-side on a fairly busy road holding up traffic. The guy driving the car in front of me almost hit the rider on the left. When I passed I honked at them, and yelled "ride single file" out the window. In appreciation, they gave me the finger.

Ha ha this is fanastic logic. By this logic there is no such crime as hit and run. If anyone knows they are in accident, they obviously would stop.Ha, genius. It is impossible for someone to hit and run because if they hit, they would stop. That is why it is a crime. They didn't do what they were supposed to.

Clear, when you think about it wrote:

john utah wrote:

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?

This. Obviously if the driver knew, he would have stopped.

And this has relevance to what exactly? Thanks for the story - sounds like it was dramatic.

cyclists gave me the finger wrote:

The other day two cyclists were going side-by-FREAKIN-side on a fairly busy road holding up traffic. The guy driving the car in front of me almost hit the rider on the left. When I passed I honked at them, and yelled "ride single file" out the window. In appreciation, they gave me the finger.

This was obviously a well planned premeditated attack by the cyclists.

hru wrote:

Exactly. And if you can't see or hear the cyclist you hit here - you deserve to be arrested anyway for driving impaired

Let's turn to actual physics (high school).

Assume the car has mass 1500kg (underestimated), and the human/bicycle has mass 100kg.

From the video, the car is moving sideways at approximately 10 ft/sec, or 3m/s (overestimated).

Even with this biased assumptions, based upon conversion of momentum and energy, the post-collision sideways speed would be 2.6 m/s, a change of only 0.4 m/s (13%). Probably it's less than half of that. It's easy to see how this would be lost in the round-off error. A pothole causes larger fluctuations.

It obviously didn't help that the cyclist was sight-invisible due to poor clothing choice.

If you can't tell that you hit something that sized with the front right of your car, you are not qualified to drive.

If you can't hear that you hit a cyclist and a bike with the front right of your Volvo, you are not qualified to drive.

Natchez Trace is a beautiful park-like drive - not really designed to be a commuter route, although I'm sure many drivers treat it as one. It's not the road to be driving if you're going to get upset at slow traffic or sightseers or bicyclists. And the signage (bikes can use the full lane) clearly favors the bicyclist in this incident. Looks to me that the driver took the point of view of "old guy 71". Too bad for him - he's going to jail.

old guy 71 wrote:

I'm not so sure it was intentional.

The cyclist was obviously making no effort to ride towards the right side of the road. He seemed to be riding down the middle of the road as if he were flipping everyone off.

The driver didn't hit him directly. He moved over and bumped him with the side of his front fender. It was almost as if he meant to cut him off and scare him, but misjudged the distance.

I have little sympathy for the clown on the bike. Sorry, I know that's not the PC response.

A SF liberal.

hru wrote:

Ha ha this is fanastic logic. By this logic there is no such crime as hit and run. If anyone knows they are in accident, they obviously would stop.

Ha, genius. It is impossible for someone to hit and run because if they hit, they would stop. That is why it is a crime. They didn't do what they were supposed to.

Clear, when you think about it wrote:

This. Obviously if the driver knew, he would have stopped.

If there's two possibilities, clearly you choose the obvious one by Occam's Razor.

Here: either the guy didn't know he hit the invisible bicyclist, or did and committed hit-and-run.

But most people who commit hit-and-run have other issues with the law (e.g., in CA, illegal immigrants), like outstanding warrants.

This isn't the case here. He has nothing to hide. He even admitted he was driving the SUV (which needn't be the case from license plates alone). The bike propagandaeerists goaded him into making the telephone interview with media by their false facts, but he defended himself admirably still in such a hostile environment. There's simply no reason to doubt him.

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.

No state reciprocity either wrote:

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.

Just this past week I was walking my loop and a cyclist came buzzing by me at high speed ON THE SIDEWALK! Had I momentarily stepped sideways, I'd be dead, as has happened to other pedestrians hit by bicycles on walkways. Yet, there was no identification on the bicycle, none at all.

I'm personally 100 percent in favor of cyclists being required to be licensed, and for all bicycles on public roadways to have plates, the same sized that are on cars and trucks.

cyclists gave me the finger wrote:

The other day two cyclists were going side-by-FREAKIN-side on a fairly busy road holding up traffic. The guy driving the car in front of me almost hit the rider on the left. When I passed I honked at them, and yelled "ride single file" out the window. In appreciation, they gave me the finger.

LOL, you Americans are such amateurs at this stuff.

Here in The Netherlands everybody knows how to ride a bike, and the other traffic knows how to navigate around all that.

There's kids and older youth, riding 3 or 4 next to each other on the road (2 is the maximum allowed, but most people don't really care too much). Nobody wears a helmet (only people who ride for pleasure do that, mountainbiking and race cycling etc.), people sit on the luggage rack as passengers, grocery bags hang from the steering bar. People wear headsets, call while riding, or use social media.

In inner cities traffic lights are mostly used as guidence, but if you manage to sneak through without really disturbing traffic too much nobody really cares. People take the shortest route, against traffic in one way streets, through parks etc.

And you know what? It's great! Everybody expects this behavior and therefor takes care to drive cautiously. Hardly anybody gets hurt.

So I guess I should say: keep practicing, guys! :-)

Looker at it wrote:

This isn't the case here. He has nothing to hide. He even admitted he was driving the SUV (which needn't be the case from license plates alone). The bike propagandaeerists goaded him into making the telephone interview with media by their false facts, but he defended himself admirably still in such a hostile environment. There's simply no reason to doubt him.

OTOH, there's many reasons to doubt the bicyclists.

They ride illegally two abreast.

They wear poor visibility colors.

They swiftly post on social media rather than allow the law to run its course in peace.

They cut-and-paste "facts" without providing the whole context (display misattributed signage, give only part of park ranger's conclusion).

The cyclists will probably get-rich-quick off GoFundMe from their upscale sympathizers, but their legal case is only likely if they get a jury of two-wheeled fanatics.

sredlums wrote: Everybody expects this behavior and therefor takes care to drive cautiously. Hardly anybody gets hurt.

So I guess I should say: keep practicing, guys! :-)

This a great point. In Holland, everyone expects bicycles everywhere. In the Natchez, everyone expects bicycles to be riding single file.

Absolutely !!!!! wrote:

Just this past week I was walking my loop and a cyclist came buzzing by me at high speed ON THE SIDEWALK! Had I momentarily stepped sideways, I'd be dead, as has happened to other pedestrians hit by bicycles on walkways. .

Even when they kill, in Frisco they get off with no jail time.