Retired cop assaults cyclist on video, gets community service

[Felya]

You have got to be kidding me right ? Your making an excuse for the driver ??? REALLY ????? He slowed down to cuss the cyclist out and then struck him ...the guy should be put in jail for felony assult IMO ...that is f-ing outrageous .

I think it was Thursday night episode, but Daily Show had a segment on Fox News coverage of the Rutgers coach smacking around and cursing out his players. They were saying that more people should be like the coach, because otherwise we get a nation of weaklings. It is, what it is...

---------- Post added 2013-04-06 at 10:37 PM ----------

from the looks of the video the truck doesn't hit him on purpose just got close to yell at him, then it was a mix of both of them turning their heads at each other and then both start to move together(every time the biker turned his head left he moved further left). The driver was in the wrong but the guy on the bike is a very shit rider

Just got close enough to yell at him? That just means, if he didn't get closer to be a jerk, he would have been farther away.

[A Day to Remember]

Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon? Let's give this guy community service, that'll teach him! -_-

Let me fix that for you.

Vehicular Assault and Hit and Run with no serious injuries? Lets give that guy a reasonable sentence, that fits the crime not the trumped up one the peddle pushers here are asking for, that'll teach him!

[TheBeardedOne]

Just got close enough to yell at him? That just means, if he didn't get closer to be a jerk, he would have been farther away.

regardless the guy on the bike is a fucking terrible rider

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Didn't look like an assault to me, looked like the cyclist hit the truck while the truck driver wasn't paying much attention/care.

If it was an intentional hit I think the cyclist would have said something more than 'fuck', at worst it looked like the truck might have clipped him on accident while being a complete jackass. Either way this doesn't seem comparable to, say, stabbing somebody.

---------- Post added 2013-04-07 at 05:33 AM ----------

Yeah I was generalizing. Sorry.

The number of cars doesn't matter much, moreso the percentage of the lane taken up by cars (even then it's meaningless because there is plenty of space for a cyclist as well). I would say about 5% of the rightmost lane is taken up by cars, if that.

5%? You mean like 65%? Unless you're talking about the length of the road, which is irrelevant.

[Spectral]

If it was an intentional hit I think the cyclist would have said something more than 'fuck'

What's the correct thing to say after someone hits you with a truck? I'd probably go with "fuck that motherfucking asshole, fuck, I'll fucking kill him". But I'd accept "fuck" as an acceptable answer, given the pain and shock that'd generally be experienced from getting pounded to the ground at ~20 miles per hour for absolutely no reason.

But really, this is just another weird rationalization for pretending that something that's very clear isn't very clear. You'd never apply that standard to a pedestrian or motorist, but if you're on a bike, you need to learn to express yourself more clearly for future viewers.

[Frostys99]

actually i am straight up saying the cyclist is at fault for swerving into the truck as it was accelerating to change back into the right lane, had he not been swerving closer to the truck, the truck would not of "clipped" him.

his faulty perception on what a straight line is caused him to hit the truck, not the other way around.
or, his moving closer to a truck weighing many times his body weight just to "hear" the driver when he cam picked up the truck drivers voice very well
(ohh another example: ohh i'm skiing down a mountain and notice a weird color on a huge boulder that's also going down the mountain, i should ski closer to it to see what that weird color is = would you consider that snowboarding / skier an idiot, if the boulder hits him is it his fault for moving closer to such a massive object?)

this along with other things he could of done to avoid hitting the truck indeed makes me think it is the cyclists fault.
he is not making use of his brain, moving closer to a truck like that...wth...and even if he couldn't completely understand WHAT the truck driver said, you would have me believe he didn't even hear the TONE / that the truck driver was angry? he couldn't figure it out without getting cm's / inches from the truck?

what do you take me for? it is clearly the cyclists fault, either idiocy or, well maybe he had a lot on his mind or had taken a lot of something, but he clearly wasn't in the right mindset to be driving in middle of the street.

It completely boggles my mind, how do you find the cyclist totally at fault? The cyclist occupied the right lane! The truck made a lane change from the left lane, then as his tires crossed into the right lane he slowed down made a few comments to the cyclist and then continued to move fully into the right lane. Unless I'm completely missing something, the cyclist had sole occupation of the right lane.

[Spectral]

actually i am straight up saying the cyclist is at fault

...

what do you take me for? it is clearly the cyclists fault

I think the things I take you for would all get me infracted.

[larrakeyah]

Two words: roo bars. Those pesky cyclists.

[strawberrytiger]

Bicycles need to be given both the same respect and responsibility of motor vehicles. Bikes need to be in the right most lane same as tractors or any other slow moving traffic. From what we saw in the video the biker had the right to the lane. Its up to interpretation of the intent of hitting him but it doesn't change that he did in fact hit the bicyclist. The only charge against him seemed to be fleeing the scene which seems outrageous.

I am not a biker and to be honest I have had negative experiences with bikes and motorcycles. They take advantage of their size to cut between traffic instead of using lanes properly. In the listed article you had people defending violence and harassment if anyone gets in a bikers way. I listed to a segment on public radio about bicyclists killing pedestrians and they aren't held accountable as if they were driving a car. I like biking but it just doesn't seem to fit into traffic smoothly. If they want to obey the laws of the road that is fine but often that is not what happens so if they want equal access they need to get equal penalties for breaking the laws. They can't choose to be a vehicle or a pedestrian depending on which benefits them at that moment. I have seen more than once people on bikes ride on the side of traffic up to an intersection where there is a red light. They cross using the crosswalk even if its DO NOT CROSS then once on the other side get back on the road while the cars have to wait for the light to go green.

[DeathKnight Guy]

It completely boggles my mind, how do you find the cyclist totally at fault? The cyclist occupied the right lane! The truck made a lane change from the left lane, then as his tires crossed into the right lane he slowed down made a few comments to the cyclist and then continued to move fully into the right lane. Unless I'm completely missing something, the cyclist had sole occupation of the right lane.

No he didn't, I do understand that towards the end of the video there were more cars parked on the "rightest" lane. But for a large portion of the video he was driving left of the right most lane. Even when he got towards the section where many cars were parked on the side, there was still enough space for a bike to be riding on that side.

The dumb cyclist; going at a fraction of the speed of other cars, was driving in the centre of that lane as if he is a car which requires that much space. Lets just for your case say that he was on the right most lane. He decided that for some reason he needed to drive in the centre of that lane, and not the side.

Why? God knows. I understand that the car may have intentionally hit the cyclist. But the cyclist had it coming.
I don't believe the driver intentionally hit him, because he clearly said something along the lines of get of the lane. He then started to approach the lane as it is his right.

He fully well expected the cyclist to move but the cyclist felt that he wanted to get closer to the car.

Also I would just like to point out that from what I saw nothing major really hit him, it wasn't even a hit because the cyclist fell forward. This just shows that it was more of a cycling error than a push from the car. If it was a push from the car, the cyclist would have fallen towards the direction the truck was moving, i.e fallen towards the right side of the lane.

[Porcell]

No he didn't, I do understand that towards the end of the video there were more cars parked on the "rightest" lane. But for a large portion of the video he was driving left of the right most lane. Even when he got towards the section where many cars were parked on the side, there was still enough space for a bike to be riding on that side.

With those cars parked in the right most lane next to the curb, the bicycle should not be expected to weave in and out of that right lane. If you were driving a car you wouldn't weave in and out of that lane either.

The dumb cyclist; going at a fraction of the speed of other cars, was driving in the centre of that lane as if he is a car which requires that much space. Lets just for your case say that he was on the right most lane. He decided that for some reason he needed to drive in the centre of that lane, and not the side.

I think your perception of his lane position is both incorrect and irrelevant. If you look at his shadow, his head is nearly in the center of the rightmost lane. Compare that to the shadow of the Prius when he's stopped at the light, and you can get a better judgement of where he was in the lane. And regardless, it doesn't matter if he was in the center of the lane or further to the right of center; he is allowed to have the whole lane.

Why? God knows. I understand that the car may have intentionally hit the cyclist. But the cyclist had it coming.

The cyclist was doing nothing illegal and thus certainly didn't "have it coming."

I don't believe the driver intentionally hit him, because he clearly said something along the lines of get of the lane. He then started to approach the lane as it is his right.

What other explanation is there for the driver crossing into the bicyclist's lane and striking him?

He fully well expected the cyclist to move but the cyclist felt that he wanted to get closer to the car.

If you are driving a car, you can't just merge into an occupied lane and say "Well he should have moved over."

Also I would just like to point out that from what I saw nothing major really hit him, it wasn't even a hit because the cyclist fell forward. This just shows that it was more of a cycling error than a push from the car. If it was a push from the car, the cyclist would have fallen towards the direction the truck was moving, i.e fallen towards the right side of the lane.

So... he's a soccer player and just "flopped." Um, no.

Bicycles are, by law, vehicles with the same rights and responsibilities as motorized vehicles. I'm sorry if you don't like bicycles taking a lane, but the law doesn't care how you feel. It doesn't allow you to drive your vehicle into a bicycle, no matter how you try and spin it.

[Spectral]

Wait, someone bumped this from a week ago to make the same stupid, misinformed claims that had already been made for 20 pages on end... why?

[Pendulous]

The dumb cyclist; going at a fraction of the speed of other cars, was driving in the centre of that lane as if he is a car which requires that much space. Lets just for your case say that he was on the right most lane. He decided that for some reason he needed to drive in the centre of that lane, and not the side.

People keep saying this. You do realize that if the rode on the right side of the lane he was in, traffic couldn't get by him anyway. And if people DID try, he'd get run the hell over.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Bicycles are, by law, vehicles with the same rights and responsibilities as motorized vehicles. I'm sorry if you don't like bicycles taking a lane, but the law doesn't care how you feel. It doesn't allow you to drive your vehicle into a bicycle, no matter how you try and spin it.

I agree with that, but then there isn't an "assault". It's just a fender bender between two vehicles, caused most likely by the person driving the truck.

[Korgoth]

People keep saying this. You do realize that if the rode on the right side of the lane he was in, traffic couldn't get by him anyway. And if people DID try, he'd get run the hell over.

Do you even drive? All the time I see Bicyclists on the edge of the right lane almost on the shoulder, and yeah sometimes you can't fit past, but then you only have to wait until you can dip into the other lane, you dont have to do a full lane merge, and the right lane doesn't slow all the way down.

The bicyclist was being a full on Bike Supremacist asshole, which is clear from his outfit, his position on the road, the fact he was filming it with some silly chest mounted camera; and I bet he even wanted to get hit so he could make a stink about it.

[Willfox]

As much as the driver is a twot... was the cyclist blind? The entire situation could have been easily avoided, shift like 2cm to the right, doesn't even need to leave the lane.

[Spectral]

The bicyclist was being a full on Bike Supremacist asshole, which is clear from his outfit, his position on the road, the fact he was filming it with some silly chest mounted camera; and I bet he even wanted to get hit so he could make a stink about it.

This might be the single most incorrect statements jammed into one sentence that I've ever seen, which is an impressive feat.

[smelltheglove]

I agree with that, but then there isn't an "assault". It's just a fender bender between two vehicles, caused most likely by the person driving the truck.

if the collision is intentional it is assault, even if the incident involves 2 tractor trailers instead of a car and a bike

[Raiju]

I don't know or care about bike laws, but I can see how it could be hard to claim he intentionally hit the biker. Yes he got close to be rude to him, but I can't get a view of an intentional hit on the biker afterwards. It could have just as much been accidental.

It *probably* was intentional but it's also hard as fuck to see what the biker is actually doing.