john utah wrote:
The cyclist brushed the car on the side, and fell down. Do you believe the driver of the car didn't know the cyclist had done that?
Yes, that is what I think.
john utah wrote:
The cyclist brushed the car on the side, and fell down. Do you believe the driver of the car didn't know the cyclist had done that?
Yes, that is what I think.
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.
In the factual world the driver first told the police that a man and a woman threw a bicycle at his car to explain why he drove away. He later changed his story to say he didn't see the cyclist or hear the hit. The second version fits in better with the damning video, but also doesn't make any sense.
It's pretty clear the guy hit the cyclist on purpose and drove off. It not only looks that way, but explains his first crazy story and his changing his story. He was criminally charged accordingly. If you've ever been to Williamson County Tennessee you would never entertain the slight possibility of the bizarre conspiracy theory that the police there are somehow part part of an elaborate scheme to wrongly charge this guy in favour of the "spandex mafia". The idea is beyond ridiculous. He was charged because it's clear what he did was a crime.
Everyone should stop feeding the troll(s). It's clear the driver's actions were criminal, there is really nothing to discuss, let him try his excuses in court.
Noether me wrote:
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.
The cyclist brushed the car on the side, so the feeling to the car would be less than a breeze.
nice try , troll wrote:
Too bad, we won't shut down wrote: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.
In the factual world the driver first told the police that a man and a woman threw a bicycle at his car to explain why he drove away. He later changed his story to say he didn't see the cyclist or hear the hit. The second version fits in better with the damning video, but also doesn't make any sense.
Again you believe fake media, rather than his actual statement. When questioned at 1am by police if remembered anything, and to how he could square his account with their "facts" (i.e. 2-wheeler propaganda), he suggested *maybe* someone threw a bike at him, having no clue about the matter, and no better mid-night coallation. He even said he wasn't sure how it could have happened that way, but it was a (remote) possibility. But the blood-thirsty vicious media excised any context from the "arrest report", and drone-posters lapped it up.
In short, he never "changed his story", only the media did.
It's pretty clear the guy hit the cyclist on purpose and drove off. ... It's clear the driver's actions were criminal, there is really nothing to discuss, let him try his excuses in court.
Clearly, clarity is in the eye of the beholder.
At least we agree on the latter point. Too bad you already ran your media into hyper-overdrive for the last 24-48 hours to declare him guilty prior to trial. Spoliation to corrupt the prospective jury is no laughing matter.
snoreville wrote:
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.
The cyclist was to the side of the car, not the front.
At least LOOK at the photo and video before posting.
You hit the nail on the head... common sense. The automobile driver apparently didn't use it. From other articles I read the driver outright lied to police and tried to claim that two cyclists were in the road and threw a bike at his car! When the video surfaced he quickly changed his tune. The guy has serious issues that need addressed and as a sympathizer with the driver, you sound like you do as well.
Sure there is a reason to doubt him - he is on video hitting someone
Looker at it wrote:
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.
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.
You are pretty obviously ignorant! I don't know of a single cyclist that doesn't pay taxes. This is probably beyond your reading comprehension, but here's how your roads are paid for.https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/05/debunking-the-myth-that-only-drivers-pay-for-roads/393134/
Same for electric cars wrote:
I don't see why the cyclist should have any right to be on the road, as they are maintained by gas taxes that he's not paying.
nice try , troll wrote:
Too bad, we won't shut down wrote: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.
In the factual world the driver first told the police that a man and a woman threw a bicycle at his car to explain why he drove away. He later changed his story to say he didn't see the cyclist or hear the hit. The second version fits in better with the damning video, but also doesn't make any sense.
It's pretty clear the guy hit the cyclist on purpose and drove off. It not only looks that way, but explains his first crazy story and his changing his story. He was criminally charged accordingly. If you've ever been to Williamson County Tennessee you would never entertain the slight possibility of the bizarre conspiracy theory that the police there are somehow part part of an elaborate scheme to wrongly charge this guy in favour of the "spandex mafia". The idea is beyond ridiculous. He was charged because it's clear what he did was a crime.
Everyone should stop feeding the troll(s). It's clear the driver's actions were criminal, there is really nothing to discuss, let him try his excuses in court.
His charges have been removed to "felony reckless endangerment" (originally also included leaving the scene of an accident, failure to immediately notify of an accident and failure to render aid).
Obviously the prosecutor realized the cycling "lynch mob" was in full force, and the reality was different.
The case will depend on how much fault the cyclist bore, and the previous enunciations indicate that is a lot.
39-13-103. Reckless endangerment. —
(a) A person commits an offense who recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.
(b) Reckless endangerment is a Class A misdemeanor; however, reckless endangerment committed with a deadly weapon is a Class E felony.
Every cyclist I know pays road taxes.https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/05/debunking-the-myth-that-only-drivers-pay-for-roads/393134/
Go away spandex mafia wrote:
Why does nearly every cyclist ride around with one or two GoPro cameras on their helmet? IMO, they're hoping and trying to "catch" some motorist committing some imagined slight against them and their precious bike. Yet they do not pay road taxes. If a cyclist cuts you off, hits you and dents your car, then rides off, as they often do, you have absolutely no way to identify him--no license tag. They use the middle of the road and run red lights and stop signs when they feel like it, then retreat to the sidewalks to terrorize pedestrians when that route better suits their needs.
In the interest of safety, all cyclists need to be registered and have plates on their bicycles from now on.
CerveloFellow wrote:
You hit the nail on the head... common sense. The automobile driver apparently didn't use it. From other articles I read the driver outright lied to police and tried to claim that two cyclists were in the road and threw a bike at his car! When the video surfaced he quickly changed his tune. The guy has serious issues that need addressed and as a sympathizer with the driver, you sound like you do as well.
Another robot, hypnotized by the media rather than actual facts.
36 CFR 4.30
(g)Other requirements.
(2) Unless specifically addressed by regulations in this chapter, the use of a bicycle within a park area is governed by State law. State law concerning bicycle use that is now or may later be in effect is adopted and made a part of this section.
(h)Prohibited acts. The following are prohibited:
(4) Operating a bicycle abreast of another bicycle except where authorized by the superintendent.
The superintendent has indicated (though the media won't cover it) that there was NO such authorization. State law (Tennessee) is also clear.
Amazing what the media will do when it smells blood.
Jail records show that Neely is an employee of the University School of Nashville
How is this pertinently relevant? I know, let's track down the School for a statement, even though it has nothing to do with anything!
Ok, you go out and get your 3 year old their license plate first.
Need registration immediately wrote:
In the interest of safety, all cyclists need to be registered and have plates on their bicycles from now on.
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.
The running equivalent would be to run on the roadway instead of the sidewalk on a quiet side street because the sidewalk is hard concrete, full of trash cans and other obstacles, and has lot of dangerous heaved slabs from tree roots that could trip you up. Basically, something runners do all the time because it's safer but may nonetheless mildly inconvenience a driver from time to time.
It's not just the poor visibility from bad colors.
The Park Ranger also mentions the lack of flashing front and rear lights.
You go around blaming the women who are raped because they "wore that sexy outfit", don't you?
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.
Could have avoided all this wrote:
It's not just the poor visibility from bad colors.
The Park Ranger also mentions the lack of flashing front and rear lights.
What is the point of a flashing front light? The purpose of a headlight is to provide light for the cyclist to see by.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_lightingWhat is the point of a flashing front light? The purpose of a headlight is to provide light for the cyclist to see by.