Cyclist intentionally hit by car caught on GoPro camera

Derailleured wrote:

(h)Prohibited acts. The following are prohibited:

(4) Operating a bicycle abreast of another bicycle except where authorized by the superintendent.

.

Funny, even though the video is clear and they got it right at first, the media now lies and claims that the guy who was filming was "behind" the guy who collided.

First Report: He said he recorded the crash on his GoPro as he rode his bike alongside his friend

Second Report: His friend, Greg Goodman, was riding behind him and recorded what happened on his Go Pro camera.

(Both from WKRN.)

This is how they manipulate to their content.

Assadansnsnsndns wrote:

The dude drove off after hitting a cyclist!

Umm, if you didn't know you had hit a cyclist, wouldn't you just "drive off" too?

snoreville wrote:

If you can't tell that you've hit a person and a bike with this part of your vehicle, you are not qualified to drive.

Thank you for your opinion. However, the DMV (and not you) is the proper authority for driver qualification.

FWIW, I don't think the low-visibility doofus riding two abreast should be qualified to bicycle.

Small bummp wrote:

snoreville wrote:

If you can't tell that you've hit a person and a bike with this part of your vehicle, you are not qualified to drive.

Thank you for your opinion. However, the DMV (and not you) is the proper authority for driver qualification.

FWIW, I don't think the low-visibility doofus riding two abreast should be qualified to bicycle.

I'm fine with stating both of them are unqualified, with one clearly being more of a danger to society.

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.

haha! excellent

very high correlation between cop haters and criminals

snoreville wrote:

If you can't tell that you've hit a person and a bike with this part of your vehicle, you are not qualified to drive.

http://imgur.com/a/TA0se#DB3doQg

It's not the size that matters, but the relative velocity too.

For instance, a small bird flying into your windshield can make a thud, because that's a 60mph (or more) differential. But in this case, it was relatively small. Someone did the physics calculation upthread, but it was no more (at most) than a 40 kg m/s impact, about like a 90 pound (40 kg) person walking at 2 mph (1 m/s). As a pedestrian, I've walked into cars at higher speed (and I weight more) at crosswalks, and they've barely noticed (if at all).

Stare deeply into their lies wrote:

Derailleured wrote:

.

Funny, even though the video is clear and they got it right at first, the media now lies and claims that the guy who was filming was "behind" the guy who collided.

First Report: He said he recorded the crash on his GoPro as he rode his bike alongside his friend

Second Report: His friend, Greg Goodman, was riding behind him and recorded what happened on his Go Pro camera.

(Both from WKRN.)

This is how they manipulate to their content.

Amazing. All while the haters claim Neely is changing *his* story (now exposed as fake news).

Stare deeply into their lies wrote:

First Report: He said he recorded the crash on his GoPro as he rode his bike alongside his friend

Second Report: His friend, Greg Goodman, was riding behind him and recorded what happened on his Go Pro camera.

(Both from WKRN.)

This is how they manipulate to their content.

Watch the video. He's alongside and behind.

Personally, I wouldn't much believe the arrest report accurately conveys the flavor of what they harrassed Neely into saying.Here is a recent statement from a nearby judge (Joseph Johnson) in Alabama.

Yesterday I met with our new police chief (city of 250,000) I I told him I was getting tired of not having video or audio recordings of defendants statements. I said I felt juries disbelieved the rendition by the officer (especially a narcotics officer). I added, I was not sure I was going to believe another citizen consented to the search of his vehicle unless I had a written signed consent to search (which they have). The Chief looked like I had kicked his dog. I said “Hey, the jurors expect this in this age of technology.” We will see.

So why don't the Tennessee patrollers have a video of his "admission" about a bicycle being thrown, or if they do, why haven't they released it?

Sorry, you're wrong again wrote:

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

I love this board for just how very stupid conservatives really are. They will say anything no matter how crazy and contrary to everything they normally believe in on any issue.

Cyclists are seen as hard core left wing spandex freaks. In this case, in order to be pro-driver (right wing) vs. cyclist (left wing), the right wing idiot pro-drivers on this board are now taking the position that: (1) the police are in on it with the cyclists (are left wing); (2) all the police do is lie; and (3) if a person is accused of a crime says that they are innocent, that's all the evidence required to be proven innocent. That's gold.

Thank you for your ongoing intense stupidity. The entertainment value can not be overstated.

Explainer of p=mv wrote:

For instance, a small bird flying into your windshield can make a thud, because that's a 60mph (or more) differential. But in this case, it was relatively small. Someone did the physics calculation upthread, but it was no more (at most) than a 40 kg m/s impact, about like a 90 pound (40 kg) person walking at 2 mph (1 m/s). As a pedestrian, I've walked into cars at higher speed (and I weight more) at crosswalks, and they've barely noticed (if at all).

OK, I'm going to go test your hypothesis by side-swiping cyclists as per the video, and seeing if I notice anything. I will report the results back here to LRC. Probably need at least 5 goes before I start collecting data, and then 10-20 samples to be taken. Should I get any hi-tech equipment to measure the impact forces in play?

this is funny!!! wrote:

Sorry, you're wrong again wrote:

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

I love this board for just how very stupid conservatives really are. They will say anything no matter how crazy and contrary to everything they normally believe in on any issue.

Cyclists are seen as hard core left wing spandex freaks. In this case, in order to be pro-driver (right wing) vs. cyclist (left wing), the right wing idiot pro-drivers on this board are now taking the position that: (1) the police are in on it with the cyclists (are left wing); (2) all the police do is lie; and (3) if a person is accused of a crime says that they are innocent, that's all the evidence required to be proven innocent. That's gold.

Thank you for your ongoing intense stupidity. The entertainment value can not be overstated.

+1. The quantity of trolls arguing for argument's sake in this thread is truly amazing.

Explainer of p=mv wrote:

snoreville wrote:

If you can't tell that you've hit a person and a bike with this part of your vehicle, you are not qualified to drive.

http://imgur.com/a/TA0se#DB3doQg

It's not the size that matters, but the relative velocity too.

For instance, a small bird flying into your windshield can make a thud, because that's a 60mph (or more) differential. But in this case, it was relatively small. Someone did the physics calculation upthread, but it was no more (at most) than a 40 kg m/s impact, about like a 90 pound (40 kg) person walking at 2 mph (1 m/s). As a pedestrian, I've walked into cars at higher speed (and I weight more) at crosswalks, and they've barely noticed (if at all).

Both matter. The size matters because a qualified driver would visually recognize striking something of that size with that portion of the car, even if it only weighed a kilogram.

They can always claim that the officer's video unit "malfunctioned"...

CerveloFellow wrote:

You are pretty obviously ignorant! I don't know of a single cyclist that doesn't pay taxes.

Yeah every cyclist I know pays plenty of tax for gasoline while they're cycling.

CerveloFellow wrote:

Every cyclist I know pays road taxes.

I personally pay these every time I fill up my water bottles with more gasoline.

This in turn gives me more energy to flip off more angry drivers as I'm cycling down the middle of roads with my buddies!

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.

So people coming from the other direction don't run over the cyclists in their lane.

Don't be an idiot wrote:

The cyclist was to the side of the car, not the front.

At least LOOK at the photo and video before posting.

snoreville wrote:

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

Repeating the previous:

The cyclist brushed into the side of the car, not the front, which is shown plainly in both the photo and video. The same thing would have happened had the car been a wall, or simply not moving at that point.

snoreville wrote:

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.

The side section is described as the SIDE, not the front.

You're purposely trying to be misleading.