Video: Shocking moment driver rear-ends cyclist in Tennessee

brooksby wrote:

BBC reckons the motorist was a school principal. So presumably not some *total* moron... (Maybe his parents wouldn't buy him a bicycle when he was a child, and now he's just jealous...)

So he's got even less excuse going by your way of thinking as he should have above average (American) intelligence, in which case then it must be deliberate if he's not a moron/unintelligent/well respected?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

brooksby wrote:

BBC reckons the motorist was a school principal. So presumably not some *total* moron... (Maybe his parents wouldn't buy him a bicycle when he was a child, and now he's just jealous...)

So he's got even less excuse going by your way of thinking as he should have above average (American) intelligence, in which case then it must be deliberate if he's not a moron/unintelligent/well respected?

Sorry, yes: that had been my point. This is someone who is supposedly educated, who lectures kids on their behaviour, but then does something like this.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

If Daily Mail comments get you wound up, prepare for American MMA fans. If this is indicative of American views of cycling it's no wonder they've got no decent cyclists at elite level. 

If you insist on being a faggot driving in the middle of the lane and slowing down traffic because you have "just as much a right to be there" then you deserve whatever happens to you. That video was awesome 

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/forums/OtherGround/Biking-for-transport-...

and why it's the fattest country on the planet.

KevM wrote:

This is why helmet cams are so useful. Could have be his word against theirs... http://ux.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2017/07/10/man-char...

he was standing in the road and threw his bike at me and then in his interview still stated that that's what he remebered as happening. Couldn't bring himself to say i was a lying cunt and got caught lying.

I hope this POS gets some decent jail time.

The sad thing is most people are attacking the cyclists (in the rags over there), using the 'tenessee state law' qhich says don't impede other road users, where the fuck is the impeding, what about in towns and cities when cars get in the way of people on bikes ao by definition would be impeding progress. s

 Can't go over the double yellows some are saying but this is BS, you're allowed over them IF it's safe and the other vehicle is moving slowly, and clearly it is. Typical US moton mentality just like Australia and NZ!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

KevM wrote:

This is why helmet cams are so useful. Could have be his word against theirs... http://ux.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2017/07/10/man-char...

...

 Can't go over the double yellows some are saying but this is BS, you're allowed over them IF it's safe and the other vehicle is moving slowly, and clearly it is. Typical US moton mentality just like Australia and NZ!

In the tennessee drivers handbook,

'You may not cross solid double yellow lines to overtake another vehicle "

"Federal regulations require bicyclists to ride single file, and riders are encouraged to move to the right to allow for vehicles to pass,"

I'm sticking my head firmly over the parapets and I'm ready for all the victim blaming BS...

Those cyclists were being asses. They appear to be on an open speed limit road, there is  a solid yellow line which means traffic can't cross to overtake them, and they're effectively blocking the lane. They might be able to use the whole lane if they need it, but it sure doesn't help perception of cyclists, and I think it's plain unhelpful and dumb. They weren't allowed to be double file.

It doesn't in any way shape or form excuse anything the driver of the volvo did. He deserves the fleas of a thousand camels to infest his pubic hairs... while he rots in solitary confinement. But, as responsible road users those cyclists behaviour was plain dangerous for them, and just stupid, and illegal. IMHO. How about it was someone riding a ride on lawn mower at 25 kph down that lane. Would we consider it remotely sensible, safe, or intelligent?

And yes, I'm from NZ...Moton mentalitiy apparently!

madcarew wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

KevM wrote:

This is why helmet cams are so useful. Could have be his word against theirs... http://ux.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2017/07/10/man-char...

...

 Can't go over the double yellows some are saying but this is BS, you're allowed over them IF it's safe and the other vehicle is moving slowly, and clearly it is. Typical US moton mentality just like Australia and NZ!

In the tennessee drivers handbook,

'You may not cross solid double yellow lines to overtake another vehicle "

"Federal regulations require bicyclists to ride single file, and riders are encouraged to move to the right to allow for vehicles to pass,"

I'm sticking my head firmly over the parapets and I'm ready for all the victim blaming BS...

Those cyclists were being asses. They appear to be on an open speed limit road, there is  a solid yellow line which means traffic can't cross to overtake them, and they're effectively blocking the lane. They might be able to use the whole lane if they need it, but it sure doesn't help perception of cyclists, and I think it's plain unhelpful and dumb. They weren't allowed to be double file.

It doesn't in any way shape or form excuse anything the driver of the volvo did. He deserves the fleas of a thousand camels to infest his pubic hairs... while he rots in solitary confinement. But, as responsible road users those cyclists behaviour was plain dangerous for them, and just stupid, and illegal. IMHO. How about it was someone riding a ride on lawn mower at 25 kph down that lane. Would we consider it remotely sensible, safe, or intelligent?

And yes, I'm from NZ...Moton mentalitiy apparently!

That bit of road is in a park (hence the report to the rangers), you are allowed to overtake slower vehicles on double yellows if safe to do so in such areas. it was clear and safe to do so at that juncture and otherwise wouldn't have being a problem, this is the same here in the UK in fact with solid white lines if the vehicle is doing about 10mph (or thereabouts)

To even partly blame the cyclists IS simply bullshit, they are entitled to be where they are, full stop. Go and learn something about road safety, learn something about your responsibility when wielding 2 tons of mass.

You would have to overtake in the opposite lane anyhow for one, or are you suggesting with your kiwi moton mentality they should have squeezed over into the gutter so that big utility vehicle could bomb past them in the same lane. Get away with yourself, only a moron moton thinks like that and is a selfish bastard who doesn't give a fuck about anyone else but themsleves, clearly YOU are a moton and I claim my leg of lamb.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

... double yellows some are saying but this is BS, you're allowed over them IF it's safe and the other vehicle is moving slowly, and clearly it is. Typical US moton mentality just like Australia and NZ!

In the tennessee drivers handbook,

'You may not cross solid double yellow lines to overtake another vehicle "

"Federal regulations require bicyclists to ride single file, and riders are encouraged to move to the right to allow for vehicles to pass,"

I'm sticking my head firmly over the parapets and I'm ready for all the victim blaming BS...

Those cyclists were being asses. They appear to be on an open speed limit road, there is  a solid yellow line which means traffic can't cross to overtake them, and they're effectively blocking the lane. They might be able to use the whole lane if they need it, but it sure doesn't help perception of cyclists, and I think it's plain unhelpful and dumb. They weren't allowed to be double file.

It doesn't in any way shape or form excuse anything the driver of the volvo did. He deserves the fleas of a thousand camels to infest his pubic hairs... while he rots in solitary confinement. But, as responsible road users those cyclists behaviour was plain dangerous for them, and just stupid, and illegal. IMHO. How about it was someone riding a ride on lawn mower at 25 kph down that lane. Would we consider it remotely sensible, safe, or intelligent?

And yes, I'm from NZ...Moton mentalitiy apparently!

[/quote]

That bit of road is in a park (hence the report to the rangers), you are allowed to overtake slower vehicles on double yellows if safe to do so in such areas. it was clear and safe to do so at that juncture and otherwise wouldn't have being a problem, this is the same here in the UK in fact with solid white lines if the vehicle is doing about 10mph (or thereabouts)

To even partly blame the cyclists IS simply bullshit, they are entitled to be where they are, full stop. Go and learn something about road safety, learn something about your responsibility when wielding 2 tons of mass.

You would have to overtake in the opposite lane anyhow for one, or are you suggesting with your kiwi moton mentality they should have squeezed over into the gutter so that big utility vehicle could bomb past them in the same lane. Get away with yourself, only a moron moton thinks like that and is a selfish bastard who doesn't give a fuck about anyone else but themsleves, clearly YOU are a moton and I claim my leg of lamb.

[/quote]

Let's be really absolutely clear. I didn't blame the cyclists at all. I said what they were doing was (i) illegal, and (ii) stupid. You can do that without apportioning blame for the motorist's actions, which I clearly stated "It doesn't in any way shape or form excuse anything the driver of the volvo did"

So, you can enter a discussion if you like, or you can just spiel whatever comes off the top of your preconceptions . 

I know plenty about road safety (I have a traffic managment qualification... I'm one of the guys who arranges things people can ride bike races and events on public roads), and I know plenty about my responsibility when driving my 4WD (2.6 tons actually) and so I slow down when I'm overtaking cyclists, I indicate to move out even when the cyclists are on the hard shoulder so traffic behind me knows there's something there, I give cyclists at least as much room as I want when I'm riding a bike. 

However, when I'm riding a bike, I keep as far to the left as practical, I claim the lane when I need to (I think you need to know that about 50% of my riding is on our 2 busiest state highways. Imagine the A1M with no hard shoulder and only one lane each way, and an artic every 3 minutes. On a 4 hr ride I'm going to have about 100 close passes from a 40 ton truck.). I'm aware of what a PITA really slow moving traffic can be, and I want those people in their 2 ton boxes to look on me kindly, so I never ever give them the finger, I never ever shout at them, I never ever abuse them in any way, and every chance I get I thank them when they act courteously. For this I accept your accusation of moton-ship, and you are welcome to your leg of lamb, just pop over here and come for a 4 hour ride with me. 

Seriously, the 2 cyclists were being dicks. It doesn't excuse what happened, but they weren't helping the rest of us either. 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I reckon a deterrant for men at least could be that we ban you from ever driving anything more powerful than a sit on lawnmower and if we catch you driving we immediately nip off a bollock. do it again, we nip the other one off, third time we just euthanase you as it'll likely save at least one life and removes an extreme hazard from society.

3 strikes and you're out as it were, enforced strictly and I reckon it could save the planet, no more food shortages, no more worries about population explosion ...

While some might consider that to be rather draconian, I have to say I rather like it.

To be serious for a moment, the severity of the punishment does not deter criminals, what does is the risk of being caught.  The most frequently quoted example is of pickpockets picking pockets at the hanging of a pickpocket.

The most severe punishments are irrelevant if they don't change behaviour, they are just revenge, and while I'm not entirely opposed to a bit of good old fashioned corporal or capital punishment, I'd rather that behaviour was changed and the person is no longer a threat.  It is clear that prison doesn't reform a lot of people, so what punishment would reform dangerous drivers?  Being forced to wear a placard saying "I'm a knob driver" perhaps?

burtthebike wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I reckon a deterrant for men at least could be that we ban you from ever driving anything more powerful than a sit on lawnmower and if we catch you driving we immediately nip off a bollock. do it again, we nip the other one off, third time we just euthanase you as it'll likely save at least one life and removes an extreme hazard from society.

3 strikes and you're out as it were, enforced strictly and I reckon it could save the planet, no more food shortages, no more worries about population explosion ...

While some might consider that to be rather draconian, I have to say I rather like it.

To be serious for a moment, the severity of the punishment does not deter criminals, what does is the risk of being caught.  The most frequently quoted example is of pickpockets picking pockets at the hanging of a pickpocket.

The most severe punishments are irrelevant if they don't change behaviour, they are just revenge, and while I'm not entirely opposed to a bit of good old fashioned corporal or capital punishment, I'd rather that behaviour was changed and the person is no longer a threat.  It is clear that prison doesn't reform a lot of people, so what punishment would reform dangerous drivers?  Being forced to wear a placard saying "I'm a knob driver" perhaps?

I just think the harshest penalty as being the most effective, IF strictly adhered too. It immediately removes the threat (by one) and so that person cannot ever then be a threat to society after proving they were unable to follow the rules. It may seem harsh but society is surely safer/enhanced by removal of such individuals that do massive damage globally both in financial terms and the obvious human cost.

Given that we know how motorists are going to break their bond to not drive after driving like the above it shouldn't take much more than a year to have at least 10 million reckless/dangerous drivers removed from the planet. maybe not a deterrent to all but it removes the most dangerous from society completely and with a bit of luck the eunuch's will be on best behaviour.

You could also have a quota system linked to learners, if we haven't had someone euthanased for a while for bad driving/getting behind the wheel after being banned they have to wait to get their full license/be allowed on the road, one out one in.

Frankly I think it's quite a fair way to go about things, don't act like a cunt to other human beings and you'll be just fine.

The sad thing is in the US you can be snuffed out by the old bill for a lot, lot less than the driving seen here!!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

To be serious for a moment, the severity of the punishment does not deter criminals, what does is the risk of being caught.  The most frequently quoted example is of pickpockets picking pockets at the hanging of a pickpocket.

I just think the harshest penalty as being the most effective, IF strictly adhered too.

If harsh penalties worked there would be no murder in countries with the death penalty, we would still be transporting people for stealing a loaf of bread and crime in the USA would be non-existent.

The severity of the penalty has no influence on the criminal, what does is the likelihood of being caught.

Locking people up is very tempting, but it doesn't reduce crime, as they've shown in this country and the USA, both with burgeoning prison populations, but criminals are not deterred from committing crimes.

Sub4 wrote:

Volvo. Safest car in the world. Until a scumbag gets behind the wheel to flaunt their safety conscious superiority  at other road users

There appears to be a direct relationship between how safe a car is for the driver and how many injuries and deaths it inflicts on other people.  I think it was in "Death on the Streets" by Robert Davis where he analysed this, but Volvo wouldn't co-operate and were the only car manufacturer to refuse.

It's been said many times, but the safest car for other road users would have a large, rusty bayonet sticking out of the steering wheel and no seat belt or any other safety devices for the driver.  The trouble with modern cars is that they are very safe for the occupants, so the driver takes more risks.  As one policeman said in a meeting I was at some time ago, the number of collisions isn't falling, but because of better design and emergency services, fewer people are dying.

I think we're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope and we should be targetting bad driving, not making sure that drivers survive it.

burtthebike wrote:

Sub4 wrote:

Volvo. Safest car in the world. Until a scumbag gets behind the wheel to flaunt their safety conscious superiority  at other road users

There appears to be a direct relationship between how safe a car is for the driver and how many injuries and deaths it inflicts on other people.  I think it was in "Death on the Streets" by Robert Davis where he analysed this, but Volvo wouldn't co-operate and were the only car manufacturer to refuse.

It's been said many times, but the safest car for other road users would have a large, rusty bayonet sticking out of the steering wheel and no seat belt or any other safety devices for the driver.  The trouble with modern cars is that they are very safe for the occupants, so the driver takes more risks.  As one policeman said in a meeting I was at some time ago, the number of collisions isn't falling, but because of better design and emergency services, fewer people are dying.

I think we're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope and we should be targeting bad driving, not making sure that drivers survive it.

Side Impact protection Systems (SIPS) I'm pretty sure have become the bane of many a Motorbike rider and cyclist... they particularly encourage dangerous moves with the driver remaining safe in their cage from the consequences... similar to the rise in pedestrian deaths with the introduction of seatbelts...

MandaiMetric wrote:

Reckless endangerment can be a Class A misdemeanor OR a Class E felony if the endangerment was committed with a deadly weapon. A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon for purposes of aggravating the charge to a felony.

• Class A misdemeanor carries up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500 if convicted.
• Class E felony carries a possible prison term of up to 15 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

Any chance we could get to vote on which one he's charged with?

burtthebike wrote:

MandaiMetric wrote:

Reckless endangerment can be a Class A misdemeanor OR a Class E felony if the endangerment was committed with a deadly weapon. A vehicle can be considered a deadly weapon for purposes of aggravating the charge to a felony.

• Class A misdemeanor carries up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500 if convicted.
• Class E felony carries a possible prison term of up to 15 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

Any chance we could get to vote on which one he's charged with?

The report says he's been charged with a felony... No doubt his attorney will try to plea down to misdemeanor. But there are multiple charges, so it may depend on his prior record whether that's a viable avenue. As I understand it, If you have prior conviction of misdemeanor, then a subsequent similar offence may be charged as a felony.

In terms of voting, I guess if  you consider that trial judges are elected (for 8 year terms I think) in Tennessee, then you could say "yes, people do get a vote", albeit indirectly. Having judges stand for popular election is somewhat controversial, I think.