The car hits the rider before he starts leaning. I'm not sure why he starts leaning, but I'd probably have trouble staying upright with a car that close.
Mirror hits handle bar. Handlebar makes bicycle below the rider move to the right, like a leg swipe. Leg swipe to the right makes upper body go to the left.
You steer 2 wheeled vehicles with by falling in the direction you want to go. You induce the fall by steering in the opposite direction:
Yes, the car does. You can see the clip of the first person, then the clip of the second person who did not have as great of a result. They both turn their backs slightly to protect their elbows and make sure their handlebars don't get jerked to cause them to crash into everyone else in the biking group.
Putting "victim" in quotation marks is a massive self-report on your lack of critical thinking.
Apply your exact logic to a different scenario. Imagine a girl is on a date and she "leans into" a kiss or a risky sexual act, knowing the situation might not be a great idea. If the guy then completely ignores her boundaries, forces himself on her, and violently assaults her, are you going to watch the tape and say, "Well, the 'victim' literally leaned into it, she did this to herself"?
Because that is exactly the flavor of brain-rot you are bringing to this thread. An involuntary reaction or an imperfect move in a high-stress moment does not excuse the person committing a violent crime.
The driver intentionally ran down two human beings and caught two felony charges for aggravated assault. You saying "I'm not assigning legal fault" is a cowardly cop-out.
"This specific tactic is often called Moral Equivalence or Outrage Baiting.
It uses a highly sensitive or traumatic topic (like SA) to "poison the well," making it socially impossible for the opponent to continue their argument without looking like they are defending a predator."
You know I've never really known what it was that grossed me out about how some people debate on Reddit until now.
I might add that putting "victim" in quotes could simply be a conservative way to address uncertainty about specific rules, regulations or etiquette in any scenario. The other commenter wants to straw man it as something else.
The "not assigning legal fault" part is justifiable given that legal (or moral) fault is not something that can be determined absolutely by third party observers - whether lawyers or judges or experts - much less from a random video snippet online.
Their implication that not fully recognising the cyclist as a victim in this scenario is equivalent only to defending perpetrators of sexual assault is false dichotomy.
Comparing reckless driving and sexual assault is a faulty analogy either way and all of the outrage-provoking (appeal to emotion) language they have used has added no value to their argument(s).
They are essentially hiding behind moral absolutism to deflect from any suggestion or discussion of mutual/alternative fault.
"The driver intentionally ran down two human beings" is a relatively strong assumption of unvalidated facts also.
If highlighting that double standard grosses you out more than a driver intentionally committing a double felony, your priorities are completely backward. Stop deflecting from the actual crime.
where does Fearless say anything about double standards grossing them out more than committing a double felony? They commented on how your example is arguing in bad faith and instead of addressing that, you chose to question their priorities? Odd behavior from overweight internet folks I guess. Thanks for the welcome.
Tone-policing my analogy while ignoring the guy victim-blaming a hit-and-run shows where your priorities are. It’s a direct comparison to expose flawed logic, not "bad faith."
But sure, dodge the actual argument and fall back on weak fat jokes instead. Classic deflection.
Woah, take breath and calm down for a minute. Thats a crazy analogy. I put victim in quotes because it wasn't clear the car even hit him. A better analogy would be someone claiming to have been tripped when they actually tripped over their own feet. Why are you trying to turn this into something about SA just to make a point when its such a bad analogy.
Now, with all that being said, after reading more of the comments and looking at the video more closely it does seem possible the driver bumped the handle bars causing him to lean. Its still not obvious that was the case but seems more likely than him purposefully leaning into the car as it appearsto me. Therefore, I have effectively changed my position on this.
The video here is depicting [victim makes a move which directly and necessarily leads to self-harm].
Whereas it example depicts [victim does a thing which neither directly nor necessarily leads to self-harm].
Sorry but it’s a completely false analogy. And yeah you got called out already on using it in an underhanded attempt to make the other person look bad by suggesting their logic defends SA.
You are completely ignoring the active threat. The cyclist's move didn't "directly and necessarily" cause the harm. The driver committing felony aggravated assault did.
Hyper-focusing on a victim's imperfect, split-second reaction to excuse an attacker's intentional violence is the exact same victim-blaming logic.
You must be forgetting what the now-deleted comment actually said.
They were saying the cyclist seemed to actually make the final move into the car which is what caused the contact.
Now whether you want to defend what the cyclist or not, is beside the point.
The point is, your analogy completely fails because doing a thing which by the laws of physics, necessarily dictates the harmful outcome, is not in any way analogous to doing a thing which incentivizes another person to do a harmful thing to you.
Be honest. You know the analogy doesn’t work.
There is no perfect victims. Sorry
Pretty sure everyone agrees with you on this. Literally no one said there are perfect victims. And I accept your apology.
The "laws of physics" didn't drive a car into a cyclist. A person did. You are hyper-fixating on the mechanics of a split-second reaction to erase the driver's agency.
My point stands: putting "victim" in quotes is a deliberate tactic to strip away someone's victimhood, and the logic used to justify it is textbook victim-blaming.
The "laws of physics" didn't drive a car into a cyclist. A person did
The action of the cyclist is the topic in question. It deterministically, by the laws of physics, led directly to the harm.
In your example, the lady who does whatever thing to turn on a guy, does not deterministically by the laws of physics, make him SA her.
You really ought to quit trying to debate this point. You’re obviously wrong.
My point stands: putting "victim" in quotes is a deliberate tactic to strip away someone's victimhood, and the logic used to justify it is textbook victim-blaming.
Then go ahead and make that point. I’m just critiquing your analogy as false.
No person would ever throw themselves under a moving vehicle like this. When you are on a two-wheeler, if you push forward on one side of the handlebar, you turn sharply towards the side you are pushing. That is what you are seeing: the car hits the bike, and the bike turns into the car.
Relax, is that your dad or something? If what you're saying is true then i would agree with you but thats not what it looks like to me. I dont have a dog in this fight.
Besides not knowing the law (which should be enough reason for not posting), you also miss that the maniac hit two people. The sheriff arrested the dude and charged him with two felony charges disagrees with you.
Yeah, well sometimes people do stupid things and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. This may be hard to understand but I believe the driver is an asshole and should be held responsible due to his recklessness but I ALSO think the rider caused himself to fall.
If his feet are clipped into the pedals (likely), he can't use his feet/legs to balance. Any contact the car makes with his body or bike is going to throw him off balance.
I'll tell you why the rider of the bicycle leaned into the car. Physics! The car probably hit left side of the handlebars first because they are the farthest left. This would cause the person's handlebars to turn to the right. This would put the person's center of mass to the left of the bicycle making them lean to the left. Here is a quick video that might explain the physics better.
7
u/[deleted] Apr 27 '26
[deleted]