Point of impact was in front of the front wheel well. He definitely knew he hit him.
Point of impact was in front of the front wheel well. He definitely knew he hit him.
Ernie Irvan fanboy wrote:
Armchair TV expert wrote:I've watched enough NASCAR wrecks from in-car cameras to know that it's easy to miss things, even when they seem "obvious" from slow-mo.
Thanks Armchair expert. This thread really needed some intelligent input from, if not an NASCAR pro, at least a highly seasoned fan like yourself. Maybe the Volvo driver can have Ernie Irvan appear as an expert witness in his defense. That would def. cinch things up.
+1. That line at end of his post was hilarious.
Bontrager wrote:
Point of impact was in front of the front wheel well. He definitely knew he hit him.
I watched the video in realtime, and I couldn't tell whether it was in front, to the side, or what. It looked closer to on the wheel than in front, likely because the car continued through so fast.
flashing front light? wrote:
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.
The Park Ranger made that up on the fly.
The official website is more terse.
3. Make yourself visible. Millions of visitors travel the Parkway each year, many more in vehicles than bicycles. Use of high-visibility clothing and bicycle lights greatly increases bicyclist visibility.
If you go the "high-visibility" link it continues:
The following are ways bicyclists can increase their visibility on the Parkway:
Wear brightly-colored, high-visibility clothing.
Bicyclists will frequently be riding in mixed sun and shade. Use a flashing white light on the back of your bike during the day. (bold in original)
For between sundown and sunup, it does mention both solid white (500 ft) to the front, and flashing red (200 ft) to the rear.
https://www.nps.gov/media/video/view.htm?id=340B5BFE-1DD8-B71C-07BC902692036668LM wrote:
http://imgur.com/a/oseHSThat guy is over the passenger front wheel, with his leg over the windshield.
He's over the front wheel? Seriously? Which part of his body, exactly, is over the wheel?
And where exactly do you see his leg over the windshield??????
Answer: None of him, and NOWHERE
In fact, he'd have to be upside down for that gymnastic position to happen.
In addition, his bike would have been totally mangled, and it wasn't harmed in the least.
The main thing that's come out about this is that many cyclists are LIARS, not capable of truth, nor of rational reasoning.
snoreville wrote:
The photo supports me. Sorry.
It supports you being a liar.
LM wrote:
That guy is over the passenger front wheel, with his leg over the windshield. The driver would have to be utterly oblivious to avoid noticing that.
Armchair TV expert wrote:
The problem is that you've freeze-framed the exact instant of impact. In reality, this went by faster than the blink of an eye, and the driver was likely looking ahead slightly to left (ongoing traffic), and/or in rearview mirror (to see if cleared GoPro cyclist). I've watched enough NASCAR wrecks from in-car cameras to know that it's easy to miss things, even when they seem "obvious" from slow-mo.
Troll on. Use more handles.
---> Stop lying wrote:
LM wrote:http://imgur.com/a/oseHSThat guy is over the passenger front wheel, with his leg over the windshield.
He's over the front wheel? Seriously? Which part of his body, exactly, is over the wheel?
And where exactly do you see his leg over the windshield??????
Answer: None of him, and NOWHERE
In fact, he'd have to be upside down for that gymnastic position to happen.
In addition, his bike would have been totally mangled, and it wasn't harmed in the least.
The main thing that's come out about this is that many cyclists are LIARS, not capable of truth, nor of rational reasoning.
This picture shows him making contact with the hood/sidewall of the car. That's pretty much in the vicinity of the right wheel. Whether he is above the wheel, on the wheel, or contacting the part of the car just above the wheel is frankly irrelevant. The main thing the video shows is that the car made contact with the cyclist towards the front of the vehicle.
That's never excusable as a driver, if you hit an object to the side or front of you; you ALWAYS made a mistake to be in such a situation. The on exception might be if something violently sideswiped you; but that isn't the case here.
http://imgur.com/a/PuBylThat's the leg,is it not?
If so it's over the hood of the car, given it's to the left of the cyclist, whose ass is more or less resting/hitting the part of the frame that goes over the wheel.
Contact was clearly made by the upper right side of the car. The cyclist is an entitled douchebag, but the driver is massively inept to hit an object like that.
Well said ~ thank you wrote:
LM wrote:That guy is over the passenger front wheel, with his leg over the windshield. The driver would have to be utterly oblivious to avoid noticing that.
Armchair TV expert wrote:
The problem is that you've freeze-framed the exact instant of impact. In reality, this went by faster than the blink of an eye, and the driver was likely looking ahead slightly to left (ongoing traffic), and/or in rearview mirror (to see if cleared GoPro cyclist). I've watched enough NASCAR wrecks from in-car cameras to know that it's easy to miss things, even when they seem "obvious" from slow-mo.
Assuming this is accurate, it still doesn't matter that much. In order to be unaware the cyclist was there period, the driver would have had to have not observed the front/right of his vehicle for a good 10-20 seconds. That's just plain bad driving.
The only way you miss 2 cyclists up the road and slightly to the right of you is by terrible attention to the road/distracted driving.
Also, to not see the wreck in the rear view mirror and be surprised about it suggests poor driving.
---> Stop lying wrote:
.In addition, his bike would have been totally mangled, and it wasn't harmed in the least.
.
Another good point.
The pro-cyclists keep on saying that "of course" the driver would feel the "metal on metal" impact, but looking at it closer, the impact was primarily against the bicyclist's body (also much more massive than the bike), which is squishier. So the impact would damped/attenuated from the car's standpoint.
Supposedly the bike was damaged, and at 0:16 in the video you can at least see it got swung around (handlebars in back), and I think the rear tire (then in the front) popped loose, but it's hard to tell what all happened (one second later the GoPro camera is looking elsewhere). The bike fell off rapidly while contrarily the cyclist "rode up" onto the car for a few frames of the video (thus getting momentum as the car propelled him forward), making them part ways a bit. Maybe I'll try to track it down in freeze frame.
Watcher of normal speeds wrote:
Bontrager wrote:Point of impact was in front of the front wheel well. He definitely knew he hit him.
I watched the video in realtime, and I couldn't tell whether it was in front, to the side, or what. It looked closer to on the wheel than in front, likely because the car continued through so fast.
You can't drive/see worth a damn if you don't realize you hit a person at your front wheel well.
LM wrote:
In order to be unaware the cyclist was there period, the driver would have had to have not observed the front/right of his vehicle for a good 10-20 seconds. That's just plain bad driving.
As pointed out before, with the white truck in front of him, Neely might never have seen the black-claden cyclist near the middle of the road, due to blockage of line of sight. Then when the white truck pulled out to pass, Neely did too, and so logically was more pre-occupied with the mechanics of that, rather than looking for an low-vis cyclist riding abreast.
The only way you miss 2 cyclists up the road and slightly to the right of you is by terrible attention to the road/distracted driving.
He didn't miss 2 cyclists, he missed one of them, and the guy was only "slightly to the right" during the pass.
On the plus side, at least you are admitting that (at worst) it was distracted driving, rather than "murderous intent" like LRC posters (following on the GoPro video guy, who randomly claimed it was "intentional").
Bontrager wrote:
Point of impact was in front of the front wheel well. He definitely knew he hit him.
Of course the cyclist knew that he hit the car.
No spidey sense here wrote:
As pointed out before, with the white truck in front of him, Neely might never have seen the black-claden cyclist near the middle of the road, due to blockage of line of sight. Then when the white truck pulled out to pass, Neely did too, and so logically was more pre-occupied with the mechanics of that, rather than looking for an low-vis cyclist riding abreast.
The white truck seemed decently up the road in the video. 5-10 car lengths perhaps, which I'd tend to think would be enough to see.
I'll assume not though, and that Neely had his sight blocked by the truck.
That makes his pass a terrible driving maneuver. The truck made a pass, deeming it safe to do so, however Neely just following the truck is risky on multiple accounts:
1) Don't know if the truck itself is making a safe pass. Maybe there is a big crack in the road or other dangerous obstacle the truck driver missed. If I follow him blindly I'm putting total trust in him. That's very bad, very dangerous driving.
2) The truck may have had a safe pass, but the location of Neely's pass will be different than that of the truck's as the vehicles are moving. Just because that space of road was safe for the truck does not mean the same pass will be safe 200 yards further up the road.
If you're going to make a pass, it's just not good/safe driving to make a pass without knowing what you're headed into. Any way you look at, Neely failed to notice a cyclist in front of him. In the situation you described it sounds a bit like Neely just went to follow the truck, assumed some things were cool, checked up the left hand side of the road to make sure he wasn't going to get smashed by an oncoming car, and then passed keeping his eyes focused primarily there.
All that adds up to dangerous, careless driving. I don't want people with that kind of driving mentality and skillset out there on the roads.
No spidey sense here wrote:
On the plus side, at least you are admitting that (at worst) it was distracted driving, rather than "murderous intent" like LRC posters (following on the GoPro video guy, who randomly claimed it was "intentional").
Yea, I'd be inclined to agree with this. I've got a pretty low tolerance for distracted/poor driving though. I consider stuff like this to be quite serious and inexcusable though; not far from doing things like driving drunk or texting while driving, etc.
The one thing I don't know about though, is the whole "the cyclist through his bike at me thing". The fact that he said that meant he almost certainly knew something happened. If he didn't know he'd been in a collision with a cyclist, why would he have specifically mentioned a cyclist throwing their bike at him. Why not just a deer jumping out or something equally as innocuous. Not ready to condemn him over that, but it's suspicious in my book and needs a solid explanation.
Obviously, if he knew he hit somebody or was involved in a situation it's much worse for him.
No one disputes this wrote:
Bontrager wrote:Point of impact was in front of the front wheel well. He definitely knew he hit him.
Of course the cyclist knew that he hit the car.
Keep grasping at straws.
uppity wrote:
This picture shows him making contact with the hood/sidewall of the car.
Exactly. The cyclist made contact with the side of the car, then hood / sidewall, whatever. The car was there first. Otherwise, the car would have run "into" the cyclist but that is not what happened. The cyclist ran into the car.
A bunch of trolls on this thread, or a bunch of idiots, or likely both.
There is no debating that a guy driving a car hit a guy on a bike and then took off. That is it, end of story.
Blather on and on about if he meant it, about all your stupid crap about cyclists, but the bottom line is some idiot hit a cyclist with his car - what an loser the car driver is. Insane.
as;okdjf;osadkfj wrote:
A bunch of trolls on this thread, or a bunch of idiots, or likely both.
There is no debating that a guy driving a car hit a guy on a bike and then took off. That is it, end of story.
Blather on and on about if he meant it, about all your stupid crap about cyclists, but the bottom line is some idiot hit a cyclist with his car - what an loser the car driver is. Insane.
Again, it's just the one troll.
