<!--quoteo(post=249072:date=Mon 30th Jul 2012, 10:53 PM:name=muddy)-->QUOTE(muddy @ Mon 30th Jul 2012, 10:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Neither of your posts make sense to me. The camera documented the event, what other aspects are there that the camera didn't video. At a guestimate, he was doing between 15-20 mph and was SMIDSY'd. Lucky he wasn't on a motorbike doing 30mph. This was bad enough, but to then have his bike run over and almost get himself mangled by a woman driver who refused to respond to his screams, he must've been really shaken up. A witness said he thought he was going to get crushed. And this is funny???
At a guess I'd say, like many of us, his mindset was that he'd been knocked off or had close shaves before and used a video camera to have evidence in case of an accident. What else could he have been doing? Riding around in hope that somebody would run him over so, should he live, he could claim compensation?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll go with your guestimate and guess.
Just guessing myself, but all I have to go by are four seconds of video here.
My take is that the driver of the second car could easily claim that they were unsighted, being that a van turned across them at a crucial moment, that a car assumed the right of way to perform a similar manoeuvre, incorrectly as it turns out and a cyclist supermanned in front of them in a most unusual manner.
It could be possible to have been making all the appropriate observations and yet still have missed the incident before pulling away.
Never assume a high-viz makes you vizzed.
I see aggressive pedal cycling everyday and it makes me seethe. I've decided that this was just that. I only have four seconds of video here.
I take the trouble to recognise when other road users are unsighted or distracted. I recognise that I'm vulnerable. I make eye contact. I slow down. I also recognise when others do none of these.
Makes sense to me. I'd not like this video to be used against me in the context that the rider suggests in the YouTube post. It sucks, I guess.
At a guess I'd say, like many of us, his mindset was that he'd been knocked off or had close shaves before and used a video camera to have evidence in case of an accident. What else could he have been doing? Riding around in hope that somebody would run him over so, should he live, he could claim compensation?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll go with your guestimate and guess.
Just guessing myself, but all I have to go by are four seconds of video here.
My take is that the driver of the second car could easily claim that they were unsighted, being that a van turned across them at a crucial moment, that a car assumed the right of way to perform a similar manoeuvre, incorrectly as it turns out and a cyclist supermanned in front of them in a most unusual manner.
It could be possible to have been making all the appropriate observations and yet still have missed the incident before pulling away.
Never assume a high-viz makes you vizzed.
I see aggressive pedal cycling everyday and it makes me seethe. I've decided that this was just that. I only have four seconds of video here.
I take the trouble to recognise when other road users are unsighted or distracted. I recognise that I'm vulnerable. I make eye contact. I slow down. I also recognise when others do none of these.
Makes sense to me. I'd not like this video to be used against me in the context that the rider suggests in the YouTube post. It sucks, I guess.