Originally Posted by
Digital_Cowboy
Here is a legitimate question. How do we know that the two witnesses really saw anything and that it wasn't the incentive of the reward money that prompted them to come forward?
Probably because so far as I can tell, they're only giving money to whoever finds the cyclist... Unless they offered an earlier reward for anybody who had seen
anything.
Yes, it was wrong of the cyclist to ride off like he did. But he may not have realized the extent of the injuries that Steed sustained as a result of the collision.
It's exactly
why he shouldn't have run off. Something tells me he may have been in a hurry to get out
because he knew it was serious.
But then I have to wonder, if these people saw him and heard him say that he was trying to avoid a car - why didn't they stop him - and why didn't they say they saw him in the first place?