cooker

Yes...you saw nothing before the cyclist flew off the hood, so you're assuming the part where he "suddenly mov[ed] right in front of the car". The passenger said something like "yeah, we were here, and he was going that way", but you can't see which way she is pointing, and no-one else gave any info. I still say that since you can't see him coming from behind the police car when the cop is seating the handcuffed guy on the curb, the cyclist likely entered the roadway at the spot where he ws hit.

cooker

You can see the possible image of the white car as the suspect sits on the curb...I'll try to freeze frame it and post it from home later.

Bikepacker67

Exactly. All we know is that the car was OVERTAKING the cyclist.
That is why it is her fault. Passing safely is the responsibility of the PASSER.

Does everyone GET THAT?

Helmet Head

That's not true.

It is the responsibility of anyone being overtaken to not speed up and to maintain lateral positioning. If the passee (the one being passed) suddenly swerves into the path of the passer, the collision is the fault of the passee, not the passer.

Does everyone GET THAT?

Bikepacker67

You're wrong HH.

If the Passee stays in his/her marked lane then all responsibility lies with the passer.

I have family members in the car insurance industry, do you really want to argue this?

John Wilke

If you're comming up on red and blue flashing lights ... you should slow down, whether you're driving or riding.

If for no other reason, do YOU want to be the one running over a cop??

There are laws regarding reduced speeds in contruction zones ... but not around police scenes?

jw

maximan1

Yes but if the driver of the gay little toyota was actually paying attention to what was happening around her she would have predicted that the bicyclist was going to go around the police car which PROVES she wasent even looking at the road. Or at anything. She was driving subconciously. She was probably more involved with a conversation.

And shes a woman, soooo...yeah.

Dchiefransom

It's a two lane road, and the right lane where they're stopped is very wide. The woman from the car states that the cyclist looked at the cop and then back at them, twice. If it was me, and the white car was in the left lane, I would have noticed that and not looked back again, if the right lane behind me were clear, so I'm guessing that they might have been coming up on the cop in the same lane as the cyclist. They could have swerved over to the left lane while trying to miss the cyclist, and that's why they ended up there. I don't see anything that would lead me to believe there's a trail coming out onto the road. By freezing the frame when the guy is being seated by the cop, it looks like something white is blurry back there, but if it's the car then they might be "riding the curb". Since the car would be blurry, the cyclist couldn't be picked out.

Helmet Head

I have no argument with that. I have an issue with your original statement:

There is no qualification for the overtakee having to stay in his marked lane in this statement. Given the context, where it looks like the passer was in the left lane, and the cyclist may have swerved out of the marked right lane (or even from the sidewalk) and then into the left lane right in front of the overtaking car, it's not at all clear that it is her fault.

sbhikes

Serge is speculating again based on absolutely no actual data. That film does not show everything that happened. Just be aware of that. His mind is filling in the blanks based on his preconceived Notions and his desire to prosthelytize at every opportunity.

McDave

Just some observations...

1) The road is three lanes wide: One curbside parking lane, and a marked middle and left lane.

2) The Camaro is right against the curb and the police car is 2 or 3 feet away from it to protect himself and the driver during the stop.

3) The bike appeared to be struck in the middle-right of the middle lane, judging by where the bike and cyclist ended up and the damage to the windshield.

4) The driver of the white car saw the bike and police car yet remained in the middle lane even though the left lane was clear (no other cars were seen before or after).

5) I don't know what state this happened in but Texas last year passed a law that drivers had to move over a lane, leaving a free lane in-between themselves and a stopped police car with flashing lights, OR if they couldn't move over a lane to slow down 20mph below the posted speed limit.

6) Since the cop estimated the white car was going 45mph, if the accident had happened in Texas and that road's speed limit was below 65mph (very likely with the homes in the background), the driver of the white car should/would have been cited.

Sounds like a good law to me for this reason and I would hope other states enact it too.

Blue Order

Many states prohibit the passee from speeding up when being passed.

Bikepacker67

Really? OK.
Does that tidbit of info apply in this case?

Blue Order

I have no idea.

In the context of figuring out who has what responsibility when passing, the person being passed does have some responsibility to avoid speeding up where it is illegal to do so.

But really, since the accident occurred off-camera, and we only heard a passenger's potentially self-serving version of what actually happened, we don't really know what happened in this case, except that the cyclist was hit by the car.

Blue Order

He was probably POWERWEAVING™.

sgtsmile

And you make this assertion that she driving subconsciously because she was female why? Her actions indicate it yes, but her sex has what to do with it exactly?

What kills me is that some of you morons actually think that is relevant...

cooker

This would be a good case study about how people see what they want to see or draw conclusions based on preconceptions

You might be right about the attention. The passenger saw the cyclist looking back and forth, so how come the driver didn't see him until he was too close? But you have no idea about whether her speed was "too fast".

The cop suggested that. The witness simply gestured and said "he was going that way" and "he went like that".

No, the guy saw nothing. It was the female passenger who said that she saw him looking back and forth.

He was handcuffed. The cop left it open.

Most of that was suggested to her by the cop. She says stuff like "he was looking at you guys and then at us", and she also gestures and says "he went that way" but you can't see which way she is pointing.

You didn't even need to see the video...seems you knew it all already.

Pure assumption.

She didn't see the bike until it was "close". That was her passenger who reported seeing the cyclist beforehand.

sgtsmile

But cooker, that is what people DO on the ass forum! ;p

cooker

There seem to be a couple of white posts just east of the police car, and a driveway or parking lot there. On reviewing the film, there is a low white blur near the curb far in the background just before the red car's driver sits on the curb, which might be the white car coming. The bike would of course have to be much closer and hence much more visible, if he was coming the way, since the car was going 45 mph by the cop's estimate and only overtook him at the scene.

cooker

here's a much cleaner copy of the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohf2HalRNJQ&NR

McDave

Yeah like when he was on her windshield. She was too short to see over the steering wheel.

Still, she shouldn't even had been in that lane. All previous traffic was using the left lane.

sbhikes

1. That film was not in Texas it was in Riverside, California
2. The car that hit the cyclist came to rest in the left lane as did the cyclist when he landed.
3. All your comments about the driver being a woman and short are very offensive.

unkchunk

Cooker, I was looking at that clear view of the road moment before I read your post. After reading your post I reviewed the video looking for the bicyclist behind the fence on that side road. Couldn't make anything out until I noticed that there was a cut just before the guy sits on the curb. It looks continuous, but there is a definite cut where the cameraman repositions. How much time pased, I don't know. But he wasn't handcuffed before the cut and he was handcuffed after the cut. I'm guessing that the guy was patted down and then handcuffed so a couple of minutes passed before the car hit the bicyclist.

flipped4bikes

Yup. This is the thing that gets me: if it's a bicycle, oh yeah, cyclist was too far out in the lane. But anything with a motor (motorcycle or car), then it's a rear-ender. And guess who's fault is that?

withak

It doesn't necessarily have to be a single person's fault. The driver of the car might get a ticket for failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident (or whatever the required citation for rear-ending someone is) and the cyclist might get a ticket for changing lanes incorrectly (if that's what happened). The idea being that even if another driver is being an idiot, you still have a responsibility to avoid him if at all possible.