Intentional Hit & Run
09-11-18, 03:38 AM
#26
☢
Did anybody watch the same video I did? First, the driver was sitting smack in the middle of the MUP blocking the entire path. As the cyclist approach he made no attempt to clear the path, and there were multiple opportunities open for him to merge into traffic but he just sits there.
Second, he just happens to drive down the road -- in a car -- and yet arrive to cross the MUP intersection (for a second time), at the exact same instance the cyclist (that had just admonished him) arrived to run into him? What are the odds of that happening? That must be an astronomical coincidence, and I don't believe in coincidences. He was clearly reckless. If anything, seeing the same cyclist, he should have been more cautious.
Third, how could he see cyclists on his right but not see someone approaching on the left which was a closer, clearer view? "Look left-right-left." How basic is that? The MUP was wide open as far as you could see. So its not like the cyclist popped out from behind a bush or something. There were no obstructions or obstacles blocking the driver's view.
Fourth, he didn't react the way a normal person would after an accident. Most people would have stopped to check if the cyclist was OK, or at least to see if there car was damaged. If by some wild chance he believed it was the cyclist fault, he would still have made some indication of it. This guy just drove forward nonchalantly.
And last but not least, his beady eyes. If anyone still can see that this wasn't an accident but an intentional act caused by this psychopath, then I feel sorry for you. This was clearly a premeditated action.
Second, he just happens to drive down the road -- in a car -- and yet arrive to cross the MUP intersection (for a second time), at the exact same instance the cyclist (that had just admonished him) arrived to run into him? What are the odds of that happening? That must be an astronomical coincidence, and I don't believe in coincidences. He was clearly reckless. If anything, seeing the same cyclist, he should have been more cautious.
Third, how could he see cyclists on his right but not see someone approaching on the left which was a closer, clearer view? "Look left-right-left." How basic is that? The MUP was wide open as far as you could see. So its not like the cyclist popped out from behind a bush or something. There were no obstructions or obstacles blocking the driver's view.
Fourth, he didn't react the way a normal person would after an accident. Most people would have stopped to check if the cyclist was OK, or at least to see if there car was damaged. If by some wild chance he believed it was the cyclist fault, he would still have made some indication of it. This guy just drove forward nonchalantly.
And last but not least, his beady eyes. If anyone still can see that this wasn't an accident but an intentional act caused by this psychopath, then I feel sorry for you. This was clearly a premeditated action.
09-11-18, 04:14 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Posts: 29,552
Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Trek FX Alpha 7.0
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5224 Post(s)
Liked 3,584 Times
in
2,344 Posts
yeah that was bad. glad it wasn't worse. I always prefer to pass a stopped car at the rear, not the front
09-11-18, 05:25 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
Did anybody watch the same video I did? First, the driver was sitting smack in the middle of the MUP blocking the entire path. As the cyclist approach he made no attempt to clear the path, and there were multiple opportunities open for him to merge into traffic but he just sits there.
For interest here here is the google street view of the bike path where the car was originally stopped: https://www.google.ca/maps/place/320...de685a!5m1!1e3
edit: actually it looks like from the link I provided you have to turn around and go back 100m. The car was in the legion parking lot.
09-11-18, 05:30 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 6,204
Bikes: ...a few.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked 409 Times
in
235 Posts
If you're travelling at 30 mph on your bike and a car suddenly comes out of a driveway and you hit him because you had no time to react, then that's your fault?!! You've lost a big chunk of your credibility with a statement like that.
Last edited by mcours2006; 09-11-18 at 05:34 AM.
09-11-18, 07:38 AM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 218 Times
in
171 Posts
Pope @Jim from Boston often notes, "You do not have the right of way until another person yields it."
…Over the past few months I have come to realize that my safety aphorisms, collected over the years by personal or vicarious experience,are my way of actively aligning the stars in my favor, to anticipate those unseen and otherwise unanticipated dangers.
FWIW, for my own information at least:
FWIW, for my own information at least:
- Make yourself as visible as possible,and assume nobody sees you.
- Like a weapon, assume every stopped car is loaded, with an occupant ready to exit from either sid
- To know where a car is going, watch the front wheels, not the body or hood.
- Don’t ride over an area (such as puddles or leaves) when you can’t see the road surface
- When approaching a curve with no forward sight lines, hug the curb…’tight to the right’
- When riding at night, look for cars, not just headlights
- You don’t have the right-of-way until the other yields it to you (learned from my teacher in driver’s ed).
- Truck at corner in sight, don't go right [from a few local fatalities].
- Jim’s Law of the Road: “No matter how well-paved and lightly traveled the Road, a vehicle is likely to pass on the left as you encounter an obstacle on the right.” My argument to wear a rearview mirror.Those are all I remember for now, and they all pop-up in my mind as I encounter the situation
09-11-18, 07:44 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Also since the car was rolling forward when he did. Slowly, but moving. The driver should have stopped, but I'd have been shying away at least, not charging right up in front of him.
You don't realistically have it then either Jim. The right of way is yielded but not really owned.
You don't realistically have it then either Jim. The right of way is yielded but not really owned.
09-11-18, 08:30 AM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 218 Times
in
171 Posts
Pope @Jim from Boston often notes, "You do not have the right of way until another person yields it."
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
A Mexican standoff is a confrontation between two or amongst three or more parties in which no strategy exists that allows any party to achieve victory.
As a result, all participants need to maintain the strategic tension, which remains unresolved until some outside event makes it possible to resolve it
As a result, all participants need to maintain the strategic tension, which remains unresolved until some outside event makes it possible to resolve it
You know, this "waved me on" business is not taught very well or very often. I did a little volunteer work with the "Safe Routes to School" program two years ago and it's not even mentioned in their curriculum.
Imagine you're crossing a street, either walking or cycling, and a driver in the left lane on the cross-street is nice enough to stop and wave you on. At the same time, a guy passes your friendly driver (if the road is wide enough) and crashes into you. This almost happened to me on Route 20 in Wayland...
Getting waved on is a nice invitation; it's your job to know whether it's safe to accept or decline that invitation. You should never automatically accept it.
Imagine you're crossing a street, either walking or cycling, and a driver in the left lane on the cross-street is nice enough to stop and wave you on. At the same time, a guy passes your friendly driver (if the road is wide enough) and crashes into you. This almost happened to me on Route 20 in Wayland...
Getting waved on is a nice invitation; it's your job to know whether it's safe to accept or decline that invitation. You should never automatically accept it.
09-11-18, 08:56 AM
#34
☢
09-11-18, 09:14 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,479 Times
in
1,836 Posts
He was not at a stop sign or a traffic light. He was crossing perpendicular to traffic. Maybe you should watch the video a few more times. Your example bears no relevance to this situation.
09-11-18, 09:20 AM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,479 Times
in
1,836 Posts
Further, he was going more 15 mph than 30----but wither speed is too fast for a busy intersection.
09-11-18, 09:25 AM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,479 Times
in
1,836 Posts
This.
The driver should not have hit the bike. The driver should have looked back to the left before proceeding.
However ... the cyclist tried to speed through an intersection and In Front of a Moving Car.
Not Generally considered to be a smart move.
I still say both deserve tickets.
The driver should not have hit the bike. The driver should have looked back to the left before proceeding.
However ... the cyclist tried to speed through an intersection and In Front of a Moving Car.
Not Generally considered to be a smart move.
I still say both deserve tickets.
09-11-18, 09:30 AM
#39
WGB
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Niagara Region
Posts: 2,917
Bikes: Panasonic PT-4500
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1800 Post(s)
Liked 2,334 Times
in
1,378 Posts
for Maelochs
First section is Canadian Criminal Law as all the Provinces share the same Federal Laws. Canadian and US situations are very different. 2nd section covers Ontario Provincial traffic laws. Please note that since the collision occurred off the Highway it's doubtful the Provincial Law related to driving would be relevant.I was going to add Sec 172 (Stunt driving but since this was off the Highway I suspect it my not fit either). As for the Fail to Remain portion, it requires damage to Highway property, someone else's property or personal injury. (I didn't add the Criminal or Provincial sections for Fail to Remain because everyone here seems focused more on the lead up to and the actual contact and not what happens after). The appropriate sections for Failing to Remain are Criminal Code Section 252 and Highway Traffic Act Section 200.
Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
Dangerous operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft
Careless driving
130 (1) Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.Penalty
(2) On conviction under subsection (1), a person is liable to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her driver’s licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.Careless driving causing bodily harm or death
(3) Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and who thereby causes bodily harm or death to any person. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.Penalty
(4) On conviction under subsection (3), a person is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both, and in addition his or her driver’s licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than five years. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.Deemed lack of reasonable consideration
(5) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (3), a person is deemed to drive without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway if he or she drives in a manner that may limit his or her ability to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.Sentencing — aggravating factor
(6) A court that imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection (3) shall consider as an aggravating factor evidence that bodily harm or death was caused to a person who, in the circumstances of the offence, was vulnerable to a lack of due care and attention or reasonable consideration by a driver, including by virtue of the fact that the person was a pedestrian or cyclist. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.
First section is Canadian Criminal Law as all the Provinces share the same Federal Laws. Canadian and US situations are very different. 2nd section covers Ontario Provincial traffic laws. Please note that since the collision occurred off the Highway it's doubtful the Provincial Law related to driving would be relevant.I was going to add Sec 172 (Stunt driving but since this was off the Highway I suspect it my not fit either). As for the Fail to Remain portion, it requires damage to Highway property, someone else's property or personal injury. (I didn't add the Criminal or Provincial sections for Fail to Remain because everyone here seems focused more on the lead up to and the actual contact and not what happens after). The appropriate sections for Failing to Remain are Criminal Code Section 252 and Highway Traffic Act Section 200.
Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
Dangerous operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft
- 249 (1) Every one commits an offence who operates
- (a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place;
- (b) a vessel or any water skis, surf-board, water sled or other towed object on or over any of the internal waters of Canada or the territorial sea of Canada, in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature and condition of those waters or sea and the use that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be made of those waters or sea;
- (c) an aircraft in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature and condition of that aircraft or the place or air space in or through which the aircraft is operated; or
- (d) railway equipment in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature and condition of the equipment or the place in or through which the equipment is operated.
- Marginal note
unishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1)- (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
- (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
- Marginal note
angerous operation causing bodily harm
(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes bodily harm to any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. - Marginal noteangerous operation causing death
(4) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Careless driving
130 (1) Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.Penalty
(2) On conviction under subsection (1), a person is liable to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her driver’s licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.Careless driving causing bodily harm or death
(3) Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and who thereby causes bodily harm or death to any person. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.Penalty
(4) On conviction under subsection (3), a person is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both, and in addition his or her driver’s licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than five years. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.Deemed lack of reasonable consideration
(5) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (3), a person is deemed to drive without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway if he or she drives in a manner that may limit his or her ability to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.Sentencing — aggravating factor
(6) A court that imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection (3) shall consider as an aggravating factor evidence that bodily harm or death was caused to a person who, in the circumstances of the offence, was vulnerable to a lack of due care and attention or reasonable consideration by a driver, including by virtue of the fact that the person was a pedestrian or cyclist. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.
Last edited by WGB; 09-11-18 at 10:08 AM. Reason: correction
09-11-18, 09:43 AM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
(Honda.)
Second, I am not sure that it was intentional. The driver had stopped for the 2 other cyclists and was probably focused on them and unfortunately did not notice the cyclist approaching from the left. Same thing happened to me today; however because I anticipated the driver to move there was zero drama. This Captain Mazda dude made no attempt to slow, assuming that the driver was stopped for him as well. Bad assumption. Glad that he was not injured.
The driver wasn't stopped. It appears he's creeping forward very slowly even as those two cyclists cross in front (do a frame-by-frame and look at the car wheel).
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-11-18 at 10:15 AM.
09-11-18, 09:54 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,278
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4260 Post(s)
Liked 1,363 Times
in
945 Posts
Guy in the car was being a jerk. I think he moved a couple feet forward to scare the guy on the bike, but the bike went right into him. Would not surprise me if it was someone else's car (his mom's?). Pretty minor incident, though I'm sure it felt like the crime of the century to the guy on the bike.
I hate to say that this incident probably belongs in the "no harm no foul" category (unless the kid's dad is police chief or something) but I think it does. No damages that I could see, maybe a bent fork ($20 to bend back at the bike shop) and possibly a front wheel (maybe $75). We're not even talking $100 here.
I doubt anything will come of this, unless the guy on the bike was hurt worse than it looked. As it is, the guys car will likely be the most expensive thing to fix.
I hate to say that this incident probably belongs in the "no harm no foul" category (unless the kid's dad is police chief or something) but I think it does. No damages that I could see, maybe a bent fork ($20 to bend back at the bike shop) and possibly a front wheel (maybe $75). We're not even talking $100 here.
I doubt anything will come of this, unless the guy on the bike was hurt worse than it looked. As it is, the guys car will likely be the most expensive thing to fix.
It's assault to try to "scare" the cyclist in this way
Drivers (or anybody) need some sort of indication that this sort of behavior isn't acceptable.
09-11-18, 10:32 AM
#42
☢
That, or you're just simply not keeping up. Check your driving code on entering/exiting driveways. Believe it or not some folk actually read the driver handbook.
09-11-18, 11:02 AM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 218 Times
in
171 Posts
Of course that driver may likely be a “nice hole."
You know, this "waved me on" business is not taught very well or very often. Imagine you're crossing a street, either walking or cycling, and a driver in the left lane on the cross-street is nice enough to stop and wave you on.
At the same time, a guy passes your friendly driver (if the road is wide enough) and crashes into you. This almost happened to me on Route 20 in Wayland...
Getting waved on is a nice invitation; it's your job to know whether it's safe to accept or decline that invitation. You should never automatically accept it.
At the same time, a guy passes your friendly driver (if the road is wide enough) and crashes into you. This almost happened to me on Route 20 in Wayland...
Getting waved on is a nice invitation; it's your job to know whether it's safe to accept or decline that invitation. You should never automatically accept it.
I have heard such "friendly drivers" called "niceholes."
However, riding venues for me are situational, and I use my judgement
Also ...most states have some sort of Uniform Traffic Code which contains a section on bicycles.
Regardless of what other riders (and sometimes LEOs) might tell you, it is the laws on the books that a judge will enforce.
In this internet age, researching, downloading, and learning the specific bike laws is easy.
Regardless of what other riders (and sometimes LEOs) might tell you, it is the laws on the books that a judge will enforce.
In this internet age, researching, downloading, and learning the specific bike laws is easy.
Last edited by Jim from Boston; 09-11-18 at 11:06 AM.
09-11-18, 11:15 AM
#44
On Holiday
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,014
Bikes: A bunch of old steel bikes
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
12 Posts
Captain Mazda is the name used by the cyclist who posted the video. Might you have have missed other things?
@Maelochs - Well done, thorough and objective analysis. Thanks, concurs with my earlier post.
@Maelochs - Well done, thorough and objective analysis. Thanks, concurs with my earlier post.
Last edited by Hoopdriver; 09-11-18 at 11:30 AM.
09-11-18, 11:37 AM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 6,204
Bikes: ...a few.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked 409 Times
in
235 Posts
The car did not suddenly come out of any driveway ... the cyclist saw the car clearly. Also, the car was Moving the whole time the cyclist saw him ... so the cyclist Knew the car was rolling through the intersection.
Further, he was going more 15 mph than 30----but wither speed is too fast for a busy intersection.
Further, he was going more 15 mph than 30----but wither speed is too fast for a busy intersection.
09-11-18, 11:42 AM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,479 Times
in
1,836 Posts
Thanks for all that. i didn't think ti was legal to collide with cars, cyclists, or pedestrians in Canada.
The clarifyication i sought concerned the driver pulling up to the road's edge to pull into traffic, where the driveway crossed the bike lane.
I know where I have ridden, even if a lane is marked a "bike lane" the designation does not include driveways or intersections---those are treated as driveways and intersections, which means rules of right-of-way and such obtain. To me, seeing the bollards, i take them to mean the temporary end of the bike lane (or MUP, in this case.) That is who it has been in every state I have ridden in the U.S. (though honestly, I have ridden MUPs in fewer than half-a-dozen states (because MUPs tend to be lame and also dangerous.))
I wonder if there is a specific law in Ontario saying a car could not pull up the the verge of the road in a driveway if it crossed a bike lane or an MUP. I don't see how that would make sense, or be safe, but I figure I would rather ask than make a statement not supported by fact.
The clarifyication i sought concerned the driver pulling up to the road's edge to pull into traffic, where the driveway crossed the bike lane.
I know where I have ridden, even if a lane is marked a "bike lane" the designation does not include driveways or intersections---those are treated as driveways and intersections, which means rules of right-of-way and such obtain. To me, seeing the bollards, i take them to mean the temporary end of the bike lane (or MUP, in this case.) That is who it has been in every state I have ridden in the U.S. (though honestly, I have ridden MUPs in fewer than half-a-dozen states (because MUPs tend to be lame and also dangerous.))
I wonder if there is a specific law in Ontario saying a car could not pull up the the verge of the road in a driveway if it crossed a bike lane or an MUP. I don't see how that would make sense, or be safe, but I figure I would rather ask than make a statement not supported by fact.
09-11-18, 11:48 AM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,479 Times
in
1,836 Posts
My point, which I obviously didn't get across very well, was that many collisions occur with the cyclist hitting the car, and most of the time it is the drivers' fault. I wasn't specifically referring to this particular one, but just commenting on the comment @COLNAGOMixte made.
In any case .... I have to ask, what a cyclist is doing, traveling at 30 mph through an intersection where there is already a car trying to cross?
if it were a traffic light, and it had been green for a few seconds so I would figure all the people trying to stretch the light and go on red would have gone, I might blast through at full speed (less than 30 mph, but that is just me.) But usually I am pretty cautious anyway, because a traffic light hanging overhead is not going to stop a car running a light.
In any case ... no point try to litigate hypothetical crashes,. In this very real case, the cyclist's own video showed that he rode deliberately into the path of a moving car. That gets a Darwin award in my world.
As I noted a couple times above, Both parties erred. It would be very difficult for me to assign blame to one party or the other---I am really glad no one (apparently) got really hurt.
09-11-18, 12:21 PM
#49
-
Point of fact, the motorist turned into the second bike path crossing to get in front of the cyclist and wait for him to arrive, then ram into him. If not true and motorist was headed to a destination, the parking lot, then why did the motorist not enter the parking lot. Because he could not get through the gate. At 1:51 you can see the motorist reverse lights on, backing away from the gate to turn around and leave.
09-11-18, 12:23 PM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,479 Times
in
1,836 Posts
Well ... if we can't hit each other with our cars while the others are riding, we can at least try to hit each other on the internet.
By the way, Mr. Kayaker .... the fact that the same driver pulled out of one driveway and into another is Not "proof" that he intentionally hit the cyclist. It is proof he was shopping ion that area.
This is why juy trials are such jokes. people are simply unable to think once their emotions are stirred.
Think ti through. The driver had no idea how fast the cyclist would ride or in which direction. he would have had to track the cyclist, and then choose a driveway ... but how could he know that there would be people blocking his way at that driveway? As noted, he never completely stopped, and kept rolling right along, moving into the intersection before the cyclist appeared. If the driver had been trying to hit the cyclist, wouldn't he pause, to encourage the cyclist to drive in front of him (which he knew the cyclist would do, based on past action.) By creeping forward, seemingly impatient to get through the intersection and park, he was more than likely going to force the cyclist to stop---which any cyclist at least half-way intelligent would have done.
The driver has no way to be sure the cyclist would ride right in front of a moving car. If he Wanted to hit the cyclist, I posit, he would have paused and floored it. Considering that the driver just kept creeping forward at a constant speed, it doesn't seem like he was Deliberately ramming the cyclist. it seems more that he didn't even look back to see the cyclist----which sort of makes sense because only an idiot would try to squeeze through, as that cyclist did.
@njkayaker---- exactly the logic you claim "proves" that the driver deliberately hit the cyclist can be turned around: the cyclist saw the driver ahead of him and decided to fake an accident to implicate the driver----that's why the cyclist didn't slow, but rode deliberately into the path of a moving car. The Cyclist planned it all when he saw the car pulling in ahead of him.
As you yourself say,
By the way, Mr. Kayaker .... the fact that the same driver pulled out of one driveway and into another is Not "proof" that he intentionally hit the cyclist. It is proof he was shopping ion that area.
This is why juy trials are such jokes. people are simply unable to think once their emotions are stirred.
Think ti through. The driver had no idea how fast the cyclist would ride or in which direction. he would have had to track the cyclist, and then choose a driveway ... but how could he know that there would be people blocking his way at that driveway? As noted, he never completely stopped, and kept rolling right along, moving into the intersection before the cyclist appeared. If the driver had been trying to hit the cyclist, wouldn't he pause, to encourage the cyclist to drive in front of him (which he knew the cyclist would do, based on past action.) By creeping forward, seemingly impatient to get through the intersection and park, he was more than likely going to force the cyclist to stop---which any cyclist at least half-way intelligent would have done.
The driver has no way to be sure the cyclist would ride right in front of a moving car. If he Wanted to hit the cyclist, I posit, he would have paused and floored it. Considering that the driver just kept creeping forward at a constant speed, it doesn't seem like he was Deliberately ramming the cyclist. it seems more that he didn't even look back to see the cyclist----which sort of makes sense because only an idiot would try to squeeze through, as that cyclist did.
@njkayaker---- exactly the logic you claim "proves" that the driver deliberately hit the cyclist can be turned around: the cyclist saw the driver ahead of him and decided to fake an accident to implicate the driver----that's why the cyclist didn't slow, but rode deliberately into the path of a moving car. The Cyclist planned it all when he saw the car pulling in ahead of him.
As you yourself say,