https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...4&postcount=27

I'm thinking that a nice heavy bike like that needs a cow catcher up front for those wrong way riders. That will help you stay up too.

ILTB: highlighting that post by Urban Shooter is really just silly. It just reinforces his view on what he said in this thread.

You're really not contributing anything and seem to really just be trolling. Stop messing with my thread, kid.

Perhaps you want to be reminded ofyour own posts where you approve of squealing to the authorities on alleged wrongdoing, unless it is your own.

You think this thread should be set aside just for those who admire your dopey behavior of boasting about knocking down other cyclists than running away from any responsibility or possible repercussion?

Where do you get off talking about responsibility and repercussions? You make a habit of *****ing about it whenever anyone ensures that people take responsibility for their actions, you rant and rave whenever anyone mentions turning criminals in, and you generally come off as an admirer of lawlessness and chaos - and now you want to talk about responsibility? Please!

A) I have no responsibility to report a bicycle accident when someone who is riding the wrong way collided into me.

B) I do approve of "squealing" on dangerous activities. Don't hijack my thread.

C) This thread should be set aside for those who care to talk about what happened and relate to similar experiences. Not to chide somebody for riding away after seeing that the one who fell was okay.

D) You alleged that the one who collided into me is the victim and I was the perpetrator. Here's some news for you: I was riding legally. He was riding illegally. That would make him the perpetrator and I would be the lucky victim who got out of there.

If I had looked back and seen the guy who crashed into me lying on the ground, I would have called the authorities. As it is, he was standing, moving, and seemed to be okay, ergo I didn't call them.

E) Remember what I orginally called you? Here's a hint: it rhymed with the sound I made as I passed a roadie the other day, "whoosh." You're proving yourself to be it, still. Don't hijack my thread.

If you want to talk about somebody being on their high horse, you should take a gander at yourself. Throughout your posting history, you laud those who take personal responsibility when it means inaction, but scold those who take inaction; you laud those who follow the law, but scold those who fulfill their civic duties; you laud those who are for bicycling safely, but scold those who want to instate cycling safety classes. You, sir, are a giant hypocrite. Deal with it.

Just don't hijack my thread, kid.

EDIT: In fact, after searching through 4 pages of your posting history, I have not found a single positive word from you. Period.

I stand by my post. How hard is it to stay on the proper side of the road/trail? And in my opinion, it is those cyclists/joggers who choose to go against traffic that should be held accountable.

You are an even bigger fool than I originally thought. You hit another cyclist and ran. Period. Fool! You are the the dangerous perpatrator of hit and run, the other cyclist the victim of your deliberate actions to hit AND run.

Hijack? Fool! You paint yourself as an aggressive jerk deliberatly causing a collision and then boasting about it, expecting to be showered with praise for cloddish behavior; and no surprise, some other cycling fools on BF deliver to your satisfaction.

The cause of the accident is irrelevant; you've got your story, the other guy no doubt has his. You don't know poo whether the other guy was alright or not, you are guessing and didn't hang around to find out if your impression was correct, nor did you report your own actions (HIT and RUN) to the police or any other proper authority but to BF expecting to bask in a warm glow of praise from similar fools.

Hijack? Bull!

You just have to be kidding. Do you even ride a bike? I'm sure the night shift cops in Tucson are just kicking back, watching Mayberry reruns, waiting for this conversation:
Cyclist: "I just bumped into another guy and we both fell over!"
Cop: "Great Scott! Are you all right! How's the other guy!?"
Cyclist: "we're both OK."
How could this end but thusly:
Cop: "Get outta here before I shoot you myself."

Clever Boy, Read https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...8&postcount=15 It is a suggested alternative solution to the OP's alleged reason (fear of the consequences of his own actions) for running away after he caused an accident.

If the action of riding into the other cyclist was intentionally done it is not a hit and run, it is a battery. It doesn't matter who is at fault in the event, if one flees the scene that is wrong. Intentionally riding into someone is wrong and stupid plain and simple. Some here just don't know how to ignore what other people do wrong and take care of themselves.

Agree but in this OP described incident (where he scrammed outta sight after he caused the accident) wouldn't the OP's actions be BOTH battery AND hit and run?

Cyclists, yes. Pedestrians, including joggers, on the other hand, are supposed to go against traffic.

ILTB, No, if the action is intentional, it is a battery and not a hit and run and not an accident.

This is mindless.
Things look a whole lot different in Tucson, after midnight, with about one and a half seconds to observe, dig out of being nonplussed, act, react, and decide than they do sitting at at a desk in the Midwest in broad daylight with 10-20 minutes to think about what the guy should have done.

Mindless? Speak for yourself.

Perhaps in Tucson, hit and run, (or battery if the accident was really an intentional act as bragged about by OP) is considered A-OK behavior and worthy of admiration from the smart set.

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.

Sentinel, imagine a cyclist riding with traffic in a 3-foot-wide bike lane. A wrong-way cyclist comes against traffic in the same lane. Both cyclists refuse to yield or change lanes, and a collision ensues. Neither cyclist leaves; neither posts about it on a bulletin board anywhere in the world. Still battery? On whose part? Both cyclists had the opportunity to move, and so the collision was arguably "intentional", but only one was travelling legally...

Incidentally, I was very pleased by your post - I recently had a cop assure me that there was no such thing as using a vehicle as a weapon under the law, and that the guy who intentionally sideswiped me was guilty of no crime, sicne I was able to get out of the way... I asked him whether the same driver, if he'd swung a bat at me but missed because I ducked, would be guilty of a crime, and he assured me that swinging a bat would have been an assault. He couldn't tell me why they were different. I hope all the officers wherever you are are as well-educated as you, and I wish the ones here were, too!

ILTB, I'm still waiting for you to explain why THIS "crime" is a serious matter, and every other crime ever discussed here were laughing matters. Since your usual habit is to mock those concerned with civic order as "dudley do-rights", I think it strange that you're all of a sudden interested in law and order... Or have you simply seen the light and become a DDR yourself?

broken,
You ask an interesting question. In your first paragraph, I would say that neither are guilty of battery, both were idiots because they wouldn't be adults and yield. That's a big difference from that and intentionally ramming someone. It really makes no difference as to who was traveling in what direction other than civil fault.
Also, laws may vary from state to state, but I can't see how a car cannot be viewed as a weapon when used intentionally as one. If I intentionally run you over because I'm p*ssed at you is no different than using a gun. With that said, in many states, Indiana included, there are less penalties using a car than a gun. In my opinion that is stupid, but is the way things are.

Dud(e), learn to read.

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.

He can read. It is you who failed to address his question.

I just did something unthinkable. I called someone who would know for sure what this would be a case of. I called the police department. What they told me was that what I did (in regards to riding away) was not a problem. A police report isn't even necessary as there were no injuries.

I don't see why this is any different than a car accident where the other person is at fault. If I'm going down a one way street and an idiot comes the wrong way and hits me, but causes no damage and isn't injured, I'm not going to waste my time giving a damn about them or their car.

The idiot deserved to be run into, maybe next time he'll use the right side of the road. He's lucky it wasn't a car that took him out.

Maybe this dude running the wrong way without lights was a bike-terrorist...looking to take out legal fire-fighting cyclists from the evil empire...Jihad comes to town on a Huffy?!?! Homeland Security starts with our first responders...you are a Great American!