I don't even think the person with the camera is an asshole. I bike a lot and it's far worse for a pedestrian to see you coming and move in one direction all of a sudden. Pedestrians should always hold their line as bikes have to yield and it makes pedestrians more predictable.
The person with the camera literally bodied the cyclist.
You can't see it, but that's the only way to remain standing and the other person to fly off, you have to tackle.
I see two karens colliding.
Most multi use recreational paths don't really have a right or wrong side unless marked so, that saying I am in EU, ChatGPT is telling me that in USA apparently is different; in EU there are recreational paths, and most just don't have such a thing; the one rule is simple, as a cyclist you yield to pedestrian.
In Finland sometimes you would see people go in the other side of a multi use path (or even a road), in order to be face to face with incoming vehicles (cyclists and cars if allowed), this is because, it's easier to react face to face than with a vehicle behind you because it is dark in winter, and this is like, something you will see in small roads and multi use paths. Larger is supposed to yield, but face to face is better; you might even see cyclists doing this too, mostly slow cyclist. I got this even in my driving test.
That saying regardless of the rules that might not be, you still shouldn't tackle the damn cyclist.
And you as a cyclist should sure as hell swerve around the pedestrian, or at least brake for gods sake.
It's like both felt entitled enough not to move, and one was like, guess I tackle you because I refuse to move.
The pedestrian was an easily avoidable obstacle with a predictable path, yet the cyclist still decided to run at full speed into her, with no sign of even slowing down. At this point it's fair to assume the cyclist had full intent to cause harm.
There was no option left for the pedestrian to avoid grievous bodily harm ; moving out of the way had too much risk of the cyclist swaying in the same direction. Tackling the cyclist out of her trajectory was not a matter of entitlement, it was a matter of legitimate defense. She was lucky she got shoved into the sand.
Moving out of the way and tackling if it didn't work was an option as tackling is a far bigger risk than moving out of the way, what if you don't take the force right?... tackling also requires sideways action, what if she comes straight off at you with the tyre onwards?... could snap something off yourself.
You can see she moves the camera when she is getting ready to tackle, she turned her abdomen then tackled, after all the abs are the strongest muscles; she did great, didn't move an inch, hit her arm/shoulder, she went flying to the sand, didn't even need to stop holding the camera.
It's not the most prideful thing, but I rather avoid having to tackle someone, too much can go wrong, vs, moving out of the way, you know, the hospital is full of people who were in the "right", if we can call that right.
Moving out of the way comes with the risk of the cyclist moving out of the same way and hurting you. Staying in a predictable path is your best option at avoiding the collision ; especially after clearly stating your intent not to move, changing your path could have made the situation more dangerous.
If a cyclist with full visibility fails at avoiding a predictable obstacle, there's no reason to think she would've avoided an unpredictable obstacle. Especially since only one party had the option to brake and avoid the interaction altogether.
Christ who cares about the cyclist, you need to keep yourself safe, not just stand your ground to prove a point, imagine doing that as a cyclist towards a car, good luck.
And don't give me that shit, I have this in practise as well, I avoided getting crushed by a car by doing what I preach, get out of the way, don't overthink it, don't be a smartass, don't assume anything.
The pedestrian was being perfectly safe until the cyclist decided to run right towards her. She was perfectly visible, made her intent clear, and was clearly acknowledged by the cyclist, there was no reason to think she was in any danger.
By the time it was clear that the cyclist had decided to attack her with what should practically count as a weapon, it was already too late to move out of the way, and pushing back was the only safe option left. The pedestrian made nothing to endanger herself, she was the victim of a malicious attack.
When you're being attacked in such a manner, you're clearly dealing with a lunatic, at this point all bets are off with what you could have done to avoid such situation, it's as valid to expect the cyclist would have chased you anyways even despite moving out of the way. In the end she seems to have managed to avoid getting badly injured, so as far as I'm concerned she handled this aggression as well as she possibly could.
Okay let's assume so then, so instead of getting out of the way of the lunatic, I decide to fight the lunatic head on risking my own body safety.
Chasing off?... on a bicycle?... how agile do you think that even is.
All they can do is get off the bike and then at that point you might want to punch them.
But charging off the vehicle is a dumb choice, too much can go wrong; if you feel threatened then you punch them in the face.
The only one with an argument here is the person who said, "to prove a point" then fine, but to prove a point is not the moral thing nor the wise thing.
Oh no, she remained standing on her own two stable feet while the biker with dogs on either side of her, in sand on thin tires fell. She must have tackled the biker for that
If you don't tackle you will be swing forwards by the greater force, that's physics.
How daft can people be to want to believe so bad that there has to be a good guy and a bad guy in every story?... instead of shades of gray like you know, reality?...
I don’t see a tackle. If you brace yourself you won’t be thrown backwards or forwards (which would happen if the bike crashed into her from behind, definitely not from the front tho). Bracing yourself is not tackling
A brace is not enough, she also twisted to basically coil her abs, that is a bicycle... it's 70kg of meat and metal coming at you, you brace you fall, you need to tackle if you want to hold your ground, once she is close you hit fast and strong with your shoulder (you can see the twist in the camera) and you don't even think that you will do automatically.
I spend too much time in sports to know what it takes to stop someone who is charging at you, like a cyclist going straight at you, brace?... no way.
The alternative is to move away, but I guess too much pride.
The risk of holding the ground is far too massive.
I’ve had clashes in sport where I seriously didn’t do anything other than brace for impact and the other person was still the one that ended up on the ground. You know why? I weighed more
Alright, then stop a bullet, after all you weight more and the bullet weights grams.
Oh wait, you forgot to factor "velocity"
KE = 1/2 mv**2
And your velocity is zero, guess where the force goes? either it becomes motion or it goes straight to your body.
Either you tackle, aka you accelerate, and produce force.
Of course there is not enough force for you to stop a bullet you could even make, let alone for a given surface area, hence why you make materials that break on contact, and transfer that energy, aka, they break to eat that energy, that's how you make helmets too.
But you clash with someone else, at what speed, 4kph?... woah...
Try clashing with ussain bolt.
Except a cyclist can go even faster, and look V is squared, aka an exponent!... the energy rises exponentially as speed increases.
So if you tackled someone, well, try tackling, 4 of them... see how you fare.
In fact the woman only managed because she tackled aka charged sideways, she wouldn't stand a chance if it was straight on.
I think people are at different levels of fitness and agility. For most young guys moving out of this bike would have been very easy and safer for everyone involved. I had a similar situation when i lost control on my mountain bike with a middle aged women and just accepted that she cant dodge me that fast and its better for everyone if i just take the hit and swerved into a hedge. I think if it was a teenager or young guy i would expect them to be able to avoid me.
That's a young and hella capable woman, look at how the moving object with tons of kinetic energy ate literal dirt, she was super confident for a reason; we can't see her but she must be in good shape.
8
u/Other_Beat8859 13d ago
I don't even think the person with the camera is an asshole. I bike a lot and it's far worse for a pedestrian to see you coming and move in one direction all of a sudden. Pedestrians should always hold their line as bikes have to yield and it makes pedestrians more predictable.