Originally Posted by sgtsmile
This has to be one of the most moronic posts I have read ever, on any Bulletin board. Lets see here, we have a person who SEES a potential road hazard, moves a bit, realizes that it is not working, rams another rider, and then leaves. This is called hit and run. Legal fault in the original crash is not relevant when determining whether or not a hit and run occured. Two vehicles were involved in a crash, one left. PERIOD. That makes for a couple of interesting charges. The person who fled, the OP, would be charged with hit and run, and the other one with having no lights, and failing to give right of way to on-coming traffic. We also, from the information given, have no idea if the OP is using lights. The OP is being a twerp, and if caught, will hopefully be charged next time.
It must burn your collective asses that ILTB is right.
I saw the road hazard as he turned off a side street about 5 meters in front of me. I moved to the right and he decided to move to his left. He crashed into me. I looked over and saw he was standing and I took off.
I had lights, I had a rear blinkie and a front halogen, also an orange vest with yellow reflective striping.
The guy who ran into me had on black.
Who's gonna come after me for hit and run? Seriously. That's absolute malarky. He is totally at fault and I didn't know how he would feel about colliding. The information at hand, him riding illegally sans lights and against traffic at 12:20am lends me just enough reason to assume he could be dangerous. I don't need to stick around to find out if my assumption is right or not.
In summation: yes, one could call it hit and run, but that is only after removing all the nuances and details of the incident.
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Dud(e), learn to read.
He
can read. It is you who failed to address his question.