Since the cyclist is blocked by the truck, your statement that the rider launched into the truck is pure conjecture and only one possibility of what happened.
But, just for the sake of argument, even if your guess is correct, the driver is still at fault. Two possibilities I can think of are that the air currents of a large mass that close to the bike pulled it under the back wheels, or, the cyclist was forced further to the right in order to prevent getting hit, hit the curb, and fell under the wheels. Either way, the driver is still at fault. He broke the law that says, if you cannot safely pass a vehicle, you must wait until you can.
The draft and effect the trailer has on a cyclist is absolutely the responsibility of the trucker.
I think you are confusing the video (linked in post 36) with the actual accident. The video is from a camera at the intersection of Weston Road and Central Street and was taken shortly before the accident.
The accident occurred close to the next intersection, Weston and Linden. There is no dispute that the bicyclist was ahead of the truck while both were traveling north on Weston, and no dispute that the truck driver elected to pass him. The truck driver admitted this when questioned by the police. Multiple eyewitnesses confirmed it.
The driver insisted that he successfully passed the bicyclist. However, there was strong evidence to the contrary.
Wait what? Let’s go over this again
Yeah except for the fact there was a witness, and I quoted her upthread. Here let me qoute her again, because you seem to be having an issue with memory here.
This is from the one eyewitness to the accident.Just so we are perfectly clear here, the important part is the last sentence
**And Magiver comes up with
**Absent a witness? Absent a witness? If you got to page 2 of the police report you would have found the witness statement. If you were paying attention, I quoted the witness upthread.
So the eyewitness says (and the forensic evidence agrees) that the rider was run over by the rear wheels of the trailer (which is part of the flippin truck) The truck never cleared the bicycle. But according to Magiver the truck passed him, and then somehow rider somehow launched into the truck. I guess he got up, reassembled the bike pedaled like the wind and then threw himself under the truck a second time just to make sure he was good and dead.
Magiver that post of your has to be the single stupidest post I have ever read on the dope.
We do?
The cyclist had to move into the path of the tires. whether he fell off or struck a pole or bounced off the curb is unknown.
so if my car is affected by the draft of the trailer I can sue?
And that’s as far as I’m willing to read when you start out like that.
Yes and I referred to her testimony. When I said there wasn’t a witness to the accident there wasn’t a witness to the accident. She was on the other side of the truck and down the street. She couldn’t see what took place and states that clearly (she explained to me she lost sight of the bicyclist because he was on the other side of the truck… “After the truck passed me I saw the back wheel pop out”) She saw the situation as it developed and I based my opinion on what she said. If the situation looked bad to her then the cyclist should have understood the danger of it better because he was more lined up to the path of the truck then she was.
Yes. We do. Google ‘no justice for cyclists’ some time.
Or even better, count the number where drivers who were not drunk (or stoned) are convicted of a felony after striking and killing a cyclist.
Your attitude is actually fairly typical, there are a lot of Magivers on juries, on the police, in the in the DA’s office.
Another possibility is the trailer brushed him, struck him, and he lost balance.
Even if your scenario happened it means the truck was not passing properly.
Maybe if you hadn’t been misrepresenting the case facts and doing your best to blame the entire incident on the cyclist you wouldn’t get such statements.
As it is, you are showing an amazing amount of bigotry and blame towards a cyclists who was riding legally.
Why should anyone be convicted of a felony after killing anyone in a accident? Unless drunk, etc.
Accident, intentionally attacking, completely negligent, gross indifference, the convictions remain the same.
Most ‘accidents’ aren’t.
Magiver, are you one of those people that say a rape victim kinda had it coming because they “shouldn’t have gone out to a bar anyways”?
You’re just flinging your personal opinion around. This case is a perfect example. If you don’t have the evidence to convict then there is no conviction. It applies to bikes, cars, trucks, tractors and any other combination of same.
:rolleyes: I mentioned this possibility earlier. If there was evidence of this then the trial would have gone forward.
And as I pointed out the justice system fails cyclists at almost every level, so excuse me if I am not impressed with the 'if it had happened that way they would have convicted!" routine.
No, I’m one of those people who looks at the evidence. Do you have evidence that the driver was too close to the cyclist or caused the accident?
Wrong. This is an example of the system failing cyclists as it is very want to do, and you being a perfect enabler of that failure by blaming the cyclist and misrepresenting the evidence.
You’ve pointed out nothing but your opinion. You have no evidence that the system fails for cyclists over any other demographic group.