thechrisproject
09-12-06, 12:17 PM
My apologies if this has already been posted and discussed.
http://www.videohag.com/?p=29
http://www.videohag.com/?p=29
View Full Version : Car hits biker video
Pages :
[1]
2
Bikepacker67
09-12-06, 12:35 PM
Another stupid ass driver going too fast and not paying attention.
thechrisproject
09-12-06, 12:41 PM
The driver probably wasn't paying enough attention, but if you watch through to the end of the video, some of the witnesses comment that the biker swerved out to go around the cop car. That sounds like a pretty dangerous maneuver to me.
slagjumper
09-12-06, 01:02 PM
The driver probably wasn't paying enough attention, but if you watch through to the end of the video, some of the witnesses comment that the biker swerved out to go around the cop car. That sounds like a pretty dangerous maneuver to me.
Didnt the dude in the red car leave his door open?
Didnt the dude in the red car leave his door open?
oboeguy
09-12-06, 01:05 PM
"She didn't see him"
No, really?
That video makes me sick. Cop did a job of handling it IMO (called paramedics then checked that the guy was still breathing).
No, really?
That video makes me sick. Cop did a job of handling it IMO (called paramedics then checked that the guy was still breathing).
baiskeli
09-12-06, 01:17 PM
"She didn't see him"
No, really?
That video makes me sick. Cop did a job of handling it IMO (called paramedics then checked that the guy was still breathing).
I hate that stupid "didn't see him" excuse too!
However, I think the cop did a fine job
No, really?
That video makes me sick. Cop did a job of handling it IMO (called paramedics then checked that the guy was still breathing).
I hate that stupid "didn't see him" excuse too!
However, I think the cop did a fine job
twahl
09-12-06, 01:51 PM
You guys must have missed the part where the passenger in the car said that the cyclist was riding up behind the police car, looking back and forth between the police car and the car that hit him, then tried to swerve into the lane. Stupid assed driver not paying enough attention to everthing around her? Sure. But also a stupid assed cyclist not wearing a helmet and not riding in a way that would allow drivers to see him and predict his behavior. Looks like a double-dumbass accident to me.
John Wilke
09-12-06, 01:53 PM
This was the first clip in this past week's new COPS episode (see prior thread).
Glad someone finally posted it.
jw
Glad someone finally posted it.
jw
Crazy Cyclist
09-12-06, 03:59 PM
Of course the driver didn't see him. The driver was a woman. That figures. She was probably doing something stupid ( like talking on a cell phone instead of watching her driving)
tippy
09-12-06, 05:29 PM
... Cop did a job of handling it IMO ...
Except for the part where he called the cyclist a pedestrian or pedestrian on a bike.
Glad the cop was there ...
Glad the videographer was there ...
EMS actually responded pretty quick too (assuming no video editing) ...
Except for the part where he called the cyclist a pedestrian or pedestrian on a bike.
Glad the cop was there ...
Glad the videographer was there ...
EMS actually responded pretty quick too (assuming no video editing) ...
Helmet Head
09-12-06, 05:38 PM
Of course the driver didn't see him. The driver was a woman. That figures. She was probably doing something stupid ( like talking on a cell phone instead of watching her driving)
Actually, it was probably inattentional blindness.
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html
Actually, it was probably inattentional blindness.
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html
Helmet Head
09-12-06, 05:46 PM
Now that I watched the video... the cyclist apparently moved laterally (left, to go around the police car) without having the right of way to do so, suddenly moving right in front of the car that was overtaking him.
Did I miss something?
Did I miss something?
Cogsby11
09-12-06, 05:51 PM
This was a very bad accident, and I feel horrible for the cyclist who was hit but many factors seem to indicate that it was his fault and not the driver of the car who hit him:
1. The Police car and the red Camero are pulled so far over onto the shoulder that even with their doors open there is clearly enough room for a bicycle rider to pass them without having to leave the right hand lane.
2. The white car that hits the rider is all the way to the left in the left hand lane. The collision seems to take place almost in the center of the lane, and the rider lands in the left lane.
3. It seems to me that the biker is angled sideways rather than straight when the white car hits him.
4. In the second or two before the accident the camera briefly shows the road behind the Police cruiser and there is no cyclist coming from that direction.
I think it might be possible that the cyclist was on the sidewalk before he decided to cross the road at the place of the accident. The people in the interview did state that he lived down the block.
Here is what I think might have happened:
1. The Police car and the red Camero are pulled so far over onto the shoulder that even with their doors open there is clearly enough room for a bicycle rider to pass them without having to leave the right hand lane.
2. The white car that hits the rider is all the way to the left in the left hand lane. The collision seems to take place almost in the center of the lane, and the rider lands in the left lane.
3. It seems to me that the biker is angled sideways rather than straight when the white car hits him.
4. In the second or two before the accident the camera briefly shows the road behind the Police cruiser and there is no cyclist coming from that direction.
I think it might be possible that the cyclist was on the sidewalk before he decided to cross the road at the place of the accident. The people in the interview did state that he lived down the block.
Here is what I think might have happened:
withak
09-13-06, 08:50 AM
Except for the part where he called the cyclist a pedestrian or pedestrian on a bike.
Towards the end he mentions to a paramedic that the bike is quite a distance back on the road (couldn't make out exactly how far he said). He probably didn't realize there was bike involved until after he called it in and had time to look around a little more.
Towards the end he mentions to a paramedic that the bike is quite a distance back on the road (couldn't make out exactly how far he said). He probably didn't realize there was bike involved until after he called it in and had time to look around a little more.
yes
09-13-06, 08:52 AM
Looks like there was another lane to the left. The biker may have pulled out around the other cars far in front of the white car that hit him. The driver was probably looking at the police at the time, and didn't look back at the road until it was too late. Not nearly enough evidence here to blame the biker. The lack of helmet is irrelavent in regard to assessing blame. It may have furthered his injuries, but that is it.
Carusoswi
09-13-06, 08:52 AM
Personally, unless there was info in the show that clarified what happened, I don't see how we can be so certain of the chain of events as to assign blame to the cyclist. He is out in the next lane, but I see nothing inherently wrong with that - perhaps he was just "taking his position" in the lane. As for the cop, he certainly is doing an adequate job in prioritizing his attention, calling for EMS and backup, but, I'm a bit disturbed by what appears to be his acceptance of the driver's statement (I think she is the driver) that alleges that the cyclist swerved out suddenly in front of her.
And, while I understand that he had to tend to the downed cyclist and secure the scene, it also bothers me that the entire party of occupants from the car that struck the cyclist was free to almost privately converse while the officer secured the scene.
I have no police training, so I cannot offer comment on the proper procedure to follow or whether this officer followed it - but it seems contradictory that the driver and the other female passenger seem to be asserting that the cyclist suddenly swerved into their path while the rear seat male passenger apparently observed the cyclist glancing back and forth in anticipation of the action he (the cyclist) would take to avoid the police car.
The cyclist was unable to give his account at the scene, but I would be very interested to hear his version of events. I don't for one moment accept at face value the statements of the driver or other occupants of the car who have a vested interest in deflecting blame from the driver and directing it onto the cyclist.
It's really not fair for me to comment negatively on the actions of the officer, either. Just because he didn't challenge the statements of the car occupants at the scene doesn't mean that he will not interrogate them more aggressively at a later time.
As to the question of whether or not the cyclist should have been wearing a helmet, I would say that the lack of one did not contribute in any way to the circumstances leading to this accident. It would appear that he escaped serious head injury, although from the video, one cannot be certain.
I would be very curious to know what conclusions were reached after a complete investigation into this accident.
Caruso
And, while I understand that he had to tend to the downed cyclist and secure the scene, it also bothers me that the entire party of occupants from the car that struck the cyclist was free to almost privately converse while the officer secured the scene.
I have no police training, so I cannot offer comment on the proper procedure to follow or whether this officer followed it - but it seems contradictory that the driver and the other female passenger seem to be asserting that the cyclist suddenly swerved into their path while the rear seat male passenger apparently observed the cyclist glancing back and forth in anticipation of the action he (the cyclist) would take to avoid the police car.
The cyclist was unable to give his account at the scene, but I would be very interested to hear his version of events. I don't for one moment accept at face value the statements of the driver or other occupants of the car who have a vested interest in deflecting blame from the driver and directing it onto the cyclist.
It's really not fair for me to comment negatively on the actions of the officer, either. Just because he didn't challenge the statements of the car occupants at the scene doesn't mean that he will not interrogate them more aggressively at a later time.
As to the question of whether or not the cyclist should have been wearing a helmet, I would say that the lack of one did not contribute in any way to the circumstances leading to this accident. It would appear that he escaped serious head injury, although from the video, one cannot be certain.
I would be very curious to know what conclusions were reached after a complete investigation into this accident.
Caruso
withak
09-13-06, 08:53 AM
3. It seems to me that the biker is angled sideways rather than straight when the white car hits him.
4. In the second or two before the accident the camera briefly shows the road behind the Police cruiser and there is no cyclist coming from that direction.
The guy was already on the hood of the car when it enters the camera's field of view so there isn't any way to tell where the cyclist was from the video.
4. In the second or two before the accident the camera briefly shows the road behind the Police cruiser and there is no cyclist coming from that direction.
The guy was already on the hood of the car when it enters the camera's field of view so there isn't any way to tell where the cyclist was from the video.
withak
09-13-06, 08:56 AM
And, while I understand that he had to tend to the downed cyclist and secure the scene, it also bothers me that the entire party of occupants from the car that struck the cyclist was free to almost privately converse while the officer secured the scene.
He probably didn't want to leave the injured guy lying unprotected in the middle of a busy street.
He probably didn't want to leave the injured guy lying unprotected in the middle of a busy street.
cooker
09-13-06, 09:23 AM
The guy was already on the hood of the car when it enters the camera's field of view so there isn't any way to tell where the cyclist was from the video.
As the cop is backing the driver to the curb, you can see some white posts on the side of the road and maybe a driveway or even possibly a MUP entrance, so I agree with another poster that since you can't see the cyclist coming along the road, maybe he rode into the street at that point.
As the cop is backing the driver to the curb, you can see some white posts on the side of the road and maybe a driveway or even possibly a MUP entrance, so I agree with another poster that since you can't see the cyclist coming along the road, maybe he rode into the street at that point.
angelo
09-13-06, 09:50 AM
horrible.
Looks like the driver and/or cyclist were distracted by the pull-over spectacle that certainly was made much worse by the prescence of a C.O.P.S. TV-crew!
Looks like the driver and/or cyclist were distracted by the pull-over spectacle that certainly was made much worse by the prescence of a C.O.P.S. TV-crew!
EricDJ
09-13-06, 11:17 AM
There seems to be a lot of accidents from people who get distracted by cops as they look to see whats happening. They have laws that say you have to move out of the way when police, fire and ambulances are coming. Maybe there needs to be mandatory speed reduction laws when the police lights are flashing. The lower speed will help on focus. At the speed the cop says she was going, a look over at the cop for a second could be deadly.
tomcryar
09-13-06, 11:35 AM
Let's see: trying to secure two potentially dangerous people, a potentially fatal accident, trying to watch the road so no other driver makes it worse, trying to keep the cyclist from moving, trying to watch the other car so they didn't flee, all while on camera........I think the cop earned his money that day.
Also, while they show the brief shot backwards--you see no cyclist--but you also see no cars....not enough info to assign blame to anyone.
Also, while they show the brief shot backwards--you see no cyclist--but you also see no cars....not enough info to assign blame to anyone.
bbonnn
09-13-06, 03:13 PM
Towards the end he mentions to a paramedic that the bike is quite a distance back on the road (couldn't make out exactly how far he said). He probably didn't realize there was bike involved until after he called it in and had time to look around a little more.
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Maybe it was a short way of saying what kind of a wreck to expect, for the guys bringing equipment -- it was between a car and a lifeform, so don't bring the jaws of life or a tow truck or anything, but do prep the paramedics for road rash and broken bones, etc.
It's interesting to see how a crash like that really happens. In my wildest imagination I wouldn't have expected the guy to be thrown up in the air, at an angle. But there it is, happening that way. Hmph. Physics.
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Maybe it was a short way of saying what kind of a wreck to expect, for the guys bringing equipment -- it was between a car and a lifeform, so don't bring the jaws of life or a tow truck or anything, but do prep the paramedics for road rash and broken bones, etc.
It's interesting to see how a crash like that really happens. In my wildest imagination I wouldn't have expected the guy to be thrown up in the air, at an angle. But there it is, happening that way. Hmph. Physics.
sgtsmile
09-13-06, 03:49 PM
Of course the driver didn't see him. The driver was a woman. That figures. She was probably doing something stupid ( like talking on a cell phone instead of watching her driving)
Spoken like a true sexist pig that misses the point entirely. What century are you living in?
Spoken like a true sexist pig that misses the point entirely. What century are you living in?
ItsJustMe
09-13-06, 03:53 PM
Car vs pedestrian is a perfectly good thing to say when calling an ambulance. The paramedics don't give a damn if you're walking or on a pogo stick, they just need to know that an unprotected body was hit by a car.
Now, if he put it in the police report as car vs ped, then that's an issue, for insurance and legal reasons.
Now, if he put it in the police report as car vs ped, then that's an issue, for insurance and legal reasons.
cooker
09-13-06, 04:25 PM
Now that I watched the video... the cyclist apparently moved laterally (left, to go around the police car) without having the right of way to do so, suddenly moving right in front of the car that was overtaking him.
Did I miss something?
Yes...you saw nothing before the cyclist flew off the hood, so you're assuming the part where he "suddenly mov[ed] right in front of the car". The passenger said something like "yeah, we were here, and he was going that way", but you can't see which way she is pointing, and no-one else gave any info. I still say that since you can't see him coming from behind the police car when the cop is seating the handcuffed guy on the curb, the cyclist likely entered the roadway at the spot where he ws hit.
Did I miss something?
Yes...you saw nothing before the cyclist flew off the hood, so you're assuming the part where he "suddenly mov[ed] right in front of the car". The passenger said something like "yeah, we were here, and he was going that way", but you can't see which way she is pointing, and no-one else gave any info. I still say that since you can't see him coming from behind the police car when the cop is seating the handcuffed guy on the curb, the cyclist likely entered the roadway at the spot where he ws hit.
cooker
09-13-06, 04:27 PM
Also, while they show the brief shot backwards--you see no cyclist--but you also see no cars....not enough info to assign blame to anyone. You can see the possible image of the white car as the suspect sits on the curb...I'll try to freeze frame it and post it from home later.
Bikepacker67
09-13-06, 04:36 PM
The guy was already on the hood of the car when it enters the camera's field of view so there isn't any way to tell where the cyclist was from the video.
Exactly. All we know is that the car was OVERTAKING the cyclist.
That is why it is her fault. Passing safely is the responsibility of the PASSER.
Does everyone GET THAT?
Exactly. All we know is that the car was OVERTAKING the cyclist.
That is why it is her fault. Passing safely is the responsibility of the PASSER.
Does everyone GET THAT?
Helmet Head
09-13-06, 05:34 PM
Exactly. All we know is that the car was OVERTAKING the cyclist.
That is why it is her fault. Passing safely is the responsibility of the PASSER.
Does everyone GET THAT?
That's not true.
It is the responsibility of anyone being overtaken to not speed up and to maintain lateral positioning. If the passee (the one being passed) suddenly swerves into the path of the passer, the collision is the fault of the passee, not the passer.
Does everyone GET THAT?
That is why it is her fault. Passing safely is the responsibility of the PASSER.
Does everyone GET THAT?
That's not true.
It is the responsibility of anyone being overtaken to not speed up and to maintain lateral positioning. If the passee (the one being passed) suddenly swerves into the path of the passer, the collision is the fault of the passee, not the passer.
Does everyone GET THAT?
Bikepacker67
09-13-06, 05:41 PM
You're wrong HH.
If the Passee stays in his/her marked lane then all responsibility lies with the passer.
I have family members in the car insurance industry, do you really want to argue this?
If the Passee stays in his/her marked lane then all responsibility lies with the passer.
I have family members in the car insurance industry, do you really want to argue this?
John Wilke
09-13-06, 06:21 PM
If you're comming up on red and blue flashing lights ... you should slow down, whether you're driving or riding.
If for no other reason, do YOU want to be the one running over a cop??
There are laws regarding reduced speeds in contruction zones ... but not around police scenes?
jw
If for no other reason, do YOU want to be the one running over a cop??
There are laws regarding reduced speeds in contruction zones ... but not around police scenes?
jw
maximan1
09-13-06, 06:41 PM
Now that I watched the video... the cyclist apparently moved laterally (left, to go around the police car) without having the right of way to do so, suddenly moving right in front of the car that was overtaking him.
Did I miss something?
Yes but if the driver of the gay little toyota was actually paying attention to what was happening around her she would have predicted that the bicyclist was going to go around the police car which PROVES she wasent even looking at the road. Or at anything. She was driving subconciously. She was probably more involved with a conversation.
And shes a woman, soooo...yeah.
Did I miss something?
Yes but if the driver of the gay little toyota was actually paying attention to what was happening around her she would have predicted that the bicyclist was going to go around the police car which PROVES she wasent even looking at the road. Or at anything. She was driving subconciously. She was probably more involved with a conversation.
And shes a woman, soooo...yeah.
Dchiefransom
09-13-06, 06:52 PM
It's a two lane road, and the right lane where they're stopped is very wide. The woman from the car states that the cyclist looked at the cop and then back at them, twice. If it was me, and the white car was in the left lane, I would have noticed that and not looked back again, if the right lane behind me were clear, so I'm guessing that they might have been coming up on the cop in the same lane as the cyclist. They could have swerved over to the left lane while trying to miss the cyclist, and that's why they ended up there. I don't see anything that would lead me to believe there's a trail coming out onto the road. By freezing the frame when the guy is being seated by the cop, it looks like something white is blurry back there, but if it's the car then they might be "riding the curb". Since the car would be blurry, the cyclist couldn't be picked out.
Helmet Head
09-13-06, 06:58 PM
If the Passee stays in his/her marked lane then all responsibility lies with the passer.
I have no argument with that. I have an issue with your original statement:
All we know is that the car was OVERTAKING the cyclist.
That is why it is her fault.
There is no qualification for the overtakee having to stay in his marked lane in this statement. Given the context, where it looks like the passer was in the left lane, and the cyclist may have swerved out of the marked right lane (or even from the sidewalk) and then into the left lane right in front of the overtaking car, it's not at all clear that it is her fault.
I have no argument with that. I have an issue with your original statement:
All we know is that the car was OVERTAKING the cyclist.
That is why it is her fault.
There is no qualification for the overtakee having to stay in his marked lane in this statement. Given the context, where it looks like the passer was in the left lane, and the cyclist may have swerved out of the marked right lane (or even from the sidewalk) and then into the left lane right in front of the overtaking car, it's not at all clear that it is her fault.
sbhikes
09-13-06, 07:58 PM
Serge is speculating again based on absolutely no actual data. That film does not show everything that happened. Just be aware of that. His mind is filling in the blanks based on his preconceived Notions and his desire to prosthelytize at every opportunity.
McDave
09-13-06, 08:01 PM
Just some observations...
1) The road is three lanes wide: One curbside parking lane, and a marked middle and left lane.
2) The Camaro is right against the curb and the police car is 2 or 3 feet away from it to protect himself and the driver during the stop.
3) The bike appeared to be struck in the middle-right of the middle lane, judging by where the bike and cyclist ended up and the damage to the windshield.
4) The driver of the white car saw the bike and police car yet remained in the middle lane even though the left lane was clear (no other cars were seen before or after).
5) I don't know what state this happened in but Texas last year passed a law that drivers had to move over a lane, leaving a free lane in-between themselves and a stopped police car with flashing lights, OR if they couldn't move over a lane to slow down 20mph below the posted speed limit.
6) Since the cop estimated the white car was going 45mph, if the accident had happened in Texas and that road's speed limit was below 65mph (very likely with the homes in the background), the driver of the white car should/would have been cited.
Sounds like a good law to me for this reason and I would hope other states enact it too.
1) The road is three lanes wide: One curbside parking lane, and a marked middle and left lane.
2) The Camaro is right against the curb and the police car is 2 or 3 feet away from it to protect himself and the driver during the stop.
3) The bike appeared to be struck in the middle-right of the middle lane, judging by where the bike and cyclist ended up and the damage to the windshield.
4) The driver of the white car saw the bike and police car yet remained in the middle lane even though the left lane was clear (no other cars were seen before or after).
5) I don't know what state this happened in but Texas last year passed a law that drivers had to move over a lane, leaving a free lane in-between themselves and a stopped police car with flashing lights, OR if they couldn't move over a lane to slow down 20mph below the posted speed limit.
6) Since the cop estimated the white car was going 45mph, if the accident had happened in Texas and that road's speed limit was below 65mph (very likely with the homes in the background), the driver of the white car should/would have been cited.
Sounds like a good law to me for this reason and I would hope other states enact it too.
Blue Order
09-13-06, 08:04 PM
You're wrong HH.
If the Passee stays in his/her marked lane then all responsibility lies with the passer.
I have family members in the car insurance industry, do you really want to argue this?Many states prohibit the passee from speeding up when being passed.
If the Passee stays in his/her marked lane then all responsibility lies with the passer.
I have family members in the car insurance industry, do you really want to argue this?Many states prohibit the passee from speeding up when being passed.
Bikepacker67
09-13-06, 08:25 PM
Many states prohibit the passee from speeding up when being passed.
Really? OK.
Does that tidbit of info apply in this case?
Really? OK.
Does that tidbit of info apply in this case?
Blue Order
09-13-06, 08:31 PM
Really? OK.
Does that tidbit of info apply in this case?I have no idea.
In the context of figuring out who has what responsibility when passing, the person being passed does have some responsibility to avoid speeding up where it is illegal to do so.
But really, since the accident occurred off-camera, and we only heard a passenger's potentially self-serving version of what actually happened, we don't really know what happened in this case, except that the cyclist was hit by the car.
Does that tidbit of info apply in this case?I have no idea.
In the context of figuring out who has what responsibility when passing, the person being passed does have some responsibility to avoid speeding up where it is illegal to do so.
But really, since the accident occurred off-camera, and we only heard a passenger's potentially self-serving version of what actually happened, we don't really know what happened in this case, except that the cyclist was hit by the car.
Blue Order
09-13-06, 08:34 PM
Given the context, where it looks like the passer was in the left lane, and the cyclist may have swerved out of the marked right lane (or even from the sidewalk) and then into the left lane right in front of the overtaking car....He was probably POWERWEAVING™.
sgtsmile
09-13-06, 09:40 PM
Yes but if the driver of the gay little toyota was actually paying attention to what was happening around her she would have predicted that the bicyclist was going to go around the police car which PROVES she wasent even looking at the road. Or at anything. She was driving subconciously. She was probably more involved with a conversation.
And shes a woman, soooo...yeah.
And you make this assertion that she driving subconsciously because she was female why? Her actions indicate it yes, but her sex has what to do with it exactly?
What kills me is that some of you morons actually think that is relevant...
And shes a woman, soooo...yeah.
And you make this assertion that she driving subconsciously because she was female why? Her actions indicate it yes, but her sex has what to do with it exactly?
What kills me is that some of you morons actually think that is relevant...
cooker
09-13-06, 09:44 PM
This would be a good case study about how people see what they want to see or draw conclusions based on preconceptions
Another stupid ass driver going too fast and not paying attention.
You might be right about the attention. The passenger saw the cyclist looking back and forth, so how come the driver didn't see him until he was too close? But you have no idea about whether her speed was "too fast".
if you watch through to the end of the video, some of the witnesses comment that the biker swerved out to go around the cop car. The cop suggested that. The witness simply gestured and said "he was going that way" and "he went like that".
the rear seat male passenger apparently observed the cyclist glancing back and forth in anticipation of the action he (the cyclist) would take to avoid the police car. No, the guy saw nothing. It was the female passenger who said that she saw him looking back and forth.
Didnt the dude in the red car leave his door open?He was handcuffed. The cop left it open.
You guys must have missed the part where the passenger in the car said that the cyclist was riding up behind the police car, looking back and forth between the police car and the car that hit him, then tried to swerve into the lane. Most of that was suggested to her by the cop. She says stuff like "he was looking at you guys and then at us", and she also gestures and says "he went that way" but you can't see which way she is pointing.
The driver was a woman. That figures. She was probably doing something stupid ( like talking on a cell phone instead of watching her driving) You didn't even need to see the video...seems you knew it all already.
Now that I watched the video... the cyclist apparently moved laterally (left, to go around the police car) without having the right of way to do so, suddenly moving right in front of the car that was overtaking him. Pure assumption.
The driver of the white car saw the bike and police car yet remained in the middle lane even though the left lane was clear (no other cars were seen before or after).She didn't see the bike until it was "close". That was her passenger who reported seeing the cyclist beforehand.
Another stupid ass driver going too fast and not paying attention.
You might be right about the attention. The passenger saw the cyclist looking back and forth, so how come the driver didn't see him until he was too close? But you have no idea about whether her speed was "too fast".
if you watch through to the end of the video, some of the witnesses comment that the biker swerved out to go around the cop car. The cop suggested that. The witness simply gestured and said "he was going that way" and "he went like that".
the rear seat male passenger apparently observed the cyclist glancing back and forth in anticipation of the action he (the cyclist) would take to avoid the police car. No, the guy saw nothing. It was the female passenger who said that she saw him looking back and forth.
Didnt the dude in the red car leave his door open?He was handcuffed. The cop left it open.
You guys must have missed the part where the passenger in the car said that the cyclist was riding up behind the police car, looking back and forth between the police car and the car that hit him, then tried to swerve into the lane. Most of that was suggested to her by the cop. She says stuff like "he was looking at you guys and then at us", and she also gestures and says "he went that way" but you can't see which way she is pointing.
The driver was a woman. That figures. She was probably doing something stupid ( like talking on a cell phone instead of watching her driving) You didn't even need to see the video...seems you knew it all already.
Now that I watched the video... the cyclist apparently moved laterally (left, to go around the police car) without having the right of way to do so, suddenly moving right in front of the car that was overtaking him. Pure assumption.
The driver of the white car saw the bike and police car yet remained in the middle lane even though the left lane was clear (no other cars were seen before or after).She didn't see the bike until it was "close". That was her passenger who reported seeing the cyclist beforehand.
sgtsmile
09-13-06, 09:47 PM
But cooker, that is what people DO on the ass forum! ;p
cooker
09-13-06, 10:01 PM
I don't see anything that would lead me to believe there's a trail coming out onto the road. By freezing the frame when the guy is being seated by the cop, it looks like something white is blurry back there, but if it's the car then they might be "riding the curb". Since the car would be blurry, the cyclist couldn't be picked out.
There seem to be a couple of white posts just east of the police car, and a driveway or parking lot there. On reviewing the film, there is a low white blur near the curb far in the background just before the red car's driver sits on the curb, which might be the white car coming. The bike would of course have to be much closer and hence much more visible, if he was coming the way, since the car was going 45 mph by the cop's estimate and only overtook him at the scene.
There seem to be a couple of white posts just east of the police car, and a driveway or parking lot there. On reviewing the film, there is a low white blur near the curb far in the background just before the red car's driver sits on the curb, which might be the white car coming. The bike would of course have to be much closer and hence much more visible, if he was coming the way, since the car was going 45 mph by the cop's estimate and only overtook him at the scene.
cooker
09-13-06, 10:18 PM
here's a much cleaner copy of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohf2HalRNJQ&NR
McDave
09-13-06, 10:52 PM
She didn't see the bike until it was "close".
Yeah like when he was on her windshield. She was too short to see over the steering wheel.
Still, she shouldn't even had been in that lane. All previous traffic was using the left lane.
Yeah like when he was on her windshield. She was too short to see over the steering wheel.
Still, she shouldn't even had been in that lane. All previous traffic was using the left lane.
sbhikes
09-14-06, 07:52 AM
1. That film was not in Texas it was in Riverside, California
2. The car that hit the cyclist came to rest in the left lane as did the cyclist when he landed.
3. All your comments about the driver being a woman and short are very offensive.
2. The car that hit the cyclist came to rest in the left lane as did the cyclist when he landed.
3. All your comments about the driver being a woman and short are very offensive.
unkchunk
09-14-06, 08:02 AM
Cooker, I was looking at that clear view of the road moment before I read your post. After reading your post I reviewed the video looking for the bicyclist behind the fence on that side road. Couldn't make anything out until I noticed that there was a cut just before the guy sits on the curb. It looks continuous, but there is a definite cut where the cameraman repositions. How much time pased, I don't know. But he wasn't handcuffed before the cut and he was handcuffed after the cut. I'm guessing that the guy was patted down and then handcuffed so a couple of minutes passed before the car hit the bicyclist.
flipped4bikes
09-14-06, 08:08 AM
Exactly. All we know is that the car was OVERTAKING the cyclist.
That is why it is her fault. Passing safely is the responsibility of the PASSER.
Does everyone GET THAT?
Yup. This is the thing that gets me: if it's a bicycle, oh yeah, cyclist was too far out in the lane. But anything with a motor (motorcycle or car), then it's a rear-ender. And guess who's fault is that?
That is why it is her fault. Passing safely is the responsibility of the PASSER.
Does everyone GET THAT?
Yup. This is the thing that gets me: if it's a bicycle, oh yeah, cyclist was too far out in the lane. But anything with a motor (motorcycle or car), then it's a rear-ender. And guess who's fault is that?
withak
09-14-06, 08:24 AM
It doesn't necessarily have to be a single person's fault. The driver of the car might get a ticket for failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident (or whatever the required citation for rear-ending someone is) and the cyclist might get a ticket for changing lanes incorrectly (if that's what happened). The idea being that even if another driver is being an idiot, you still have a responsibility to avoid him if at all possible.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.