jonny jeez
Legendary Member
- Location
- Chislehurst, Kent, UK
Bad cycling, bad driving, bad attitudes on both parties behalf...but worst of all bad idea to post this on YouTube.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Nothing to see here, move along.
"The driver told his insurance he "wasn't moving at impact"
- Thread starter glenn forger
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
vickster
Legendary Member
No because that driver should not have been in the car in the first place (it is illegal for a reason) BUT even drunk drivers don't usually drive with the intent of killing someone
What does the HC say about filtering on a bicyle? I am sure there's something about exercising caution, considering the road conditions or similar...
Origamist
Legendary Member
This is a perplexing statement. The driver continued to pull out of a junction (without ensuring it was safe to do so) into the path of another road user who had priority. Was the cyclist wise to keep moving - that is debatable, but with hindsight the answer is clearly "no". However, it is evident that the cyclist scrubbed off speed before the minor shunt. I would hazard that he was working on the unreliable assumption that the driver had seen him and he could continue ahead slowly. It seems obvious now that the driver was looking left, in the opposite direction, judging the speed of the approaching van to see if he could execute the right turn with "stationary" traffic to his right.
As for throwing your bike on the floor - that should be the preserve of pro time-trialists who puncture and are awaiting a support vehicle.
Last edited:
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
I cant see the video clip......thankfully :ø)
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
If a drunk driver pleaded clemency on the grounds they had no intention Id treat their plea with the same regard as someone who threw a fire extinguisher at a crowd from ten floors up and claimed similar.
vickster
Legendary Member
Isn't the charge usually manslaughter rather than murder (or similar), due to the lack of prior intent? (IANAL obviously)
Hip Priest
Veteran
Normally death by dangerous driving.
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
It should be, that's what the drunk, texting Bishop has been charged with in Blatimore.
vickster
Legendary Member
No idea what you are talking about. They have the death penalty in the US, thus I don't regard their justice system terribly highly on that basis
Profpointy
Legendary Member
Don't quite follow the righteous indignation from some here. Watched it twice now, and the car did look stationary to me. To be honest didn't even seem to be a collision, or at worst a nudge - "cyclist had to apply brakes" maybe?
Regardless of "blame" insurance wise, it was pretty dozy cycling, and driver was creeping out pretty sensibly, and stopped. Quite why the cyclist chucked his bike on the floor, and why any resulting damage is the driver's fault I really don't get.
Regardless of "blame" insurance wise, it was pretty dozy cycling, and driver was creeping out pretty sensibly, and stopped. Quite why the cyclist chucked his bike on the floor, and why any resulting damage is the driver's fault I really don't get.
Origamist
Legendary Member
The car was not stationary at the point of impact. Watch the video again, but only if you're really at a loose end.
The driver was not "creeping out pretty sensibly" - there was a cyclist in the lane he was moving into. Furthermore (and once again), the car had not stopped.
Last edited:
Profpointy
Legendary Member
half-walking pace maybe, if that's not "creeping out", I'm not sure what is
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
"It's not careless driving if I drive into someone slowly"
Origamist
Legendary Member
It's the "pretty sensibly" bit that is the problem with your earlier statement.
- Status
