Cyclist intentionally hit by car caught on GoPro camera

That, put simply, is highly unsafe, highly incompetent driving that is inexcusable under any circumstance.

Combined with the highly unsafe, highly incompetent cycling, it looks like these guys deserve each other.

No spidey sense here wrote:

(following on the GoPro video guy, who randomly claimed it was "intentional").

Bicyclist can always intuit intent. Their smarter than you are.

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.

Keep grasping at straws.

under the bridge wrote:

Again, it's just the one troll.

Whoops I'm responding to myself.

No spidey sense here wrote:

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.

There's also the mechanics of accelerating. Looking at the tape, it seems to have about 1 second from first impact (actually slight shadow in lower left) for the SUV to pass the GoPro guy, and the Volvo SUV length is about 15 feet. That's only a 10mph difference (15 at most), which is what might be expected after having lolly-gagged behind them for so long. Revving the engine as such could also have caused enough noise to muffle the collision noise.

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 also had some sort of object in its back, but moreover had tinted (black) windows (the "driver head's" or whatever is not so relevant IMO, as I doubt it could be seen much in the first place). I think it's extremely unlikely Neely could have seen anything through that mess. So prior to the passing maneuver(s), I don't think he would have seen the guy who got hit in any case, though of course the bad colouring can only hurt the matter.

Finally, the guy managed to spin subtly on his back during his fall, his helmet never even touched the ground. I wouldn't call it a "WWE bump", but it did look a bit contrived (particularly in slow-mo, though that can mislead), perhaps due to the camera angle.

1) No one said that the police were "in on it", only that they, willingly or unwillingly, played into the media's hands (or the media played them), who reported at first only what was convenient to the cyclist's story, and then continued framing the narrative to their behalf. The police aren't obliged to rebut the initial media errors, though IMO the Park Service ranger's statement was a notably good case of getting the message across (that both sides had faults).2) "all the police do is lie", no, the question is whether the police exaggerated ("lied") in this specific case. There's plenty of preliminary evidence of malfeasance on their part. Is it normal in Tennessee to inquisit someone at one o'clock in the morning for a non-critical crime that occurred hours earlier?3) you don't "prove someone innocent" in USA (and most first world countries), rather you adduce evidence that they are not guilty as charged. Innocence is something that is presumed. Maybe your legal system is different?

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.

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.

You are one of the most amazing posts of this thread !

I cycle maybe thirty times a year and run two hundred fifty times a year .

I've encountered azzholes in both hobbies .

How you so precisely and succinctly did a demographic study of this thread so quickly astounds .

I am ultra conservative and was the first to call Old Guy 71 a psychopath .

He described himself as a SF liberal .

Don't bother with reading the thread as we know at 18 you have much Harry Potter reading to do this summer .

Get back to us when you're 35 and in your 17th year of community college when you may formulate a somewhat rational opinion .

Poster in LRC threads wrote:

Finally, the guy managed to spin subtly on his back during his fall, his helmet never even touched the ground. I wouldn't call it a "WWE bump", but it did look a bit contrived (particularly in slow-mo, though that can mislead), perhaps due to the camera angle.

It would be interesting to know what his claimed injuries actually are, and if they studied the GoPro replay before deciding on these.

It's not just the cops, but also the crime labs.

And why not? There's very little downside.

Similarly to "GoPro" video, too much bogus weight is put on technology.

But they got the conviction, which is what "counts" to the elitist smugs.

I expect a full-court legal press to be applied to Neely, independent of what happened.

If you have not already, I encourage you to read some of the comments that people have posted about the video. A large number think the bicyclist was at least partially to blame for riding two abreast. If this case proceeds to trial, a judge or jury will be asked to decide whether the bicyclist did anything wrong that caused the accident. In the law, this is known as comparative fault.

That physicist guy again wrote:

Who honked? wrote:

Who honked the horn in the video? This would also be very interesting to know.

At first viewing, I assumed it was from the truck, but it also makes sense that the driver of the Volvo was the one laying on the horn (twice). This would add more support that this driver was highly agitated and responded by deliberately hitting the cyclist.

Hopefully the authorities can track down the driver of the first truck to ascertain if he was the one honking his horn.

Probably can compute it from the Doppler effect. Most horns are in F (some F#).

55-8-178. (e) No person shall willfully, by noise, gesture or by other means, on or near public roads, disturb or frighten the driver or rider or the animals ridden or drawing vehicles thereon.

55-8-117 (2) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted [not relevant here], the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of the overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle

under the bridge wrote:

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.

Didn't read the last 5 pages, but a troll that stupid is the kind that should be banned from the board. Barring that, he should be entirely ignored. How can someone argue that the two guys riding side by side in front of you on a good visibility day is "low visibility". Or argue that a cyclist would deliberately swerve out at the last second as a car is passing to cause a filmable incident. If you've ridden a bike, you'd know that is suicide.

More TN laws wrote:

55-8-117 (2) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted [not relevant here], the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of the overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle

This is a yet another strike against the cyclist. The video shows he sped up (overtook GoPro guy) during the interim between white truck and Volvo SUV, right when he was being passed!

Why has no one mentioned that the guy who got hit was wearing shorts over tights?

He's has no chance if the judge is a runner.

The violations keep mounting wrote:

More TN laws wrote:

55-8-117 (2) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted [not relevant here], the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of the overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle

This is a yet another strike against the cyclist. The video shows he sped up (overtook GoPro guy) during the interim between white truck and Volvo SUV, right when he was being passed!

If you're going to troll, at least (a) make up differently themed usernames each time (ii) change your rather identifiably purposive (answer provided in the prose) language - e.g. "camouflage", "strike against". You sound like the typical frustrated person who couldn't get into law school but thinks he knows more than a lawyer.

Anyway, your point here simply suggests a reasonable overtaking manoeuvre on the part of the cyclist, and a reason for him to have moved out from the side of the road.

LM wrote:

Well said ~ thank you wrote:

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.

Yes, but there are at least two crazy people on this thread! Arguing against a video of a horrific crash to the extent it didn't happen. Do you ever wonder about the mindset of fraudsters, criminals and the genuinely anti-social disorder spectrum - this thread gives plenty of examples.

How dangerously incompetent does a driver have to be to not be able to see two cyclists ahead of him? On a quiet road noted for having large numbers of recreational users, mainly cyclists?

Either he was driving too close to the vehicle in front, or he was doing it deliberately. Probably both.

Move out into the other lane when passing cyclists. You never know when there might be a pothole they have to swerve out to avoid crashing.

Basic common sense when driving.

The driver's excuses and fictions are almost as horrific as his driving. This is a true sociopath, a cowardly one who has spent his entire life building up to this. I bet his co-workers have some tales to tell of his behaviour over the years too.

Fashion Faux Paux wrote:

Why has no one mentioned that the guy who got hit was wearing shorts over tights?

He's has no chance if the judge is a runner.

lolz