Intentional Hit & Run
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,535
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,529 Times
in
1,857 Posts
Also ... the driver was pulling itno a large private health/fitness facility called The Boulvard Club. The Boulevard Club - Toronto, ON - Home We have no idea if the driver was a member or not. he could have been going to the club, had the collision, and thought he would drive away and hide ... but pulled up too far and couldn't get his ID out and into the scanner. Or maybe he didn't think it was a huge deal and was just going about his business at the Boulevard Club when the rider came up to his window screaming. None of us know.
It is interesting how the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" plays out though ...
"Burn him! Hang him! Stone him to death!"
"And then let's see about gathering evidence to see what actually happened."
It is interesting how the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" plays out though ...
"Burn him! Hang him! Stone him to death!"
"And then let's see about gathering evidence to see what actually happened."
#52
On Holiday
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,014
Bikes: A bunch of old steel bikes
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
12 Posts
I appreciate you editing this quote. You did see that knowing that "bit" did change the way you would have read my original post. I probably should have just used "cyclist" instead of his odd YouTube name.
Yes absolutely right, and this is an important point. We all miss the huge body of information that we would gain through direct observation rather than through a short video seen through the subjective and prejudicial filters that our minds plague us with.
If you do feel that I overlooked any specific factual point, I am standing by for enlightenment.
Yes absolutely right, and this is an important point. We all miss the huge body of information that we would gain through direct observation rather than through a short video seen through the subjective and prejudicial filters that our minds plague us with.
If you do feel that I overlooked any specific factual point, I am standing by for enlightenment.
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Posts: 6,208
Bikes: ...a few.
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2012 Post(s)
Liked 410 Times
in
236 Posts
Thankfully, it's only a hypothetical crash as I took evasive maneuvers to avoid the collision..
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,535
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,529 Times
in
1,857 Posts
Doesn't have to happen that way. Yesterday morning I was riding on a residential road doing about 30 kph and approach another side street. A car came to the stop sign. I rang my bell as I approached it trying to draw the driver's attention. He/She obviously didn't see me with my two 400 lm lights directed right at him/her. Nor did he hear me. Driver rolled through the stop sign and only saw me last minute did he stop, and then with half the car jutting out onto the road. So had there been a collision I would have been the one to hit the car. Not the other way around. The video would have shown the driver at fault for failing to obey a stop sign, but little consolation to me and my hypothetical mangled bike.
Thankfully, it's only a hypothetical crash as I took evasive maneuvers to avoid the collision..
Thankfully, it's only a hypothetical crash as I took evasive maneuvers to avoid the collision..
I have had drivers (seriously, not metaphorically) come within a few inches of me in that situation .... so if I cannot get what i think is absolute acknowledgement, I Expect the driver to try to hit me ... because he simply has no clue that I am there.
Yes, i understand that sometimes a car can pull in front of a driver. i mean seriously ... let's both put our e-peens away and try to talk like adults.
Likely both of is have tens of thousands of miles of road-riding experience. Both of us have seen all the stupid things drivers---and other cyclists--can do. Likely we both have had many, many close calls, and probably a few collisions. Likely we have each done a few stupid things ourselves, and learned from them.
If we have that amount of respect for one another ... then pointing out that in other situations other things can happen is sort of Captain Obvious Explains the Self-Explanatory to People who Already Know.
So, yes ... the fact that in Totally different things can happen for totally different reasons Is completely extraneous to this situation, and completely hypothetical as it pertains to This specific situation.
This was not a driver pulling in front of a cyclist who had the right of way. This is a case of a cyclist deliberately riding in front of a moving car---when he had every choice not to, and plenty of time to exercise that option.
I am not trying to prove you are wrong. I am simply saying that what happened in a completely unrelated situation has no bearing in this situation. The cyclist simply should have stopped and waited----he was last vehicle to the intersection, and the other vehicle was on his right. In the U.S. at least, the Driver had the right of way. The cyclist should have stopped.
turn it around .... if a car had cut across in front of a moving cyclist, trying to beat the cyclist through an intersection, and wiped out the cyclist (as the cyclist hit the car and bounced away) would you give the driver a pass? If a driver pulled in front of an Already Moving cyclist after ignoring a road sign admonishing the driver to slow down, and the driver blocked the cyclist and flattened him ... whose fault then??
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
I think I see your point. A driver might yield to a cyclist trying to cross against a red light allowing him to run the red light. The cyclist can’t/won’t/don’t do so (legally), but that’s another topic of many threads.
Of course that driver may likely be a “nice hole."
Of course that driver may likely be a “nice hole."
If a person refuses to yield to you, that's a transgression that's on them but you still don't get to just keep going just because you "have" the right of way, because you specifically are in the same situation whether or not he was supposed to yield. You still have to back off, or move over, so you don't run into him. It doesn't grant you anything extra.
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,384
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 800 Post(s)
Liked 218 Times
in
171 Posts
I think I see your point. A driver might yield to a cyclist trying to cross against a red light allowing him to run the red light. The cyclist can’t/won’t/don’t do so (legally), but that’s another topic of many threads.
That, but more than that. Sometimes you hear in an argument arising from a collision or close call, "I had the right of way" as if it were a privilege granted by the traffic code. Or you see people driving, oblivious, staring straight ahead because they "have the right of way" thinking that anything that happens isn't their fault.
But the reality is, both of them are wrong because they don't have anything added that they didn't already have. They don't have to yield to that person on the cross-street, that's all. Anything that arises from right of way pertains to the person needing to yield.
If a person refuses to yield to you, that's a transgression that's on them but you still don't get to just keep going just because you "have" the right of way, because you specifically are in the same situation whether or not he was supposed to yield.
You still have to back off, or move over, so you don't run into him. It doesn't grant you anything extra.
But the reality is, both of them are wrong because they don't have anything added that they didn't already have. They don't have to yield to that person on the cross-street, that's all. Anything that arises from right of way pertains to the person needing to yield.
If a person refuses to yield to you, that's a transgression that's on them but you still don't get to just keep going just because you "have" the right of way, because you specifically are in the same situation whether or not he was supposed to yield.
You still have to back off, or move over, so you don't run into him. It doesn't grant you anything extra.
… You don’t have the right-of-way until the other yields it to you…
…the laws basically (generally) clearly state that slower-moving, more at-risk occupants of a lane must be yielded to.
No matter whether some other law or ordinance stipulates that such people should find another means of getting from point A to B. (As with signage on highways stating 'mopeds, skateboards, pedestrians, etc' are not allowed on the highway.)
Same on the "high seas" as well. Slower-moving boats are not expected to magically jet aside in order to make way for faster, overtaking craft.
IMO, it's simply bad form to forcibly eject people out of a path for their daring to be an occupant of that path. Ask, sure, via bells or horns or vocals…
In short, just as there's no absolute right to a lane, there's also no right to effectively assault others along the way ... no matter what one [thinks] of their occupancy of the lane.
No matter whether some other law or ordinance stipulates that such people should find another means of getting from point A to B. (As with signage on highways stating 'mopeds, skateboards, pedestrians, etc' are not allowed on the highway.)
Same on the "high seas" as well. Slower-moving boats are not expected to magically jet aside in order to make way for faster, overtaking craft.
IMO, it's simply bad form to forcibly eject people out of a path for their daring to be an occupant of that path. Ask, sure, via bells or horns or vocals…
In short, just as there's no absolute right to a lane, there's also no right to effectively assault others along the way ... no matter what one [thinks] of their occupancy of the lane.
I appreciated the comment that the legal requirements may vary. But what is the safe and courteous thing to do?
1. Always put safety first, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong."
2. Always act with courtesy even with others do not.
3. Always be an ambassador for a friendly and safe bike environment and culture - treat everyone as a potential ally.
1. Always put safety first, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong."
2. Always act with courtesy even with others do not.
3. Always be an ambassador for a friendly and safe bike environment and culture - treat everyone as a potential ally.
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,535
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,529 Times
in
1,857 Posts
All "right of way" is ultimately good for is assigning degree of fault after an accident.
"Rules of the Road" and plain common sense should be enough to prevent all accidents except mechanical failure (which are about 1 or 3 percent.) but .... people can be idiots. It is the one universal talent.
The simple fact that I have said or seen others say in various posts, that under no circumstances are we Allowed to run over one another ... the simple fact that a situation would arise where such a thing could be said seriously ... demonstrates the existence of the "moron" gene in pretty much every human being. ("What do you mean i can't hit him? I had the right of way!")
I think Jim from well east of Westhampton is saying that regardless of the law ... the actual right to physically occupy a given space inheres to the party willing to absorb the most damage. The law might say you can go .. but if I simply don't care if we wreck, or cannot formulate the simple idea that if I go and you go we go into each other .... then you have a legal right but not a physical way. Legally "right of way" is codified ... but on the road, it is determined by agreement--or not determined by disagreement (i.e. collision.) In ugly terms ... it is illegal for me to shoot you, but if I shoot you, you are shot.
In real life, "right of way" is actually a matter of consensus. (There used to be a YouTube clip of three cars colliding in an intersection because all three drivers were sure They had right of way.)
"Right of Way"is a legal fiction. It provides a person the ability to go where he will in the same way an overhead traffic light stops a car---i.e. not at all. The driver stops the car. The driver lets other vehicles go or doesn't.
In this case, the driver was an ignorant idiot lost in his own disconnected reality, and the cyclist was a self-entitled jackhole who truly seemed to believe that he was always right because he liked to bike.
Neither were particularly good "ambassadors" nor particularly "cultured." The only differentiation I make between them is that of "ignorance" versus "willful ignorance." I find the latter more offensive ... and both equally common.
"Rules of the Road" and plain common sense should be enough to prevent all accidents except mechanical failure (which are about 1 or 3 percent.) but .... people can be idiots. It is the one universal talent.
The simple fact that I have said or seen others say in various posts, that under no circumstances are we Allowed to run over one another ... the simple fact that a situation would arise where such a thing could be said seriously ... demonstrates the existence of the "moron" gene in pretty much every human being. ("What do you mean i can't hit him? I had the right of way!")
I think Jim from well east of Westhampton is saying that regardless of the law ... the actual right to physically occupy a given space inheres to the party willing to absorb the most damage. The law might say you can go .. but if I simply don't care if we wreck, or cannot formulate the simple idea that if I go and you go we go into each other .... then you have a legal right but not a physical way. Legally "right of way" is codified ... but on the road, it is determined by agreement--or not determined by disagreement (i.e. collision.) In ugly terms ... it is illegal for me to shoot you, but if I shoot you, you are shot.
In real life, "right of way" is actually a matter of consensus. (There used to be a YouTube clip of three cars colliding in an intersection because all three drivers were sure They had right of way.)
"Right of Way"is a legal fiction. It provides a person the ability to go where he will in the same way an overhead traffic light stops a car---i.e. not at all. The driver stops the car. The driver lets other vehicles go or doesn't.
In this case, the driver was an ignorant idiot lost in his own disconnected reality, and the cyclist was a self-entitled jackhole who truly seemed to believe that he was always right because he liked to bike.
Neither were particularly good "ambassadors" nor particularly "cultured." The only differentiation I make between them is that of "ignorance" versus "willful ignorance." I find the latter more offensive ... and both equally common.
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,313
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4282 Post(s)
Liked 1,375 Times
in
956 Posts
The driver left the second driveway in the opposite direction. That suggests it was possible that the driver was intending to turn right out of the first driveway.
But you are setting up a false dilemma. That it wasn't "ramming" doesn't mean it wasn't deliberate.
The creeping doesn't appear to be "a constant speed" either.
@njkayaker---- exactly the logic you claim "proves" that the driver deliberately hit the cyclist can be turned around: the cyclist saw the driver ahead of him and decided to fake an accident to implicate the driver----that's why the cyclist didn't slow, but rode deliberately into the path of a moving car. The Cyclist planned it all when he saw the car pulling in ahead of him.
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-11-18 at 03:57 PM.
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,313
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4282 Post(s)
Liked 1,375 Times
in
956 Posts
The driver wasn't stopped when the other two cyclists crossed.
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-11-18 at 03:49 PM.
#61
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,993
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,544 Times
in
1,051 Posts
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,535
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,529 Times
in
1,857 Posts
Also watch the video or look at the stills in post 25. The car was in the bike path well before before the bike reached the car.
As YOU note, the car never stopped moving. The car was rolling forward slowly (even when there was a woman, a dog, and two cyclists in front of it) and never stopped … not much changed pace, that I can see.
The cyclist would have seen the MOVING car advancing towards and into the Intersection—let us be clear, it was the intersection of a driveway and a road, Not just an MUP at that point—and had all the time in the world to slow … but instead chose to blast through at undiminished speed into the path of an oncoming car.
Another point—it is impossible to be sure, but it looks as if the car’s front tires are aimed slightly left at 0:17, which might indicate that the driver did indeed intend to turn left.
Wonder why the cyclist let the guy go? I might have stood behind his car until the cops came—he was completely boxed in, unless he had an ID for the club.
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,535
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,529 Times
in
1,857 Posts
Thought about this some while out riding.
What is comes down to, for me, is this: if I had children and was teaching them to ride, i would have taught them to go behind the car which was trying to pull out into traffic---safety and simple courtesy-- and I would have taught them to slow and then stop when they saw a moving car approaching the bike lane at an intersection where it had plainly been waiting to cross.
If any of my children had dashed across In Front of a Moving Car, and somehow they didn't get hit, they likely would have gotten hit by me once I caught them---just so they would Never forget that playing chicken with cars has consequences.
I have no idea id the driver deliberately hit the cyclist or the cyclist deliberately got hi by the driver for that matter.
I sure know what safe,, smart, survival-oriented cycling looks like, and I didn't see any from the cyclist.
I know what heads-up urban driving looks like, and i didn't see any from the driver in the actual collision encounter. i see nothing he did wrong at the first encounter.
Not my monkeys, not my circus.
What is comes down to, for me, is this: if I had children and was teaching them to ride, i would have taught them to go behind the car which was trying to pull out into traffic---safety and simple courtesy-- and I would have taught them to slow and then stop when they saw a moving car approaching the bike lane at an intersection where it had plainly been waiting to cross.
If any of my children had dashed across In Front of a Moving Car, and somehow they didn't get hit, they likely would have gotten hit by me once I caught them---just so they would Never forget that playing chicken with cars has consequences.
I have no idea id the driver deliberately hit the cyclist or the cyclist deliberately got hi by the driver for that matter.
I sure know what safe,, smart, survival-oriented cycling looks like, and I didn't see any from the cyclist.
I know what heads-up urban driving looks like, and i didn't see any from the driver in the actual collision encounter. i see nothing he did wrong at the first encounter.
Not my monkeys, not my circus.
#64
Cycle Year Round
Thread Starter
Point of fact, the motorist turned into the second bike path crossing to get in front of the cyclist and wait for him to arrive, then ram into him. If not true and motorist was headed to a destination, the parking lot, then why did the motorist not enter the parking lot. Because he could not get through the gate. At 1:51 you can see the motorist reverse lights on, backing away from the gate to turn around and leave.
Also ... the driver was pulling itno a large private health/fitness facility called The Boulvard Club. The Boulevard Club - Toronto, ON - Home We have no idea if the driver was a member or not. he could have been going to the club, had the collision, and thought he would drive away and hide ... but pulled up too far and couldn't get his ID out and into the scanner.
For others, right about 1:07 the car was at a full stop for a fraction of a second. Odd how that slow crawl and a fraction of a second stop, made the timing just right for a T-bone maneuver.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,313
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4282 Post(s)
Liked 1,375 Times
in
956 Posts
No. You are being inconsistent. If the rider had the opportunity to get in the path of the car, the driver had the same opportunity to get in the path of the cyclist.
"Blast"??
The car shouldn't have been in the MUP at that point. He shouldn't have been creeping.
I'm not saying the cyclist didn't do things he shouldn't have.
You can't really tell at that point.
It is clear that the driver went right after the second intersection.
The driver should have seen the cyclist.
Again, with "blast".
The cyclist would have seen the MOVING car advancing towards and into the Intersection—let us be clear, it was the intersection of a driveway and a road, Not just an MUP at that point—and had all the time in the world to slow … but instead chose to blast through at undiminished speed into the path of an oncoming car.
The car shouldn't have been in the MUP at that point. He shouldn't have been creeping.
I'm not saying the cyclist didn't do things he shouldn't have.
It is clear that the driver went right after the second intersection.
The cyclist would have seen the MOVING car advancing towards and into the Intersection—let us be clear, it was the intersection of a driveway and a road, Not just an MUP at that point—and had all the time in the world to slow … but instead chose to blast through at undiminished speed into the path of an oncoming car.
Again, with "blast".
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-12-18 at 09:07 AM.
#67
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,993
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,544 Times
in
1,051 Posts
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 138
Bikes: 2017 Specialized Roubaix Expert, Surley Karate Monkey 29er hard tail
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I may have missed it, but did anyone notice the tinting on the drivers side window? It is not as dark as the rear windows, which is completely blacked out. But it is dark enough that it would be real hard to see if the driver made eye contact at all.
I feel like in Southern California, the window tint law is almost never enforced. If I cant see the driver, I stop, which is a real pain in the but when your going along at 18 mph. It would be nice to see the drivers face staring directly at the cyclist prior to impact. That would carry a lot of weight in my own opinion in a court of law to prove intent. Does anyone else see that??
I feel like in Southern California, the window tint law is almost never enforced. If I cant see the driver, I stop, which is a real pain in the but when your going along at 18 mph. It would be nice to see the drivers face staring directly at the cyclist prior to impact. That would carry a lot of weight in my own opinion in a court of law to prove intent. Does anyone else see that??
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,535
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,529 Times
in
1,857 Posts
What you said is that since this guy got his windows tinted very dark maybe a few years ago, that proves he deliberately hit this cyclist however many years later?
That is so for beyond merely illogical as to be insane.
I don't like not being able to see a driver's eyes ... but hey, i ride at night a lot so I can never see a driver's face. Stopping is not that great a nuisance compared to getting hit. So, yes ... excessive window tint is athing ... but not a really serious thing ... pretty sure the driver could see the cyclist if he had looked.
However .... getting tinted windows on your car (or as i did it i got a car as a gift which had tinted windows) doesn't equal plotting vehicular homicide.
That is just insane.
#71
Cycle Year Round
Thread Starter
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,313
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4282 Post(s)
Liked 1,375 Times
in
956 Posts
That's why I was more interested in the driver.
Anyway....
That the driver may have committed an intentional battery doesn't mean the cyclist wasn't a bit of a dope.
The two things are separate.
The cyclist can't control the behavior of the driver. All he can do is avoiding being a bit a dope.
Since this is a cycling forum, it's useful to talk about things the cyclist has control over.
Anyway....
That the driver may have committed an intentional battery doesn't mean the cyclist wasn't a bit of a dope.
The two things are separate.
The cyclist can't control the behavior of the driver. All he can do is avoiding being a bit a dope.
Since this is a cycling forum, it's useful to talk about things the cyclist has control over.
Last edited by njkayaker; 09-12-18 at 07:40 PM.
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 138
Bikes: 2017 Specialized Roubaix Expert, Surley Karate Monkey 29er hard tail
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
That is insane.
What you said is that since this guy got his windows tinted very dark maybe a few years ago, that proves he deliberately hit this cyclist however many years later?
That is so for beyond merely illogical as to be insane.
I don't like not being able to see a driver's eyes ... but hey, i ride at night a lot so I can never see a driver's face. Stopping is not that great a nuisance compared to getting hit. So, yes ... excessive window tint is athing ... but not a really serious thing ... pretty sure the driver could see the cyclist if he had looked.
However .... getting tinted windows on your car (or as i did it i got a car as a gift which had tinted windows) doesn't equal plotting vehicular homicide.
That is just insane.
What you said is that since this guy got his windows tinted very dark maybe a few years ago, that proves he deliberately hit this cyclist however many years later?
That is so for beyond merely illogical as to be insane.
I don't like not being able to see a driver's eyes ... but hey, i ride at night a lot so I can never see a driver's face. Stopping is not that great a nuisance compared to getting hit. So, yes ... excessive window tint is athing ... but not a really serious thing ... pretty sure the driver could see the cyclist if he had looked.
However .... getting tinted windows on your car (or as i did it i got a car as a gift which had tinted windows) doesn't equal plotting vehicular homicide.
That is just insane.
As far as I could tell in the video, let me double check, Ahhhhh yes, it is daytime. Ok. So the first thing I am going to check when I come riding up on that situation is "What is his intentions"?? He is stopped for the other cyclists, is he focused on them, is he looking at me, is his head down checking urgent effing text messages? What are HIS INTENTIONS?? If I cant even make eye contact with him, BECAUSE HIS WINDOWS ARE TINTED, I cannot be sure, then I have to make the best decision I can. I am not going to fault the cyclist at all. He made a judgement call with good reasons. For me, I would make a decision based on my own speed, angle and best judgement.
Also think about this.... suppose he doesnt have his windows tinted, and the driver is looking directly at the rider as he drives right into him. Oh, I can imagine the looks from the jurors as they think to themselves, well that is good news, I am going to be home this weekend cause that Asshat driver is guilty as sin, cause I can see him looking at the camera. That driver intentionally drove into that cyclist. Guilty!
Tinting can absolutely create several problems. You dont want to believe that, cause you have tinting on your car. Dude, check your shoes before you walk into your house, cause you just stepped in a big steaming pile, and it reeks!
You funny guy!
#75
☢