Cyclist wrote:
On a side note. Don't ever wear what the guy who got hit was wearing:
Black jersey
Dark gray bike shorts
Black helmet
You wear that and you blend into the road. Wear bright clothing.
I agree. Likely the black SUV didn't even see (didn't even THINK) the guy would be there, riding in an illegal place under state and federal law. Especially with the white truck moving past right before them. Real dumb on all accounts by the bike guy(s).
I just now watched the video wrote:
I just now listened to the statement by Mr. Neely, and watched the video.
First of all, I 100 percent believe Mr. Neely's statement that he did not see the cyclist, and did not know of the impact. Also, looking at the photo of impact, the car did not run into the bicycle, they collided side by side, i.e. they were both going for the same space at the same time, and the car got there first.
Neely did NOT say the cyclist was by the side of the road. What he said was that he didn't see him at all. Then I watched the video, which verifies that they hit side by side, with the car getting there first, otherwise the damage would likely have been worse.
Regarding Neely not seeing the cyclist, I see how that was possible, from looking at the shade of the trees, almost the same as the cyclists clothing, and to the side of the driver's vision at that point.
I absolutely do not like bad drivers, nor bad cyclists, but think perhaps neither was the instance in this case. FWIW I used to cycle quite regularly, on my own and with large and small groups but hung up my bikes more than two decades ago because of it being too dangerous, from cars and trucks yes, but mostly due to the other cyclists. In this case I think the fault was simply an accident.
And leaving the scene?
How about his initial claims that a man and a woman were standing on the side of the road and threw the bike at his car?
I mean, come ON!
More like "real loser" wrote:
real biker wrote:This was that guy's first road ride ever. Terrible introduction.
And to think a dean of the most expensive, prestigious private school in Nashville intentionally tried to kill him.
Absurdity at the highest level .
Amazing how the LRC "jury" interprets actual facts.
He didn't "intentionally tr[y] to kill him", likely he didn't even see the idiot riding in the wrong part of the road (illegally) with dark colours. But you ascribe bogus motives, because you're a hater.
Clearly people need to have more common sense before riding on the road. Maybe we should demand bike licenses like the DMV.
if he didn't see them, he would have ran over both of the riders. Clearly he saw them because he was in the other lane.
There are a few of you on here that are really quite dumb. And I don't mean that to try and get your goat or anything of the sort, I mean to say that your intelligence is far below average and you are quite keen to share that with everyone. I just find that surprising, is all.
Wear orange, save lives wrote:
Cyclist wrote:On a side note. Don't ever wear what the guy who got hit was wearing:
Black jersey
Dark gray bike shorts
Black helmet
You wear that and you blend into the road. Wear bright clothing.
I agree. Likely the black SUV didn't even see (didn't even THINK) the guy would be there, riding in an illegal place under state and federal law. Especially with the white truck moving past right before them. Real dumb on all accounts by the bike guy(s).
total douche.
And the guy who was caught had done the same thing a few days earlier. He was rider hunting. He was riding legally. As you are well aware. Just cos you think you understand what they said about the sign on the natchez trace. Which by the way is an open road used mainly by tourists to cruise and look at trees. Its a road to nowhere. If there were a dozen cars a day on it I'd be surprised.
You are a fool.. I am waiting for one of you tough guys to stop by the road and wait for me when I have been buzzed by fools like you. It happens a couple of times a week. Then you scoot away as fast as you can. Weak.
where is the obstruction wrote
And just because people don't seem to be grasping this, I will mention one more time that the sign explicitly states that cyclists are to use the whole lane.
Yes, the pro-bike spandex mafia takes a sign foto from ANOTHER part of the Parkway, and tries to excuse the illegal bike rider.
Last week I had a green light at the Haight and Shrader intersection . Some granny with a pushcart full of groceries ends up in the middle of the intersection and proceeds to keep walking feigning obliviousness to get to the other side of the street asap .
I grazed her , just to make sure that she knew that I and the rest of us at the intersection had the right of way .
Flagpole wrote:
1) Bicyclist was riding withing the law.
[/quote]
Yet another False Flagpole.
Only the bicyclist with the camera was riding within the law.
Tennessee law requires (using the word "shall") riding on the right. The federal Parkway law subsumes this where applicable.
who gives a crap about any of your idiotic arguments about the collision being sideways...
the guy hit and run - end of story. he didn't even hit his brakes. I don't see any brake lights in that video. the rest maybe can be argued about, but he hit something hard enough that he had to notice and never once even hit his brakes. he hit the guy intentionally. I don't know about you, but I try not hit any human or even furry animal. seems to me anyone who purposely hits another human being is far from decent.
get over the politics of bike versus car... i mean, this guys was not and is not a decent sane human. well all your stupid arguments won't matter, he'll be found guilty and should be
I just now watched the video wrote:
I just now listened to the statement by Mr. Neely, and watched the video.
In this case I think the fault was simply an accident.
Marshall Neely spoke with News 2 via phone Monday afternoon, claiming, “I did not see the gentleman that I hit. He just kind of came from nowhere. I didn’t know I hit him.â€
He later agreed to an in-person interview, though only audio recording was allowed, saying in the days that followed the hit-and-run, he he has received several death threats.
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.â€
http://wkrn.com/2017/07/10/car-vs-bike-driver-claims-i-did-not-see-the-gentleman-that-i-hit/who cares - you hit someone from behind, you are generally at fault. you have to your vehicle under control at all times. 'I didn't see' isn't an excuse. It is your responsibility to control your vehicle. and of course beyond that, if you do hit something, you certainly can't hit and run
Wrong again, Beavis wrote:
Flagpole wrote:1) Bicyclist was riding withing the law.
Yet another False Flagpole.
Only the bicyclist with the camera was riding within the law.
Tennessee law requires (using the word "shall") riding on the right. The federal Parkway law subsumes this where applicable.[/quote]
Here is the link wrote:
Marshall Neely spoke with News 2 via phone Monday afternoon, claiming, “I did not see the gentleman that I hit. He just kind of came from nowhere. I didn’t know I hit him.â€
He later agreed to an in-person interview, though only audio recording was allowed, saying in the days that followed the (alleged) hit-and-run, he has received several death threats.
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.â€
So in other words, Neely didn't see the illegally riding bicyclist (who was not wearing hi-vis), yet the retributionist cycling thugs are literally demanding his head (like antifa in Evergreen/Berkeley), and the cops get a semi-coherent 1am statement from him to palm off to their media friends as a bogus narrative. And you wonder why Fake News is the all the craze?
Came from no-where wrote:
So in other words, Neely didn't see the illegally riding bicyclist (who was not wearing hi-vis), yet the retributionist cycling thugs are literally demanding his head (like antifa in Evergreen/Berkeley), and the cops get a semi-coherent 1am statement from him to palm off to their media friends as a bogus narrative. And you wonder why Fake News is the all the craze?
Obama would have solved it all with a beer summit between the parties.
real biker wrote:
And leaving the scene?
He didn't feel the biker run into him. So?
How about his initial claims that a man and a woman were standing on the side of the road and threw the bike at his car?
Those claims of yours have proven to be false.
I mean, come ON!
Seriously.
real biker wrote:
if he didn't see them, he would have ran over both of the riders. Clearly he saw them because he was in the other lane.
As has already been reported.
There are a few of you on here that are really quite dumb. And I don't mean that to try and get your goat or anything of the sort, I mean to say that your intelligence is far below average and you are quite keen to share that with everyone. I just find that surprising, is all.
Oh, the irony!
whyohwhy wrote:
If there were a dozen cars a day on it I'd be surprised.
Number of recreational visitors to Natchez Trace Parkway in the United States 2016 (in millions): 5.89
5.89 million divided by 365 is over 16000 visitors per day. Even if we assume half of these are bicyclists, and there are 4 people in each car, that's still 2000 cars per day.
who cares? watch the video.death threats are one thing... hitting someone with a 4000lb SUV and not stopping... slightly worse. there is no way in hell you don't notice when you hit a bike with a person on it... no friggin way. I've run over a squirrel and heard a thud... you would certainly notice hitting 200lbs of metal and flesh. give me a break. death threats?? so what? I would take them over being struck by an suv
Came from no-where wrote:
Here is the link wrote:Marshall Neely spoke with News 2 via phone Monday afternoon, claiming, “I did not see the gentleman that I hit. He just kind of came from nowhere. I didn’t know I hit him.â€
He later agreed to an in-person interview, though only audio recording was allowed, saying in the days that followed the (alleged) hit-and-run, he has received several death threats.
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.â€
So in other words, Neely didn't see the illegally riding bicyclist (who was not wearing hi-vis), yet the retributionist cycling thugs are literally demanding his head (like antifa in Evergreen/Berkeley), and the cops get a semi-coherent 1am statement from him to palm off to their media friends as a bogus narrative. And you wonder why Fake News is the all the craze?
real biker wrote:
if he didn't see them, he would have ran over both of the riders. Clearly he saw them because he was in the other lane.
He saw ONE biker (the one legally riding on the right), not both. He was following the pattern of the white truck in front of him, and didn't expect the low-visibility guy to come out of nowhere.
hrunner wrote:
the guy hit and run - end of story. he didn't even hit his brakes. I don't see any brake lights in that video. the rest maybe can be argued about, but he hit something hard enough that he had to notice
The impact was the bike to the side of the car. Therefore the car didn't run into anyone and it's logical that the guy in the car wouldn't feel it, which is what he said in the interview.
again, so what? if he was decent, or didn't do it intentionally, you stop, that stimple
Easily avoidable bike accident wrote:
real biker wrote:if he didn't see them, he would have ran over both of the riders. Clearly he saw them because he was in the other lane.
He saw ONE biker (the one legally riding on the right), not both. He was following the pattern of the white truck in front of him, and didn't expect the low-visibility guy to come out of nowhere.
hrunner wrote:
get over the politics of bike versus car... i mean, this cyclist was not and is not a decent sane human. well all your stupid arguments won't matter, he'll be found guilty and should be