No charges filed against driver filmed purposely hitting a cyclist

[Cataboo]

I think his point is that not evading a imminent accident does not make it assault. The pedestrian in your scenario is not the victim of assault, but the victim of a collision. "Fault" is a separate issue.

If you look at the video - the guy is yelling at him around 1 min 14-15 seconds, the cyclist is on the ground at 1 min 16-17 second.

So... The cyclist has maybe 1 second to avoid a collision while being yelled at and to realize... that the guy who is yelling at him is going to clip him. The cyclist had just passed a line of parked cars on his right, so may very well have still thought there was cars there.

I don't think that's slow motion at all.

And if you're shouting at someone you clip & responding when they say "what's that?" - it's hard to see how it can be claimed that you just misjudged the passing distance, because you're definitely completely aware of where the cyclist is...

[7rider]

I'm not saying I agree - with the ruling or the comment I posted. I'm just offering it up as a possible scenario. This case got a lot of local attention and was actually praised for the aggressive follow-up by police (who normally DON'T follow up on such things). I imagine there are a whole lot of facts (and law) we don't know and that's one of the reasons why WABA is pushing for the anti-harassment civil cause of action where criminal cases such as this fail.

[WindingRoad]

I don't see how there's any confusion as to this being intentional??? The driver drives up and basically tells the rider he's gonna hit him, rider has a WTF did he 'really' say that moment, and the driver proceeds to hit him with the back of his truck. How is that confusing to anyone? The a$$ driving the truck needs to never see a drivers license again! Inexcusable!

[goldfinch]

This isn't necessarily all bad if the bicyclist was hurt and wanted to sue the driver. Most liability insurance policies deny liability insurance coverage for intentionally perpetrated harm. So, if the driver intentionally hit the biker the driver's insurance may not provide any coverage. But if the driver was negligent (and maybe even reckless) there should be coverage.

If, of course, the driver was insured.

[channlluv]

After watching the video, I can see where all the non-cyclists are going to argue that the cyclist should have been in the far right lane, in spite of there being cars parked along that side of the street.

I don't see how the driver is getting away with this, though. He yells something about the cyclist getting his a$$ the effing right, and then proceeds to knock the cyclist over. No way he didn't realize how close he was.

In the comments someone says the driver told police he was just kidding around, but I didn't see that in the report. I don't know what other coverage might be out there for this.

I'll be the driver is a hero on those radio shows who laud this kind of behavior. He did it, obviously, and got away with it.

Roxy