Sometimes Helmet Camera Footage Can Be Useful

[Ian Cooper]

"I didn't see you!" "Where were you?" The typical responses of a motorist who obviously thinks that cyclists just pop magically out of nowhere and deposit themselves underneath their car's tyres. I guess she'll argue in court that cyclists shouldn't have access to transporter beams.

What amazes me is that the cyclist's leg was run over by a 2,000lb car, yet his legs were apparently unbroken. I guess he must drink his milk.

 

[fossyant]

I don't think the car quite ran over his leg, it was close though. Folk never just hold their hands up and say sorry. She will pay for this now.

 

[Matthew_T]

Because the court can not play MOV. files is a really stupid excuse

When I gave video evidence recently to a police officer, she simply gave me a CD-R and I was able to copy the video onto it without any problems. I then made sure that the video could be played back and it worked.
If the file is on the right type of format (My police station said that they needed continuous footage and could not accept storage data because it may have a virus on it) then there should be no problem. It was up to the court to make sure they could play the footage before the actual appearance.

 

[Ian Cooper]

I don't think the car quite ran over his leg, it was close though. Folk never just hold their hands up and say sorry. She will pay for this now.

Hard to tell what's being said on the video, but I got the impression that he said his leg was run over. Maybe his leg got caught under part of the bike as she ran over another part of it. That would explain the shout of pain and the lack of serious injury.

 

[lordloveaduck]

I think she will just get a fine and points, and they will be less than the driver who knocked his wheel. Defense would argue that he was in a blind spot or something like that and it would be impossible for his client to expect a person to be lying in the road.

How would compensation work out in a case like this, as one driver knocked him down and another ran over him and his bike. Does the 1st driver pay for causing the events to happen or the 2nd driver who caused most of the damage, or would it be an even or uneven split.?

 

[marinyork]

I remember the video. I'm surprised both drivers were taken to court. Kudos to the police and other people that dealt with it.

I'm particularly surprised that the 2nd driver has been taken to court because as was said they may not have run over his leg and done any damage (which is hardly the point really, is it). It would have been easy to think up that as an excuse for no action in these circumstances .

 

[Andrew_Culture]

Holy shoot! Glad scenes like this are rare.

 

[mr_cellophane]

How did they get the bike out ?
What the hell was in that BHS bag that she got out of the boot, carried around for a couple of minutes and then put back ?

 

[400bhp]

How did they get the bike out ?
What the hell was in that BHS bag that she got out of the boot, carried around for a couple of minutes and then put back ?

Her conscience.

 

[400bhp]

I don't think the car quite ran over his leg, it was close though. Folk never just hold their hands up and say sorry. She will pay for this now.

I really hope so.

In some ways people like that are the worst type of people. You wouldn't know they have such a nasty streak by looking at them.

 

[MrJamie]

Id guess the guy didnt see the cyclist because his part of the lane was obscured with the van and assumed it was clear. Presumably the woman didnt check properly at all, just saw the guy crossing the lane and assumed that she could pull out.

I thought the guy seemed decent enough, admitted his mistake and had the decency to ask the cyclist if he was hurt, despite seeing him walking. The woman's reaction seemed terrible, I dont think she understands where the cyclist came from. Makes you wonder if either of them saw the video before their court cases.

 

[NotthatJasonKenny]

Not wanting to be fair to the lady but she should have been looking right as she was turning left and as the cyclist was on her left it is plausible that she didn't see him.

Of course that means she didn't see the accident so probably wasn't paying attention anyway!

 

[gambatte]

Wonder where her insurance company is in this? At the least, her driving caused more damage to the bike?
I know there's the bit where you've signed/agreed that they can take responsibility for accepting liability and paying out, despite your opinion.
You reckon they're just sitting back waiting for the result of the court case?

 

[GrasB]

Id guess the guy didnt see the cyclist because his part of the lane was obscured with the van and assumed it was clear. Presumably the woman didnt check properly at all, just saw the guy crossing the lane and assumed that she could pull out.

I thought the guy seemed decent enough, admitted his mistake and had the decency to ask the cyclist if he was hurt, despite seeing him walking. The woman's reaction seemed terrible, I dont think she understands where the cyclist came from. Makes you wonder if either of them saw the video before their court cases.

But it's also the drivers duty to make sure the road ahead is clear before proceeding. She should have seen the cyclist at some point during her observations. So even if she couldn't see the cyclist the fact the cyclist had 'disappeared' should have made her stop to work out where he went.

EDIT: A lot of people forget that observation isn't just about seeing things that are there. It's also recognising that you can't see things that should be there.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

What amazes me is that the cyclist's leg was run over by a 2,000lb car, yet his legs were apparently unbroken. I guess he must drink his milk.

If I remember correctly, his leg was caught up with his bike, and when she drove over the bike, it was dragged away freeing up his leg. So he was very lucky indeed.