hurricane harry

Witnesses: Verbal dispute before cyclist struck by hit-and-run... | www.ajc.com

Of course the media tries to spin it as the cyclists fault by engaging the driver.

howsteepisit

I see nothing in the linked article that implicates the cyclist at all. The grammar doesn't speak well for the AJC though.

FBinNY 

+1
I saw nothing wrong (anti-cyclist) with the report at all. in fact the implication of the report is that this was an intentional act, not an accident, and the police are searching for the driver as part of a criminal (not accident) investigation.

wphamilton

I didn't see any spin either. In fact the article seemed exceptionally careful to me, in not presenting assumptions. I do wish there was a better description of the vehicle in the alleged hit and run though, since there is a small chance that I may run across it. Forewarned is forearmed, but "red SuV-like" is not much to go on.

kickstart

The news report and witness statements make it very clear it was an intentional act of road rage against the cyclist, and there is nothing even remotely anti cyclist about it.

FBinNY 

Don't forget damage to front right corner. In any case, if the police recovered paint scrapings there's a very good chance they'll have the make, model, and maybe year very soon.

wphamilton

Good. That must be in the video (which I normally disregard).

FBinNY 

I had to watch the video because I couldn't find any "it's the bicyclist's fault" bias in the text article.

howsteepisit

Well, it is the A&S forum, I guess that will suffice to explain the perception of bias.

keyven

While I agree that there was absolutely no accusation of wrongdoing at the cyclist, it is a painful reminder of the unreasonable bias that exist here. Driver fault is always exaggerated while cyclist fault is severely downplayed. A modicum of circumstance is all that is needed for some posters here to thoroughly demonize the driver, while any accusation leveled at a cyclist needs to be backed up by medical, circumstantial, existential, physical, chemical etc evidence to be considered submissible.

Drivers DO need to be more careful when around cyclists, but I guess where driver responsibility ends and cyclist responsibility begins is an extremely grey area.

I'm guessing many of such posters don't drive and know they'll never be accused of wrongdoing behind the wheel. They'd want to be 100.0% covered if a day ever comes that they are involved in a bike-vehicle accident worthy of discussion on A&S.

hurricane harry

A cyclist engage in a verbal dispute with a motorist moments before being run over.

A motorist argued with a bicylist and then ran him over fleeing the scene.
See what i did there..?

RamahX

It doesn't matter what the cyclist did. The driver here is completely at fault for willfully running down a cyclist and NOTHING SAID VERBALLY justifies his actions AT ALL. I live in the metro Atlanta news area and other coverage stated the SUV drove off then made a u-turn then came back and ran him down in cold blood. The victim is well known in Atlanta for not being a hot head and for being an experienced cyclist. That doesn't mean he's not at any fault for riding in an irritating fashion or saying something ugly but NONE of his actions deserved this. This is a sickening action and represents what alot of cagers think.
Just read the comments section here Witnesses: Motorist intentionally hit bicyclist in Piedmont Heights, left scene (Update) | Atlanta News & Opinion Blog | Fresh Loaf | Creative Loafing Atlanta

FBinNY 

+1

Not all fault is equal. People are often faulted, or may fault themselves for placing themselves in danger, or taking unnecessary risks, or simply being inattentive. I'm sure each of us at some time looked back after a negative event, and said to himself "how could I have been so dumb".

But that contribution in no way lessens the guilt of the active participant, who through a direct act of will harms someone. This case isn't about stupidity, or accidents, it's about ADW or attempted murder (depending on whether the intent was to kill or simply injure)

I don't liken cars to guns, but when the car is intentionally used as a weapon, the charge should be the same as if a firearm were used.

(strange auto-censor here, multiple guns are OK, but one isn't)

enigmaT120

They're like bikes: one is never enough.

rydabent

I hope anyone here in Alanta keeps us posted if they find the perp.

howsteepisit

YEs, except neither of these phrases occur in the article. Seems your bias is showing. And for that matter, neither of your two made up phrases show much bias at all, except the second one is unclear as to who was fleeing.