Driver caught on Tape

The car was never that close to him.  I was crowed way more than that in the past and never thought more of it.

I doubt the charge will stick.

I agree it did not look that agregious and I've experienced worse but clearly they were out of line.  It doesn't really matter if they are found guilty or if the charges are dismissed, it made the local news and hopefully someone saw it and will think twice before harassing a cyclist.

Hard to tell where the camera was mounted and the perspective it gives on film but it doesn't look like he was "as far over as possible" either.  Looks like the car gave him plenty of room IMO.  I think he's just pissed at whatever the passenger yelled at him.  I'm all for road safety and the need for car drivers to respect cyclists, but frankly, I'm not buying the story that a pudgy cyclist with front and rear mounted cameras is simply out making a "training video".  If he's out to document road rage then fine, nail the violators, but come clean with it.

Wow, it's amazing how sometimes, people's appearance really doesn't come as a surprise.  Way to perpetuate stereotypes.  

Didn't really look like he was in much danger but honestly, I don't care.  These are exactly the type of hillbillies that deserve whatever comes their way as a result of this.  Maybe next time they'll think twice about "just havin sum fun".

I think that while the guy yelling from the window as a jerk, and probably deserves a slap on the wrist, I don't think the car was too close or trying to get too close.    In fact I am often concerned when drivers give me a "wide berth" (read: unnecessary) becasue I am not sure they look ahead and I don't want to be caught in that accident.

She should request a jury trial because even as a cyclist I am not sure I could find her guilty.   She could have spent more time/effort raising her son, though.   I wouldn't consider behaving like that with my mom driving! 

It's nice to see the authorities side with a cyclist for a change, but the video really doesn't actually show how close the car was when they passed the bike.

More states are going to the three foot rule, but it's hard to enforce unless a LEO actually witnesses it, or unless the rider actually gets hit.

Mark   

Hard to tell from the camera angle just how close the car was.  The positive outcome is that some other would be moron is watching and thinking that perhaps harassing a cyclist might not be a good idea.  The was "just havin sum fun" anyway.

In my experience the law is there to protect "intent".  Regardless of whether the driver is 6 inches, 1 foot, 2 feet, 3 feet, or 5 feet the driver and passenger are there are to harasses. As a cyclist it give you little outs and you really have no idea what the driver might actually do.  It can be extremely terrifying.  

I would hope you would see the wrong in the actions of the driver instead of trivializing them in regards to how much closer cars have got to you.

They're all lying.  He wasn't there to make a 'training video'.  Give me a break.  And the driver and her son know exactly what they did, and it is very clear that she was closer than necessary (compare the other passing vehicles) and that the a-hole son shouted at the cyclist.  I have zero respect for any of them.    Why didn't the cyclist just say that yes he has the cameras to catch jerks?

The thing is, lying to reporters, while generally reprehensible, is not generally against the law.  Unnecessarily endangering the lives of others and harassing them in the way that was very clearly done here is.  They should all be ridiculed for lying.  In addition, the driver and her son should also be charged with the violations that they quite clearly committed.

I dont think the drivers actions alone qualify this as an attempt to intimidate.  The passengers actions are idiotic though, I hope the charges against him stick.

Edited for grammar

It's a reasonable legal thing to do, whether you're fat or not - if you get hurt and the person that hits you drives away, you can prove it was them and get their insurance to pay out.  Imagine in this instance that instead of an obscenity, the redneck shot a paintball gun or threw something - you'd want to be able to prove that in court.

It's not really a safety enhancement unless you make it very clear you've got cameras, but the legal incentive is pretty good.

Istand corrected.

I have considered getting a camera for riding for a couple reasons but mostly if someone runs into me perhaps they could be caught. Is that wrong?

I read to many cases of hit and run by cars, or even some driver stops and cyclists injured but unable to prove they were not at fault. Having video I would think would make determination of fault more clear and easier for law enforcement.

If I had issues on certain roads, I would go to local authorities and show them what has happening to me as I am not sure all police understand how crappy some drivers are in watching out for cyclists or buzzing them on purpose.

Where I live there are many more kind to cyclists drivers than not but I have had incidents that scare me. I think all cyclists have.

This happens to me on about 25% of my rides.  On about 10% of my rides, something much more dangerous (cars within inches), honking, etc.

I am happy to see this get some attention, but on a scale of 1-10, this behavior qualifies as a 3.

I keep seeing "the car didn't look that close" over and over again.  If the rider was using a GoPro camera, it makes distances a bit harder to judge.  I use one making videos on my jet skis and you rarely get what you see at close distances.

Here is a good example from when I was playing around with my GoPro.      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcK9-OvEbqc&list=UU9iTUtbeA7Xtia... video makes the table look a lot bigger than it is. 

If that's the case,  and I'm sure you're probably right,  it becomes fairly useless as evidence in court.  A jury will see what the video shows.

Not entirely true.  All it would take is a simple demonstration involving the camera used and a tape measure.  Not hard at all.  Whether it would be admissable is an entirely different story.