would a dash cam help the driver of the Range Rover who was attacked by hundreds of bikers in NYC?

[Belial88]

I didn't realise until I read about it....

Maybe you should stop, and actually read the current articles on the matter and watch the video (the same video that's been out since day1, that I kept telling you to watch again) before making anti-american comments and bad generalizations.

That potentially changes things - if the driver or his wife saw a knife and thought (right or wrong) that it might be used against him or his family - or if he saw a knife used against the tyres, knowing it would immobilise the car and feared that the knife might then be used against them - then the law allows him to take more drastic action to defend himself and his family.

Actually, it really doesn't change things. If it was 1 or even a few people, it would. But like I said, 100 people with spoons is extremely dangerous. It doesn't take much for 100 people to be perceived as a threat and to respond. 100, menacing bikers? The second they come towards you is reason to defend yourself.

While the law is pretty ridiculous and often for the criminal rather than victim, you do NOT have to wait until to get your tires slashed or yourself mobbed. As soon as a reasonable person believes he/she or someone immediate is in danger of grave injury or death, they can react to defend themselves (and in most states, like NY, you have an obligation to retreat before using deadly force). 100 bikers mobbing your car is assault.

. You'll call me insane again but it could be the sun reflecting in the brake or he could really be braking. He rolled off the throttle because he's slowing down but the light goes on for a fraction of a second but he was already slowing down. If he used the front brakes too, you would see a dive on the motorcycle.

You're insane.

He's definitely braking. He definitely only starts to slow down once the brake light goes on. You do not necessarily have to see a dive in the bike when using the front brakes. All you need to do is lightly tap the front brakes to dramatically slow down, if you've ever driven a bike you'd know this.

by your logic, every time any car in the world braked, you'd see it dive. but you don't, because most of the time people don't slam their brakes. When people do slam their brakes, sure, you see a car dive.

Comments on articles from people, "If this was Texas you'd see how a 45 ACP would stop these bikers...." and other stuff like this. Paints a nice picture.

You're an idiot if you take internet comments from anywhere as a reflection of anything.

If the driver had a gun, he probably wouldn't have been beaten though, he would've bought himself 10 seconds when he had to stop his car, enough for bystanders and police to come to intervene and stop the situation. A gun really isn't enough to stop 100 bikers though, or even 5.

As for the defense, when I wrote my initial comment, no mention of knives or anything was mentioned. If he's really being attacked with knives, etc, then yes, he is entitled to defend himself. I stand corrected. Near impossible to see from the initial video when this came out though.

You can see his tires are blown out pretty clearly, that's why he had to stop. They also came at him with helmets, which are just as dangerous as knives. I don't see what knowing about knives being there or not, has any difference. You seem to underestimate how deadly a mob of 5, much less 100 big male bikers, actually is. It's a stampede.

There are people who saw this video, and knew from the start the SUV driver was in the right, and there are people who fail to grasp how self defense scenarios go down, and have to change their position after learning the facts that really are quite irrelevant (bikers having knives, if the first accident was the fault of the SUV or biker, etc).

 

[MrFluff]

Maybe you should stop, and actually read the current articles on the matter and watch the video (the same video that's been out since day1, that I kept telling you to watch again) before making anti-american comments and bad generalizations.



Actually, it really doesn't change things. If it was 1 or even a few people, it would. But like I said, 100 people with spoons is extremely dangerous. It doesn't take much for 100 people to be perceived as a threat and to respond. 100, menacing bikers? The second they come towards you is reason to defend yourself.

While the law is pretty ridiculous and often for the criminal rather than victim, you do NOT have to wait until to get your tires slashed or yourself mobbed. As soon as a reasonable person believes he/she or someone immediate is in danger of grave injury or death, they can react to defend themselves (and in most states, like NY, you have an obligation to retreat before using deadly force). 100 bikers mobbing your car is assault.



You're insane.

He's definitely braking. He definitely only starts to slow down once the brake light goes on. You do not necessarily have to see a dive in the bike when using the front brakes. All you need to do is lightly tap the front brakes to dramatically slow down, if you've ever driven a bike you'd know this.

by your logic, every time any car in the world braked, you'd see it dive. but you don't, because most of the time people don't slam their brakes. When people do slam their brakes, sure, you see a car dive.



You're an idiot if you take internet comments from anywhere as a reflection of anything.

If the driver had a gun, he probably wouldn't have been beaten though, he would've bought himself 10 seconds when he had to stop his car, enough for bystanders and police to come to intervene and stop the situation. A gun really isn't enough to stop 100 bikers though, or even 5.



You can see his tires are blown out pretty clearly, that's why he had to stop. They also came at him with helmets, which are just as dangerous as knives. I don't see what knowing about knives being there or not, has any difference. You seem to underestimate how deadly a mob of 5, much less 100 big male bikers, actually is. It's a stampede.

There are people who saw this video, and knew from the start the SUV driver was in the right, and there are people who fail to grasp how self defense scenarios go down, and have to change their position after learning the facts that really are quite irrelevant (bikers having knives, if the first accident was the fault of the SUV or biker, etc).

Nah man. I think this is hilarious at the end. I'm being accused of CSI enhancing bull**** by speaking of dive, yet somebody else does it here and it's great. Doesn't specify the amount of frames the light was on for, if it could have been a reflection, etc... just carrying on with the guy is completely not at fault.

My idea doesn't change. If the guy was attacked, he can reply. If he's feeling threatened because he just pushed off one of their buddies (different article say anywhere from bump to run over) and they're circling him with no weapon, then tough luck but lock your doors and wait. There's no imminent threat. I don't see what's reasonable in running over a group of 100 people if they're just circling your car and looking at you or yelling at you for your action.

Cars don't dive if you don't brake right, you're right. Maybe the guy should have braked hard. It's awesome how nobody even questions why this guy is the first one we ever hear of that gets attacked. I tried to find other videos or anything and nada.

 

[jokiin]

my last bike was a litre sports bike (Honda Fireblade), you can touch the brakes and have the light come on without the brakes actually applying, the light typically comes on with the slightest of pressure

a bigger effect at that sort of speed though is by just rolling off the throttle, the bike will slow very quickly when you back off if in one of the lower gears, you drop a lot of speed when you do this and there is no noticable dive at all

 

[glider]

Nah man. I think this is hilarious at the end. I'm being accused of CSI enhancing bull**** by speaking of dive, yet somebody else does it here and it's great. Doesn't specify the amount of frames the light was on for, if it could have been a reflection, etc... just carrying on with the guy is completely not at fault.

Cars don't dive if you don't brake right, you're right. Maybe the guy should have braked hard. It's awesome how nobody even questions why this guy is the first one we ever hear of that gets attacked. I tried to find other videos or anything and nada.

I did a CSI style analysis of the video frame by frame and will post the entire report later, but I can confirm that the biker applied his brakes for approximately 10 frames (1/3 of a second at 29.970 fps). This is confirmed by looking at the video and something else that no one has mentioned: the bike's brake light and white fender were reflected in the Range Rover's front left fender. It is very clear in the reflection that the biker applied his brakes for 10 frames. However, jokiin is right that most of the slow down is probably due to engine braking. I ride a motorcycle as well and have experienced this engine braking at lower gears.

I measured the lane markings in Google Maps and found the biker was ahead of the SUV by roughly 7 ft for only a matter of seconds before he applied the brakes and immediately started to slow down. At that time the SUV was traveling about 28 MPH (calculated by frame rate and measurement of lane markings). The biker was initially along the SUV's front left fender, then moved to 7 ft in front, then almost immediately started slowing down, all in a matter of a few seconds. In other words, the SUV did not pull up to the biker.

There were three horn beeps immediately before the possible bump and the SUV does indeed brake hard because I can see its front end dive. All in all, the SUV driver reacted within 1.5 seconds of the biker first applying his brakes and then slowing down. If the three horn beeps came from the SUV, then the reaction time was less than 1.0 seconds. This is well within the normal reaction time for an alert driver.

Prior to this incident I have evidence that the SUV also braked two separate times due to other bikers cutting in front of him. This incident was the third time he had to brake.

We also do not know if contact was actually ever made with that biker. There is a possibility the SUV applied enough braking to avoid contact. There is evidence that the biker was never knocked down. He is in fact still on his bike and rolling forward just 2.3 seconds after the possible contact. This is confirmed in the video footage after the camera pans backwards again. He continues to ride for many more seconds before deciding to stop in front of the SUV.

Another thing not mentioned is that there is video footage of an entire tire rolling on the highway behind the SUV just three minutes after the SUV flees. This tire very likely departed from that vehicle, especially since he slows down from about 50 MPH to only 15-20 MPH afterwards. The short time frame adds to the possibility that the bikers did slash his tires after that first stop. If all true, the SUV was driving on one rim the entire time after that.

Again, I have much more evidence and will post later.

 

[MrFluff]

There's a shift in suspension when you let go of the throttle as opposed to rolling off of it (the reason why you're not supposed to chop it in a curve or you'll shift the weight from back wheel to front and potentially lowside).

Here's a video of a biker brake checking a car...

Can we get the CSI video enhancer guy back here again to analyze this one?

 

[MrFluff]

I did a CSI style analysis of the video frame by frame and will post the entire report later, but I can confirm that the biker applied his brakes for approximately 10 frames (1/3 of a second at 29.970 fps). This is confirmed by looking at the video and something else that no one has mentioned: the bike's brake light and white fender were reflected in the Range Rover's front left fender. It is very clear in the reflection that the biker applied his brakes for 10 frames. However, Jokin is right that most of the slow down is probably due to engine braking. I ride a motorcycle as well and have experienced this engine braking at lower gears.

I measured the lane markings in Google Maps and found the biker was ahead of the SUV by roughly 7 ft for only a matter of seconds before he applied the brakes and immediately started to slow down. At that time the SUV was traveling about 28 MPH (calculated by frame rate and measurement of lane markings).

There were three horn beeps immediately before the possible bump and the SUV does indeed brake hard because I can see its front end dive. All in all, the SUV driver reacted within 1.5 seconds of the biker first applying his brakes and then slowing down. If the three horn beeps came from the SUV, then the reaction time was less than 1.0 seconds. This is well within the normal reaction time for an alert driver.

Prior to this incident I have evidence that the SUV also braked two separate times due to other bikers cutting in front of him. This incident was the third time he had to brake.

We also do not know if contact was actually ever made with that biker. There is a possibility the SUV applied enough braking to avoid contact. There is evidence that the biker was never knocked down. He is in fact still on his bike and rolling forward just 2.3 seconds after the possible contact. This is confirmed in the video footage after the camera pans backwards again.

Another thing not mentioned is that there is video footage of an entire tire rolling on the highway behind the SUV just three minutes after the SUV flees. This tire very likely departed from that vehicle, especially since he slows down from about 50 MPH to only 15-20 MPH afterwards. The short time frame adds to the possibility that the bikers did slash his tires after that first stop. If all true, the SUV was driving on one rim the entire time after that.

Again, I have much more evidence and will post later.

Just saw that. Thank you! I would love to see that as that would be evidence. If it's true, then I have nothing to say. Either way it'd be great to get evidence as opposed to media articles not describing anything.

 

[MrFluff]

Doesn't matter at this point but ran into this video... start at 2:30 min mark.

Might explain why it got a bunch of media coverage.

 

[Squid]

Maybe you should stop, and actually read the current articles on the matter and watch the video (the same video that's been out since day1, that I kept telling you to watch again) before making anti-american comments and bad generalizations.

Huh? I watched the video and there is no indication that knives were used.

The same is true for the articles I read (before my remark that you commented on).

Who appointed you the arbiter of which articles we have to read before you gracefully permit us to post on this forum?

Specifically what 'anti-American comments' have I supposedly made? You see things that are not there. How can you possibly interpret criticism of some people who happen to be American as being therefore anti-American?

Maybe you should stop, and actually read the current articles on the matter and watch the video (the same video that's been out since day1, that I kept telling you to watch again) before making anti-american comments and bad generalizations.

That says so much. You tell, I suggest. I accept that people have different opinions, you seem to get irked by it.

One of your 7 'likes' is from me, because I agreed with you in an earlier post... Applying your logic, that makes me a pro-American anti-American!

 

[Squid]

Maybe you should stop, and actually read the current articles on the matter and watch the video (the same video that's been out since day1, that I kept telling you to watch again) before making anti-american comments and bad generalizations...

...There are people who saw this video, and knew from the start the SUV driver was in the right, and there are people who fail to grasp how self defense scenarios go down, and have to change their position after learning the facts that really are quite irrelevant (bikers having knives, if the first accident was the fault of the SUV or biker, etc).

Oh, I'm changing my position, am I? I see. If I amend the start of your post:

Maybe you should stop, and actually read the current articles my previous posts on the matter and watch the video (the same video that's been out since day1, that I kept telling you to watch again) before making anti-american comments and bad generalizations incorrect statements about what I supposedly said

On a separate matter, re:

...There are people who saw this video, and knew from the start the SUV driver was in the right, and there are people who fail to grasp how self defense scenarios go down, and have to change their position after learning the facts that really are quite irrelevant (bikers having knives, if the first accident was the fault of the SUV or biker, etc).

Ah, so you understand 'how self defence scenarios go down'. As you've got it all wrapped up, I suggest you contact the SUV driver's legal team. They'll value having your expert legal mind onboard. I'm sure your forcefulness about being right will go down really well in court too.

 

[Belial88]

Nah man. I think this is hilarious at the end. I'm being accused of CSI enhancing bull**** by speaking of dive, yet somebody else does it here and it's great. Doesn't specify the amount of frames the light was on for, if it could have been a reflection, etc... just carrying on with the guy is completely not at fault.

No it was pretty obvious that the guy was slowing down. You tried to somehow extrapolate that it was impossible for the guy to engine brake due to where his hands were. It's like you didn't watch the video at all, your comments made no sense. You clearly see the guy slow down, you clearly see the guy hit his brakes. The CSI crap you were accused of was you trying to reach around and try to somehow prove from a low quality video that it was impossible for the guy to be slowing down, when it's very, very obvious from the video that he slowed down.

The 'csi bull****' that I did, was to make it obvious to you what everyone else already knew, the guy slowed down. I made it so there was no way you could deny that the guy was slowing down.

Just admit you were wrong. You can watch the video and clearly see the guy's brake light went on, that it wasn't a reflection because the camera is at the same distance and angle while the light goes from off to on for a full second, but it really doesn't matter whether his brake lights went on or not because you can see that he intentionally slowed down. He slowed down. It really doesn't matter how he did it, it's obvious that he did.

My idea doesn't change. If the guy was attacked, he can reply. If he's feeling threatened because he just pushed off one of their buddies (different article say anywhere from bump to run over) and they're circling him with no weapon, then tough luck but lock your doors and wait. There's no imminent threat. I don't see what's reasonable in running over a group of 100 people if they're just circling your car and looking at you or yelling at you for your action.

Even in the most liberal states, like New York, you don't actually need to be attacked to justify a self defense reaction. That's insanely stupid. So if a guy comes at you with a gun pointed to your face, you are just going to lock your doors and not do anything until you are attacked? And what if 100, tough looking bikers aim a gun at you? Seriously, you are just going to wait until they attack first? You have absolutely no clue how a self defense scenario goes in the real world, and very obviously never been in a life or death situation.

And there was an imminent threat. 1 biker approaching you menacingly, eh, you go to court and argue if it's a threat. But 100 bikers coming at you, is a huge imminent threat. This isn't 100 people 'just' circling your car, this is 100 people closing in on your car, getting way too close and violating your personal space, such as beating on the windows.

And, as we now know from the facts, knifing his tires and breaking the glass with weapons like helmets.

Cars don't dive if you don't brake right, you're right. Maybe the guy should have braked hard. It's awesome how nobody even questions why this guy is the first one we ever hear of that gets attacked. I tried to find other videos or anything and nada.

Because it's quite common for incidences of road rage, and of people in general hitting cars. People assaulting someone after an accident is common too. What's uncommon, is a high way chase between civilians, especially more than just 2 vehicles, much less 100+. Also, just because you never heard of it doesn't mean no one else hasn't. I've heard of it plenty of times, but if you don't work in law enforcement, traffic, etc, you probably wouldn't.

Ah, so you understand 'how self defence scenarios go down'. As you've got it all wrapped up, I suggest you contact the SUV driver's legal team. They'll value having your expert legal mind onboard. I'm sure your forcefulness about being right will go down really well in court too.

Yes, I've been in a few self defense scenarios. But it doesn't take being in one, to realize how stupid it is to wait to be hit first. Even the most liberal jurisdictions allow you defend yourself before being hit, if you are being threatened. This is a gray area where courts and judges come into play, but 100, big bikers, coming within 1 ft of your SUV, is definitely threatening.

Add to that banging, and knives, which we know from later reports to be true as well as deeper analysis of the video like by glider, and we can see that the SUV driver was definitely not just threatened = assaulted, but attacked = battery.

 

[Squid]

...Ah, so you understand 'how self defence scenarios go down'...

Yes, I've been in a few self defense scenarios....

You have got to be kidding me! You think being in a 'few self-defense scenarios' makes you 'understand how self defence scenarios go down'? And that these 'few self-defense scenarios' make you an expert on the law? That at least explains why you treat people who see things differently so forcefully.

The way you portray this case as black and white implies, contrary to your extensive experience, that you have no understanding of either the law or the vagaries of courtrooms.

I wonder what your 'few self-defense scenarios' were. Did they involve tackling people who had the temerity to hold a different opinion to you?

The issue is not so much your understanding of the law (people are welcome to hold a different opinion, and the irony is that I have actually been agreeing with you - if you can be bothered to read my posts) but how rude you are, how you do not respect that others might hold a different opinion, and how you accuse me of saying something that I did not.

 

[Squid]

Maybe you should stop, and actually read the current articles on the matter and watch the video (the same video that's been out since day1, that I kept telling you to watch again) before making anti-american comments and bad generalizations....

...Specifically what 'anti-American comments' have I supposedly made?...

I'm still waiting for an answer, Belial.

Next time I suggest you read what I said and not what you think I said.

 

[Belial88]

You have got to be kidding me! You think being in a 'few self-defense scenarios' makes you 'understand how self defence scenarios go down'? And that these 'few self-defense scenarios' make you an expert on the law? That at least explains why you treat people who see things differently so forcefully.

No, I don't. That's why I said specifically in my post But it doesn't take being in one, to realize how stupid it is to wait to be hit first.

I also don't need to be an expert on law, to know that being attacked is not a requirement for self defense reaction. If you feel a threat of bodily harm, death, or harm/death to an immediate person, you can react with self defense. In more liberal areas, you have a requirement to flee before resorting to force (and all force = deadly force, in most states), which the SUV driver attempted to do. You don't need to be an expert to know how self defense law works. It's relevant to my job as well as personal interests to know these things though.

This is true in all states, all countries. You don't need to wait to be attacked to defend yourself. It's the same reason cops (or anyone) can shoot someone if they have brandish a gun at someone (ie more than just holding it).

I apologize if I have been rude. I think I've also confused some of your comments with MrFluff.

 

[Squid]

...I apologize if I have been rude. I think I've also confused some of your comments with MrFluff.

Fair enough. Any confusion would make sense as Mr Fluff's opinion is so divergent from mine that (by and large) I gave up reading his posts a while ago. I think my thumbs up for you was when you were debating with him and I thought your post excellent. Mr Fluff is welcome to his opinion - I just see things differently from him.

Enjoy your weekend.

 

[Belial88]

MrFluff was the only guy against the SUV driver, and I even recall you were with us for a while too. Then suddenly Fluff bailed out of the thread and you suddenly became anti-SUV driver. It didn't occur to me that suddenly a 2nd guy started to sound exactly the same as the 1st guy who was an only guy, and the 2nd guy had 180'd his tune.

Your comment on 'didnt realize knives', i think I thought mrfluff said it (the guy who kept saying suv driver was wrong) so it sounded less like someone giving evidence to SUV-driver side to have acted as drastically as he did, and more like 'oh i was wrong'.

 

[Squid]

MrFluff was the only guy against the SUV driver, and I even recall you were with us for a while too. Then suddenly Fluff bailed out of the thread and you suddenly became anti-SUV driver. It didn't occur to me that suddenly a 2nd guy started to sound exactly the same as the 1st guy who was an only guy, and the 2nd guy had 180'd his tune.

Your comment on 'didnt realize knives', i think I thought mrfluff said it (the guy who kept saying suv driver was wrong) so it sounded less like someone giving evidence to SUV-driver side to have acted as drastically as he did, and more like 'oh i was wrong'.

Belial, I never switched from pro-SUV driver to anti-SUV driver. I think you confuse me again with someone else.

I read that knives were involved in some media report, after googling the incident for updates.

No problem.

 

[MrFluff]

MrFluff was the only guy against the SUV driver, and I even recall you were with us for a while too. Then suddenly Fluff bailed out of the thread and you suddenly became anti-SUV driver. It didn't occur to me that suddenly a 2nd guy started to sound exactly the same as the 1st guy who was an only guy, and the 2nd guy had 180'd his tune.

Your comment on 'didnt realize knives', i think I thought mrfluff said it (the guy who kept saying suv driver was wrong) so it sounded less like someone giving evidence to SUV-driver side to have acted as drastically as he did, and more like 'oh i was wrong'.

I didn't bail, just got bored with other's opinion. So far one article says knives, the others say attack. Some articles say the bike got bumped, others that he got runned over.

If you can make a definite opinion for yourself with such conflicting information from various media outlets, then congratulations. I can't decide one guy is innocent from the information provided with all its flaws. No one even mentions who the crowd of people stopped in front of the bike is or how the "loosely" gang is composed since it's a sort of rally. If I defend myself with a gun and shoot a stray bullet, am I exempted from all if my bullet hit a bystander? You'll go on to argue they were all part of the gang, etc with no proof. You just generalize. It's bad if I do it about americans but acceptable if you do it about bikes. Sure.

As for self defence, do not come to Canada then. Self defence is to neutralize the attack, it is not deadly force. Big difference. It can be if there's a need for it but doesn't always come down to deadly force.

 

[Belial88]

If I defend myself with a gun and shoot a stray bullet, am I exempted from all if my bullet hit a bystander?

Yes, you will be exempted, but you might still end up in court (just like with any self defense case). You'll likely end up in civil court, but again, this goes for any firearm self defense case. You need to make sure that you used your gun only in a case of self defense. Any amount of court or civil trial is a lot better than dying on the street. You can easily google 'self defense stray bullet'.

As for your ranting about if they are really a gang or not... I don't know what relevance that is. They're a mob, they don't need to be a cohesive gang to see they were clearly the same mob. You keep bringing things up that have zero relevance. So let's say they aren't a gang, who cares? What difference does it make?

Do I even call them a gang? Or do you mean a stray bullet, well it'd be obvious they were either on a motorcycle or not, either they chased after the SUV from the start or not based on witnesses and cams.

It's pretty clear the SUV driver is vindicated by that video. There's really not much you aren't justified to do when 100+ people close in on you. You have the right to flee, and preventing someone from running away unless they definitively and clearly committed a violent felony (and even then citizen's arrest is very gray area leaning towards **** you citizen) means if you get run over, it's your own fault. Especially when it's 100+ people.

If this was juts a couple bikers it would be one thing, but 100+ people, with spoons, is extremely and imminently a threat if they so much as all look at you at the same time with a look of hostility. These bikers were definitely hostile right away. Nevermind closing in on the SUV, blocking it in, and getting within 1 foot of it, as clear in the video. The SUV driver could've whipped out a rocket launcher and machine gun and been pretty justified.

 

[MrFluff]

You can't tell clearly what happened in the video when he stopped. Can't even tell point of impact. There is one CNN article that says the suv was spiked when stopped, others say attacked according to police sources. It'd be interesting to know how they got that info. There's other cars around, even the white Econoline that passes right next to the suv. The eye witness there would be very interesting if they found him/them. Perhaps traffic cam. In other words, the information provided by media is ****ty. Anything could have happened when he was stopped. From the little you can see, the pack in front stayed on their bike. How many people unmounted and went towards the SUV? What did they do that was an attack? Bang on the window, knife, guns, etc...

You're fine with little to no details as to what happened on the spot. It's enough for you to assume and say self defence, great. I ask what happened there. If they were around him and one guy went towards his SUV to bang on the window, is that enough to fear for his life? 100 people are around but he's still in a 3000 lbs cage. etc.

 

[glider]

You're fine with little to no details as to what happened on the spot. It's enough for you to assume and say self defence, great. I ask what happened there. If they were around him and one guy went towards his SUV to bang on the window, is that enough to fear for his life? 100 people are around but he's still in a 3000 lbs cage. etc.

The 3000 lbs cage isn't impenetrable. There is glass all around that is easily broken. After breaking the windows, they can easily open the doors and pull out the occupants as evidenced by the final confrontation. At the end, the bikers actually intended to beat the wife as well. According to eye witnesses one of them actually grabbed her arm and tried to pull her out after smashing the passenger side window. The biker even told her "You're gonna get it too". The reason this didn't happen is because bystanders stopped them. If this happened on the highway at the first stop, there would be no one to stop the bikers. There is a real possibility the driver could have been beaten to death in that situation.

The white van isn't a witness because he left pretty soon right after they boxed in the SUV. Several seconds pass before the first major altercation which is one of the bikers punches the side of the SUV.

There is compelling evidence that one of the tires was slashed during the first stop. Less than three minutes later, an entire tire appears to come off the SUV. There is audio evidence that might also add to this theory. Two distinct swishing sounds are heard during the stop. Right after one of these sounds, one of the bikers on the SUV's right side appears to flinch away from the vehicle and two of them start to leave, perhaps knowing the situation is getting worse.