Advocacy & Safety - NYC rider hit by van on video

Is this video for real? Seems odd the whole thing was recorded and the rider was pretty dramatic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rWu9rMPj7o

It's hard to tell from the angle. Either the bike swerved into the car or vice versa.

Anyways, it's an accident and the driver stopped. I don't see the big deal.

why did the driver have to run over the guys bike again after hitting him? he should have stopped and gotten out of the car. for all he knew the cyclist was under his wheel. ridiculous. because of that, the guy's bike is infinitely more ****ed. i hope the cyclist sues the crap out of the driver.

Looks a little odd to me. The coincidence of the camera being present, the film editing, and the fact that the bicyclist was riding so far to the left all seem a little strange. I can't figure out why he was riding so close to the van in the first place, with all the room he had to the right.

I mean, if it's legit, then I feel bad for the guy, but it just strikes me as phony.

He's lucky to be alive, and to still have both legs intact.

... Brad

It's funny though, half of the video shows him talking and calling his cell phone. don't know who he was calling and such, but just funny how now a days the first reaction is f-off, then right to the cell phone. Have to say, he looked pretty big, If I were the van driver I would have locked myself into the van.

Next time they should have the camera in a better position, they almost missed recording the obviously staged event.

I like how the "messenger" is all limping around one moment and then running across the street the next. Good thing he still had the presence of mind to keep his bluetooth headset in place.

It's funny though, half of the video shows him talking and calling his cell phone. don't know who he was calling and such, but just funny how now a days the first reaction is f-off, then right to the cell phone.
Good thing he still had the presence of mind to keep his bluetooth headset in place.

It looks to me like he is taking pictures of his bike with the camera phone. As in, he's documenting the damage. Exactly what I'd do.

I knew there was a reason I don't ride in the middle of the street...LOL

If you stop the film in the right place it looks that the rider was "skitching". He had his left hand out and on the hood of the van. Or was trying to?

If you stop the film in the right place it looks that the rider was "skitching". He had his left hand out and on the hood of the van. Or was trying to?
Not at all, his hand was on his bar when the van's bumper ran into his back wheel, pushing it to the right. The cyclist tried to maintain control by steering but did not make it.

Note the cyclist did injure one leg.

It did look like the cyclist took some pictures, smart; but he also made a call. Possibly to get another messenger to pick up the package he was responsible for delivering.

How upset (dramatic) would you guys get if some driver hit your means of income, ran over it with his front wheel, then after stopping ran over it with his rear wheel. Not to mention, injuring one of your legs?

For the guys that think it is staged, I have a video camera, you have a bike; lets get some guy with a van to stage running over you and your bike in the middle of NYC traffic and see how well it works out for you.

If it wasn't staged I'd like to know what the camera was supposed to be filming.

For the guys that think it is staged, I have a video camera, you have a bike; lets get some guy with a van to stage running over you and your bike in the middle of NYC traffic and see how well it works out for you.
Regardless of whether or not it was staged, I think the cyclist is likely to be at fault.

If you watch carefully, The Con-Edison van was 2nd in line at a red light, in the second lane from the right. After the light goes green, the cars take off, and the cyclist comes from the side and passes the van. When the van runs over the bicycle, you'll notice the bicycle is well to the left of the lane marking. So I think the cyclist violated the van's ROW.

I too wondered how a camera could be there recording that, but then when you think of it, people record all kinds of crap now. COuld have been a college kid recording for a class project "legs in times square" or something stupid, or it could have been a YOu Tube video creator hoping to capture the next big thing.


Oh, the guy was a messenger, that explains about the phone. I don't think we have messangers here in syracuse (on bikes)

it looks like he wandered a bit into the van's lane. the van driver should have made sure the cyclist was clear before he got out of the way of traffic.

The woman with the sunglasses seems afraid of the cyclist, but yet she doesn't want to leave the scene. At frist I thought the van was going to pull off and leave. I dont think it was staged it's just too surreal

I looked at it again too; I'm not a NYcityer, but do bike always ride this close to cars? My city was just down there and stated she was surprised how fast cars travel, especially taxis. also mentioned car pedestrians accidents were often in the news.

The cycling that close to traffic in the center lane is a common practice for bike messengers in cities like New York. I saw the same thing when I visited Monteal. It's not necessarily legal, but it is a common practice. while understandably pi&&ed; unfortunately, legally, the cyclist is in the wrong for riding in the center lane. I'm not sure who swerved into whom, but yes, the motorist should have taken extraordinary precautions to compesate for the cyclist too, so it's a close call either way.

I don't know why the motorist drove over the guys bike to pull over. Maybe he was not thinking straight at the moment. In any event, he added to the damages. I would like to see this one tried on Judge Judy.

Honestly, I have no sympathy for most of the messengers here in New York. They are just flat out dangerous. I'm mad that they give cyclists here such a bad name. In fact, I was crossing an intersection yesterday on foot during lunch when a messenger came around the corner and came an inch from clipping me.

This comment on YouTube is interesting.
Second, assuming that messengers ride unsafely for any reason other than necessity is ridiculous. Our pay rate is very low, and it's COMPLETELY based on speed. In other words, if we stop at every single red light, etc., we make less deliveries, and therefore have less money to eat. If you want to see messengers start to follow 'the rules of the road,' the entire city of new york is going to have to start paying more money for their same-day deliveries.
I mean, that's fine. It's their choice to ride dangerously, but they have to reap the consequences, whether that's injuring someone else, themselves, or damaging their bikes.

As for this guy, it definitely sucks. I hope he's OK and cycles safely in the future. The city is really dangerous for bicyclists and I'm super conservative because of that.

I don't think it was staged. First off, it's a friggin ConEd van! Why would Consolidated Edison, the city's energy distributer, be in on this? Also, as someone mentioned, people are filming all sorts of things nowadays.There are tourists everywhere with cameras, and Times Square is a very likely place for tourists to be.

At least the rider made a nicely tucked roll after being thrown from the bike, which probably saved him from further injury.

The van had to run over the bike again whether going forwards or reverse, and he had to get to the side of the street to avoid blocking traffic any further.

Next question -- did the cyclist hear the van well enough, even with the Bluetooth earpiece in his ear, to know that he hadn't passed the van completely?

I can't see whether the van moved to the right at all just before the collision, but it looks like it was within its lane as it stopped.

My opinion for now: The cyclist made a bad move, cutting too close to the van. This looks even dumber since he had a whole open lane to his right and was wearing a cell phone earpiece in his left ear.

(side note -- that bike looks just like my Schwinn Mesa MTB that I bought in '99 and still own; same colors, same seatstays, etc. Definitely not an $800 bike, though)

Honestly, I have no sympathy for most of the messengers here in New York. They are just flat out dangerous. I'm mad that they give cyclists here such a bad name. In fact, I was crossing an intersection yesterday on foot during lunch when a messenger came around the corner and came an inch from clipping me. .

How do you know it was a messenger? There are more messenger lookalikes than actual messengers.

Btw, it's not just that couriers would make less money if they followed the traffic laws; they would also get fired and replaced with someone willing to do the job.

Robert

If it wasn't staged I'd like to know what the camera was supposed to be filming.

Whatever it was, it had to be down the street. Because as the accident happened it moved accross the screen from left right. Only after the bike and van are almost out of the frame does the camera pan right to capture both parties center frame. If I were expecting something in my lens, I would keep it center lens the whole time.

Besides, if someone planned this in advance? what a deplorable thing to do!! It's just a lucky shot. This is Times Square. Tourists come here from all over the world to take momentos. (I've seen tourists record some of the wierdest things) Add to that; With portable electronics as ubiquitous as they are today, I am suprised that there is only one camera runningin a city like New York.

The presence of a camera catching something spontaneous is not evidence of it being staged at all.

The fact that he goes from limping to not could mean he's faking or he's simply getting charged/under adrenaline. The way he keeps trying to get up is very indicative of someone who has had a bad wreck.


Getting on the phone doesn't mean anything either. It's the first thing many ppl in car wreck do.


This whole thing looks completely real to me.

This whole thing looks completely real to me.

PM me, I've got an opportunity regarding a bridge.

PM me, I've got an opportunity regarding a bridge.
What kind of mileage?

After I was hit I did the exact same thing, minus the video tape.

The presence of a camera catching something spontaneous is not evidence of it being staged at all.

Lawls 9/11 1st impact, because like... who videotapes a building? Must be some pilot that agreed with the camera guy and the building owner so they could make money off youtube and become famous.



I agree. Calling a conspiracy as to the video is kind of ridiculous.

...The van had to run over the bike again whether going forwards or reverse, and he had to get to the side of the street to avoid blocking traffic any further.
...
You are really warped! The van driver should have gotten out and checked to make sure it was safe, before he moved the van.

If the cyclist were under the van, I guess you would say “The van had to run over the cyclist again whether going forwards or reverse, and he had to get to the side of the street to avoid blocking traffic any further.”

The cyclist appeared to be passing the van.
Al

At first I thought a cop hit him.

I was going to say that I doubt it's staged because of the Con-Ed van but apparently thier employers aren't screened to well, so who knows... also times square has a ton of people standing around videotaping so there's prolly 8 different angles of the incident.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E1DB1530F935A3575BC0A96F958260

No, that was a ConEdison van. ConEdison is the local electricity and gas monopoly. Bunch of idiots and overpaid flunkies who like good job security. The video looked real to me.

On the plus side, ConEd probably gave that messenger some "shut up and go away" money.

You are really warped!

**** you, *******.

The van driver should have gotten out and checked to make sure it was safe, before he moved the van.

If the cyclist were under the van, I guess you would say “The van had to run over the cyclist again whether going forwards or reverse, and he had to get to the side of the street to avoid blocking traffic any further.”

The van driver, I'll guarantee, saw the cyclist on the ground -- and out of the way -- in his side view mirror.

That's why he paused before starting to move again.

That's why he paused before starting to move again.
Moving again was the one thing the ConEd driver absolutely did wrong. Getting out of traffic in this situation was certainly less important then making sure everything is alright. The van driver certainly should not have relied on a side-mirror glance to make that decision.

Oh, and watch the name-calling.

Hey, at least I have a sense of traffic safety and, unlike some people here, haven't forgotten what it's like to drive a motor vehicle.

The video shows the van running over the bike, with both front and then with the rear wheels. When the camera comes up the bike is clearly in the middle of the middle lane. A big green truck passes in the far left lane so that lane was clear for the van to travel in.

My tentative diagnosis is that the cyclist was in the blind spot created by the van’s side view mirror when the driver made the decision to change lanes.

If there is a lesson to be learned here I would say remember that big side view mirrors equals less visibility for the driver, not more.

**** you, *******.



The van driver, I'll guarantee, saw the cyclist on the ground -- and out of the way -- in his side view mirror.

That's why he paused before starting to move again.
If the van driver had such good vision after he hit the cyclist, what was wrong with his vision before he hit the cyclist?

Do you really train your side view mirrors towards the ground? When properly trained, a driver would not be able to see a cyclist on the ground right next to the vehicle.

Hey, at least I have a sense of traffic safety and, unlike some people here, haven't forgotten what it's like to drive a motor vehicle.Yeah, I have seen drivers like you when I cycled in Washington D.C. You even have the language down.
Are you one of the guys that always complains about cyclist in Rock Creek Park as well?

I'll contend that the cyclist ran into the front corner of the van.

Didn't think my ignore list would start so early here, either. You're useless.

I'll contend that the cyclist ran into the front corner of the van.

That's my thought as well... It's hard to tell from that angle, though... The physics of the accident could work either way... If the cyclist was merging left and hit the bumper of the van with the back of his bike, the cyclist goes off the bike to the right while the bike goes under the van to the left.

Pretty much the same thing would happen if the van merged to the right and hit the cyclist...

Maybe you could see the accident better in the original video (youtube compresses it down and you lose detail) but what's really needed is a better angle.

... but what's really needed is a better angle.

Right; there's probably a city-operated surveillance camera that caught it.

Looks pretty hokey to me.

What really strikes me is the accident itself. It looks to me like the cyclist actually overtakes the van, then cuts into him. Anyway, if staged, it was a dangerous and stupid stunt. If real, it looks like 90% bad riding on the cyclist's part.

Looks pretty hokey to me.

What really strikes me is the accident itself. It looks to me like the cyclist actually overtakes the van, then cuts into him. Anyway, if staged, it was a dangerous and stupid stunt. If real, it looks like 90% bad riding on the cyclist's part.

Yep. Either way you'll never find me in that situation.

Right; there's probably a city-operated surveillance camera that caught it.

There would have been one in London...

Right; there's probably a city-operated surveillance camera that caught it.

Yeah, one that was obviously concealed like the one in this clip.

Certainly it isn't faked or staged. There are lots of cameras in NYC public and private, web and security, amateur and professional, film & tv, news & entertainment, pointless and useful. As for the gentleman's behaviour, it's not out of line for an accident at all. I've pulled a young man off of a much larger man who had just nearly killed him & his sister, ironically enough the large man was driving a power company truck. He had carelessly mis-timed a light and destroyed the young mans sister's bmw and came close to killing them both. The young man didn't seem the sort to try and kill anybody, but he and his sister had just been brushed by death due to this fellows careless behaviour, and he was probably filled to the brim with adrenaline.

Cyclist visible at beginning of .08

.08 - .10 Cyclist clearly overtaking vehicle. Overtaking van by it's entire length in 1 second (.09)

.09 - .10 Van accelerates to equal or greater rate of speed. Closes small gap -as- cyclist merges Left, contact, accident.

Clearly an accident. Both parties could have avoided it without aid from the other, accident due to miscalculation combined with poor observation on part of cyclist, poor observation alone on part of van driver. 50/50

The driver erred when moving the van after clearly rolling over a large object.

As far as I'm concerned the driver was not watching where he was going, and the cyclist should get up and beat the living F*&k out of the driver, and then kick his head in and leave him for dead.

ANYONE that drives like that should get beat up so bad they have brain damage for life !

I say this with the love and compassion that Hillary would give ANYONE that opposes her :-)


wll

1) Rider was not wearing a helmet, to no ill effect. BTW, one reason to wear a helmet is so that if you sue you can claim you took all reasonable precautions.

2) The van driver probably saw they guy was not under his van, so he pulled over immediately to allow traffic to pass. Stopping and blocking traffic in Herald sq, even for a minute, is a bad idea. Horns will start honking.

3) The van most likely had insurance. NY is a no fault state. The injuries and property damage are likely to be taken care of. The bicyclist should not have gone berserk.

Negative, the van continued with a body in a prone position on the street as a result of an accident that he would clearly have known he was a part of.

"Steer it - Clear it" doesn't apply in vehicle-cycle accidents or vehicle pedestrian accidents at that juncture. It would have taken just 10 seconds to ensure the man wasn't dead, clear the bike and then, maybe, if you are creating a hazard, then move the vehicle. It wasn't a fenderbender and the driver did not react properly.

Stopping and blocking traffic in Herald sq, even for a minute, is a bad idea. Horns will start honking.
It's New York, horns honk as a greeting. B F'n deal. Safety trumps a few seconds delay any day...