Both the bike rider and van driver carry fault here. But the van driver basically driving into the rider should constitute assault with a deadly weapon IMO.
At the first stop, the rider conversed pretty calmly with him and even called him "sir." He replied calmly asking about driving the speed limit. There were certainly no threats that the driver could use to defend a "I feared for my life" claim. The biker said he was calling the cops. At the very least, assuming contact occurred, the driver left the scene of an accident.
At the second incident the van driver, again, initiated the violence by accelerating into the rider. The biker didn't touch him or his vehicle. I didn't see him "jump" onto the hood. I saw the biker asking the guy in the next vehicle to stay as a witness; if someone is raging and a threat to others that's the last thing they're going to do.
After that, who knows? The editing is so suspicious. At the very least the cops have the bike rider for speeding (possibly 172 speeds...) as he sought to catch up and confront the van driver.
Is the video "evidence" admissible because helmet cams are "not legal"?
The "I feared for my safety" defence wouldn't be based upon the initial interaction, but rather that the rider, (as the van LEGALLY left, see the explanation further down in my response), "chased him down and attempted to block him in"
Actually he asked the pickup to stay not as a witness but because that vehicle was in a "blocking position" meaning the van couldn't leave that route. The rider then placed himself in the only other possible "escape route". Weather you or I feel the van driver would be justified in the "I felt threatened" defence, we weren't there and can't even begin to know what the van driver felt or thought. I said, if he were charged, all his lawyer need do is convince one of 12 that was the case, and that it was "reasonable" for him to feel that way.
I am not saying the van driver was right at any point, again as you said the "editing" seems pretty suspicious, But just before the rider "claims" the van was 3 feet behind his rear wheel, he, (the rider), turns around stop the video now look at the distance from the bike to the van then compare that with the telephone pole shadow. It would "appear" the van was a car length behind the bike, (which if it was a 60 km/h zone was admittedly still too close), and not 3'. When the rider says the driver "gave me the finger" that no doubt inflamed the rider, and he felt the "best way to show hm" was to slow down considerably, Again we don't know if he "brake checked" the van, because the video has been edited at that exact moment. Weather he brake checked or merely slowed down from engine braking, he at that point was playing chicken if you will and he lost the game.
Each time he approached the van he was in what could easily be described as an "aggitated state" and somewhat aggresive. He was certainly in a "I am in charge" frame of mind, ordering people to do what he felt they should do. It is ironic when videos show cops acting the same way, many say look at the idiot on a power trip, what an a hole, yet this rider is justified in doing the same thing, (except that he has no legal authority to do so?).
Again his best option would have been to record the plate, he had the drivers face on video, and let it be dealt with properly. He is very lucky the ONLY apparent injuries he suffered were when he was in a SINGLE vehcile collision, while again trying to chase down the van. There was apparently no damage to his vehicle, when he claimed the van "hit his tire". If indeed there was no damage to the bike, (normally wouldn't be from a tire bump), and no injuries then legally speaking there is no requirement for a report to be filed. This is directly from the Collision Reporting Centres FAQ page:
A. If no one is hurt and the damage is under $1000.00 the report is not required by law. It would be wise to have everything documented by an official of the government for future references just in case one party decides to change their mind. The answer is Yes.
The rest is merely "advisory", so as you can see the van driver was under NO obligation to remain as no report was required by law. Technically, there were no apparent injuries during the second interaction so again no "reportable collision" BUT the issue then becomes did it constitute an assault, (which is why the van SHOULD have remained at that point).
As for the video being admissable as evidence. That would have to be determined by a court, and a defence lawyer would certainly try to have it tossed, on several grounds, including authenticity, (given that the rider has admitted that it has been edited), a "good" defence attorney would suggest it can't be determined, (even if a "full copy" were turned over), that it also hadn't been edited prior. That the creator, (Rider), had "interests" in presenting an altered video, (which placed ther client in a "bad light"). The mere fact that it was recorded while the camera was mounted on a helmet is a moot point. The "helmet cam" itself is not illegal, having the camera mounted to a helmet has been ruled by the courts to render the helmet itself no longer "certified" as such it is then an illegal hemet
cops??? they don`t care to.... sow million times -road speed 60km/h, car in left lane doing at list 55km/h - at the front no problem, cop car at the back - so what is next? - of course cop going around and speed up....in my opinion 40% our traffic problem because of id#ots in left lane, wish we can get like 40 us sheriffs, at list for 1 week, so they will clean id#ots out...
