Cyclist intentionally hit by car caught on GoPro camera

flashing front light? wrote:

What is the point of a flashing front light? The purpose of a headlight is to provide light for the cyclist to see by.

Washington State explicitly outlaws flashing front lights. To my knowledge it is the only place in the U.S. to do so,

Looks like the cyclist(s) would be breaking international law too.

Under the International Vienna Convention on Road Traffic (1968) of the United Nations, a bicycle is a vehicle. Article 44 of the Convention stipulates that: "Cycles without an engine in international traffic shall: (c) Be equipped with a red reflecting device at the rear and with devices such that the cycle can show a white or selective-yellow light to the front and a red light to the rear."

Don't be an idiot wrote:

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.

The cyclist was in front of the driver when the collision happened, though.

Also I said front right. As in the front section of the right side of the car. Pretty clear from the photo to those not trolling.

Courts like facts, not stories wrote:

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.

.

Your version of what happened entirely invented by you. The facts are simply that he told the police a man and a woman were standing in the road and threw a bike at his car. This is not "fake media", it's court documents. Stop your pathetic trolling, fool.

Instead of a police report (subject to bias), try actually quoting the person involved.

According to an arrest report, Neely told authorities he believed a man threw a bike at his car. However, he told News 2 he’s uncertain if that happened.

“[Authorities] came at like 1 o’clock in the morning. I was sound asleep. They asked me what happened. I said I didn’t know,” explained Neely.

“There was another guy there with his wife, and he was standing there holding his bike, and I said all I know if maybe he threw his bike at my car, I didn’t know that for a fact.”

Amazing what the cops/media will do to you when they can get away with it. Almost every single article published is filled with cyclist propaganda and hyperbole. Now they've impounded his car as "evidence", which is a first step toward claiming civil forfeiture on it. That's how these outfits make their money.

It is pretty hypocritical to accuse others of using biased sources and misstating facts when in this thread you've "quoted" people and changed their words in your responses.

Sorry, you're wrong again wrote:

Instead of a police report (subject to bias), try actually quoting the person involved.

According to an arrest report, Neely told authorities he believed a man threw a bike at his car. However, he told News 2 he’s uncertain if that happened.

“[Authorities] came at like 1 o’clock in the morning. I was sound asleep. They asked me what happened. I said I didn’t know,” explained Neely.

“There was another guy there with his wife, and he was standing there holding his bike, and I said all I know if maybe he threw his bike at my car, I didn’t know that for a fact.”

You should ALWAYS record the police in such a situation. Otherwise they will LIE and TWIST your words to their content in their "arrest" report.

I know from EXPERIENCE.

Don't mess with the fuzz wrote:

You should ALWAYS record the police in such a situation. Otherwise they will LIE and TWIST your words to their content in their "arrest" report.

I know from EXPERIENCE.

Methinks you were a little DUI.

gulp wrote:

Don't mess with the fuzz wrote:

You should ALWAYS record the police in such a situation. Otherwise they will LIE and TWIST your words to their content in their "arrest" report.

I know from EXPERIENCE.

Methinks you were a little DUI.

If this story was about a child walking on a bike path and getting struck and thrown to the ground by a cyclist who then takes off without stopping, who on this forum would jump to the cyclists defense? Even if the child shouldn't have been walking in the middle of the bike path or the cyclist claimed he didn't know he ran into anyone, he would still come off looking like a d!ck

I'm sure we have all been put in dangerous situations by cyclists running stop signs or cutting though traffic, but that doesn't mean that every cyclist indiscriminately deserves to die.

Serves you fvcking well right. Made my day. You deliberately are driving two wide to be the sanctimonious pricks that you are, teaching the whole world a lesson with your pathetic cycling antics! Get a fvcking life and let car drivers pass.

They were laughing at people sounding the horn at them, well you get what you deserve in life. Makes my day.

John Snow wrote:

If this story was about a child walking on a bike path and getting struck and thrown to the ground by a cyclist who then takes off without stopping, who on this forum would jump to the cyclists defense? Even if the child shouldn't have been walking in the middle of the bike path or the cyclist claimed he didn't know he ran into anyone, he would still come off looking like a d!ck

That's because people think by emotion ("ooh, a kid was hurt"), instead of by facts ("the idiot bicyclist failed in multiple ways, and then his partner concocted a bogus 'intentionally rammed' libel story for the media").

I'm sure we have all been put in dangerous situations by cyclists running stop signs or cutting though traffic, but that doesn't mean that every cyclist indiscriminately deserves to die.

Umm, who died here?

Stupid cyclists wrote:

asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf wrote:

The arrest report of the motorist states that he claimed two people were standing at the side of a road and threw a bicycle at his car.

I heard the guy speaking, and heard exactly what he said, not second hand information from a news report, that probably came from the cyclists.

He hit a cyclist who was obeying the rules of the road (whether or not you you agree with the spirit of the law), left the scene without checking to see if the cyclist was okay, and then lied to police about what happened.

How exactly did he lie? Because his story doesn't match up with yours

The news report used the cyclist's account of the arrest report?

Pardon me for taking the news' description of the arrest report at face value. Not all of us have inside information like you do.

The dude drove off after hitting a cyclist!

Particularly when a so-called "officer of the law" shows up at 1am to extract a "confession", one has to wonder what their real motives are.Police testimony isn't worth the toilet paper it should be written on.

Blue Lies Matter wrote:

gulp wrote:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertsamaha/blue-lies-matter

Videos have replaced police reports and testimony as the most credible version of events, proving time and again, with increasing frequency, that police officers lie.

90% of prosecutors responded that they were aware of police perjury in cases “at least some of the time.”

Assadansnsnsndns wrote:

Stupid cyclists wrote:

I heard the guy speaking, and heard exactly what he said, not second hand information from a news report, that probably came from the cyclists.

How exactly did he lie? Because his story doesn't match up with yours

The news report used the cyclist's account of the arrest report?

There seem to have been multiple conflicting stories given by the media, and the pro-bicycle crowd has strung them together as being "proof" that the driver's story changed.

E.g., the guy with his wife throwing a bike at him.

This doesn't need be related to the collision incident. In fact, he said there were lots of bicyclists around. He might have been referring to a different bike pair he passed, and thought that's when his car's right front had been hit (as the police informed him had happened).

Twist and turn wrote:

There seem to have been multiple conflicting stories given by the media, and the pro-bicycle crowd has strung them together as being "proof" that the driver's story changed.

E.g., the guy with his wife throwing a bike at him.

This doesn't need be related to the collision incident. In fact, he said there were lots of bicyclists around. He might have been referring to a different bike pair he passed, and thought that's when his car's right front had been hit (as the police informed him had happened).

One can only imagine how this midnight interrogation went.

Q. We have a video showing your license plate fleeing from a hit-and-run accident this morning with a bicyclist on Natchez Parkway.

A. Really? Well, it was me driving it, but I don't recall hitting anyone.

Q. How do you explain the bike/car collision?

A. I don't know, I passed a lot of people. One couple was kind of there standing around, near the middle of the road. Was that them? How do I know, maybe they threw the bike at my car for all I know?

[Officer writes down on affidavit that suspect failed to give aid (Class C misdemeanor) and noted the bike-throwing notion.]

All with the implied threat of being locked up for 72 hours if you didn't "cooperate"...

here's the law wrote:

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.

Looks like even the civil suit will go home DEVASTATED.