Originally Posted by
banerjek
What I'm a bit unclear on is why a car making a move through a lane they had no right to be in at all is not evidence in itself.
If you had an independent witness to that, you'd be better off. You would likely not be considered disinterested (objective) and you are involved (ie, not independent). Your friend isn't a witness.
Evidence is something you can show in court. It isn't stories told by people.
Originally Posted by
banerjek
Likewise, why it is presumed that two experienced riders would suddenly do something that is obviously painful and expensive -- my guess is that a significant percentage of riders would not have the disciple to not just brake as hard as they could (which wouldn't have been enough in this case).
People, even experienced people, make bad mistakes all the time. It also has to be clear (provable in court) that the driver was responsible.
Originally Posted by
banerjek
This does explain why the cops were so interested in whether I made contact with the car. I was sooo close. But no hit.
The collision gives the cops something to poke a stick at and indicates (ideally) whose story is the correct one.
Originally Posted by
banerjek
There were scores of gawkers, but no one saw anything (or if they did, they didn't do anything useful). Cops were on the scene really fast and there was a police report which he is getting today. My understanding is that our stories and the driver's story are all pretty similar. Fortunately, he has decent health insurance.
If the stories are documented (in the police report), the fact that they are the same helps you a bit.