Close Encounters
 

Yesterday afternoon my new Garmin Varia captured video evidence of what could have been a serious-to-me bike vs. car encounter.

This capture is exactly what motivated me to purchase one of these things earlier this year. If you wish to view it, please PM me for the link.

Please do so with a mind towards understanding what this video depicts; I was passed by a motor vehicle after we both proceeded across an intersection once the light had changed, then this vehlcle made an abrupt right turn directly in front of me so as to enter a business parking lot.

Did you filter to the front at the intersection or take your place in line? Were you in a bike lane? Were you center lane or far right?

You actually had a vehicle (of any type) near you perform an unexpected maneuver that required you to make an unanticipated braking and/or steering action to avoid a collision?:eek:

No wonder you needed to capture video evidence to document this shocking event; otherwise who would believe this "could have been a serious-to-me bike vs. car encounter" actually happened?:rolleyes:

Why not post the video link here? This sort of thing happens often. I try to get in front of vehicles first so they see me. If I can't do it in time, then I'll lay back until the vehicle clears the intersection before I put down the power. You can't assume drivers see you. Assume they don't, or avoid putting yourself in a position where you are vulnerable to their negligence.

I was first at the red light before the vehicle came up behind me to my left.
There's no bike lane on this road.
I was stopped, left foot on pavement waiting for the light to change to green.

Indeed I did. And this isn't the first time in the three years since I got back to road bike riding. Why I bought the Varia+camera.

I'm reluctant to post the video here in that the vehicle's license plate is clearly visible. I'll share it with others who ask, if they'll assure me they won't pass it along.

Shall I PM you both the link to the video I gave to my LPD?

As I was first at the red and had stopped to comply with basic safety as well as vehicular rules of the road I kind of assumed I could maintain my right of way by being first off once the light turned green, which is exactly what happened. I'd made it across the four-lane cross hiway before the first vehicle behind me caught up with me, then they continued to accelerate as they passed me before making their right turn directly in front of me.

Local PD has asked whether I had a front-facing camera view. I've used a GoPro before for documenting rides but not yet this year. That's going to change.

No thank you.
I am probably even less interested in a video record of a common, non-event encounter than your LPD.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public road, and it's hard to identify someone based on their license plate alone. I don't understand why you want to protect the privacy of someone whose negligence put your life in danger.

Well, at least you learned that you cannot assume such a thing. Double bonus in that it did not cost you your spleen, or even your life. I also noted you mentioned having your left foot on the curb when you waited for the light change. Really? Is this in the UK? No, never mind, you say the cager turned right (right?) in front of you. We call this a (potential) right hook. Most of us would be good with not being hit. What do you hope to accomplish sending useless (rear view) documentation of a non-event?

Provide a rationale (to himself) for buying and using a camera to record the rear view while cycling.

The video cameras I have are really just for when I am riding solo, and only when on the road. Just in case something happens to me and I am somehow rendered unconscious, there is at least a record of what happened. It hasn't been used for anything else, until recently when the police asked me for a footage of a close pass I had in which the driver uttered some racist remarks before speeding off. You might have visited the thread.

Do you even ride in the road anymore? Cameras provide invaluable evidence when dealing with insurance companies and going to court. They also serve as a witness in the case of a hit-and-run.

There are people who actually use their bikes to commute,not just to play on the MUP. And they have to ride with cars. Sometimes that can go bad. And that's when a video camera comes into its own.

For everyone going the same direction, perhaps we should use ski slope rules! What's in front of you is your responsibility to avoid

Please reference your sources for the extent (or even examples) of court case verdicts and insurance settlements that were dependent on the "invaluable evidence" taken by rearward facing camera provided by bicycle commuters or people like myself who ride every day on city streets for transportation and shopping.

Don't bother providing examples of instances where you read online about bicycle riders who gratuitously submit rear view videos of something that offended them to somebody in the police station and the "settlement" (at best) is a response along the lines of "Thanks, we'll look into it."

Given the rather low cycling accident rate and the rather recent introduction of cameras, you are asking him to prove something like seatbelts work when they were first introduced.

Seems kinda obvious that a concept that works for cars (cameras) might work for bikes as well.

Seems kinda obvious that referring to a "concept that works for cars" provides little or no (rather than invaluable) evidence that recording rear view video has helped bicyclists deal with going to court or insurance companies, nor any service as a "witness" in the case of a hit-and-run.

Lots of concepts might work. A concept that might work obviously is NOT invaluable evidence that it does.

Seems like you just wanted something to complain about.

Seems you ignore that nobody else who responded to the OP could see any value (even curiosity) to viewing a rear view video that bore "witness" to the event that occurred in front of the OP.
Nor are you likely to find much support for a conclusion that the concept of running a rear facing camera while bicycling has (or will) provide many (or any) bicyclists "invaluable evidence" in beneficial settlement of their court cases, insurance claims or hit and run events.

You're better off not engaging. He will look for any reason to argue and play the pedantry game ad nauseam.

If there was no malicious intent that can be proved. Then there isn't anything for the police to investigate.

Do you report all the little incidents that occur while you are driving that could have killed or maimed you?

Perhaps the video might be useful to a cycling advocacy group to use as a example that such things do happen. I actually got rear ended in my truck while stopping to allow a cyclist I'd just passed on a sidewalk to cross the entrance to a parking lot. I think the cyclist must have slowed down thinking I was going to do a right turn in front of them. Because they slowed down, I had to stop. Then bang.... tore up the front end of the car hitting me. Nothing for my old beat up truck.

Not every crime/infraction requires mens rea. Many states, for example, don't require malicious intent to charge someone with manslaughter, but rather that the perpetrator acted neligently to cause someone's death. Nearly all traffic violations in the US do not require intent, but instead they only require that the operator of the motor vehicle can be established (not the case in the UK). In WI where OP lives that state has a 3-foot passing law. If he can demonstrate that the pass was too close and can also identify visually what the operator looked like, the citation can stand. I've had similar success riding in KS where I was buzzed and got the driver ticketed despite zero malicious intent.

So we should bombard them with photos and videos of ever time someone rolls through a stop sign, runs a red light or a yellow light they could have stopped for? Or when traffic changes lanes without signaling.

I could go on and on about the things that happen routinely and daily when I drive or cycle.

The OP hasn't said if any evasive action was needed on their part. Just that someone turned in front of them when they shouldn't have.

You said that; I didn't. I specifically focused on the point that a moving violation such as OP's does not require intent, malicious or otherwise. If he chooses to get law enforcement involved, that's his prerogative and his time to spend. You can do what you like.

So why not tell the OP that they can do what they like. I already knew I could do what I like.

I specifically focused on why law enforcement wouldn't be interested in his video. Not the law itself.

fwiw - at stop lights, while waiting in the shoulder area, next to, or just ahead of waiting cars, when the light turns green, I usually wait & turn my head so the car or cars know I am waiting for them to go first. it's a small bit of courtesy, that I think diffuses some drivers' anxiety about "getting there first"

You said the following:

In other words, you claimed intent was a prerequisite as to whether law enforcement is permitted to do anything. Nothing about that expressed or implied their desire, because otherwise you would have worded it, "If there was no malicious intent, then the police won't want to investigate." (or something similar). You could have simply acknowledged that you were factually incorrect about your original statement, but now it's evolved into crafting a narrative about the cops' supposed willingness to investigate.

Your presumption of their desire is also in direct conflict with what OP already said:



Does that sound like a police department which is unwilling to investigate? I don't think they would have 1) taken the report or 2) asked for more evidence if they were unwilling. Unless, of course, we're also to believe that police officers are all secret closet masochists who love paperwork.