Wow is that hard to watch. The cyclist (miraculously) survives. Local TV interview: http://www.kltv.com/story/26054386/video-shows-truck-clip-cyclist-on-hwy-69
ugh... I have a hard time seeing how that was "unintentional." If it truly wasn't intentional, I'm not sure the driver should be driving. On top of that, did the driver even bother to stop??? The article said that he called 911 but you don't see another vehicle that definitely stops for almost two minutes. That could have been the difference of a second vehicle hitting him. Glad he recovered. One more reason not to go to Texas.
I second the "hard to watch" I'm nauseated.
If you hit a bike, pedestrian, or another vehicle with your car, and you are not obviously driving recklessly or speeding excessively, and aren't DUI, and you stop and report the accident promptly, you will at most get a ticket establishing that you were at fault, and your insurance company will pay damages, including pain and suffering. That is the system we have.
I read some of the Reddit thread. Says the guy did stop, but did not actually go back to render aid.
What we should be mad about is the police chief saying "We don’t know how close to the line the cyclist was traveling, but I must make it clear that the bike was not struck, it was the vehicle’s mirror that struck the cyclist."
First of all, that's an absurd statement to immediately blame the victim. It immediately takes a turn for the worse with the idea that the bike wasn't hit--it was 'just' the mirror that hit him. Aside from that being obviously incorrect, how does it matter what part of the vehicle hit the cyclist. I'm pretty sure if that truck had hit an officer standing on the side of the road writing a ticket, we wouldn't hear the chief say that it was possibly the officer's fault or that he was only clipped by the mirror so it doesn't count. Absurd.
Per TFA, the likely charge coming to the truck driver... failing to maintain a single lane.
So then, a question to the police chief.
If I shoot at a stranger, badly injuring but not killing, I would be cited for failing to properly engage the safety on my gun, right? Or was it a class in remedial marksmanship? I mean, there isn't some BS waiting period before I go buy my next gun, right? I forgot the law in Bullard. Jeez, what a hassle, that stupid M'Fer just needed to duck and cover when the gun came out and then everything would'a been fine, that's all I'm saying.
Cop was excessively sympathetic to the motorist, sure--but he was also probably thinking, the driver seems sorry, and how is anyone going to prove to a jury that it was intentional? The video doesn't show intent. Better let civil liability handle it.
I watched the news video and read the article. The driver did stop and call 911 and then was one of the people in the video who ran to stand by the cyclist while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. At first I thought he didn't stop, since no one came to the cyclist's aid quickly, but it seems he was calling 911 right after the collision occurred. In fact, he even called the cyclist in the hospital to see how he was doing in the following days.
So obviously he was guilty of negligence (and that is scary), but at least he did what he was supposed to and didn't run off. He was only charged with failing to maintain a single lane, which seems a little minor considering a few more inches over and the cyclist would have sustained more injuries than a concussion, collapsed lung, and broken scapula/ribs. But that's the system, I suppose.
I'm also interested in the semantics of news reporting: he was "clipped" instead of "hit." Maybe the terminology would have been different if he had died?
Let’s assume that the truck driver is a total a-hole who hates all cyclists. He sees this guy on a bike ahead of him riding on HIS road. He HATES cyclists so his intention is to swerve to the right and pass the cyclist as close as possible in order to scare the b’jebis out of him. He gets real close to the cyclist then --- holy shit I HIT him! He pulls over and starts racing cover-stories through his mind: the sun was in my eyes; the cyclist swerved into my lane; I just didn’t see him, my flip-flop got stuck, etc. etc. Sure he’s remorseful, he didn’t intend to HIT him, all he wanted to do was scare him. So how do you prove intent? What charges do you bring?
Even if there was NO intent and the guy was just distracted by changing the radio or looking at his phone – Why didn’t he SEE the cyclist??? The road is straight and flat - he should have seen the cyclist from hundreds of feet back.
It’s like the husband that pulls a gun out while arguing with his wife just in order to scare her. Then oops, the gun goes off. Do we treat these incidents the same or differently? Why is a 4,000 pound piece of metal any different than a 15 gram piece of lead?
Driving is dangerous! Pay attention to what you are doing!
@marko, because the jury wouldn't convict, because they're all motorists, and see how it could happen to them. If people were walking around with loaded guns all the time, with minimal training, we'd see a lot more people killed unintentionally, and juries would be more sympathetic then, too.
Ordering a fly6 as well. Any suggestions for a front facing camera? GoPros seem cool for all-around cameras but they seem like overkill for just bicycle safety.
Bullard PD has responded on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bullardpolicedepartment/posts/1454050554861667
It's an explanation, sort of, and an apology.... kind of.
I'd hate to ride in Texas, that's like a 4 lane cattle chute. Makes you appreciate what we have here.
Not that you'd know when someone's about to hit you, but that road is recipe for getting hit, and then pinballed around while other vehicles run you over.
Nice to see the Bullard PD on their heels & backtracking. It's a start.
@atown: I've been running a Contour Roam on the helmet for 2 years... no complaints.