Because it's not clear that he in fact IS lying about the Leftist stopping traffic.
I know. I acknowledged that that point can't be proven or disproven by the videotape.
As I stated, where his account can be proven or disproven, it's clear he's lying.
The whole point of my question was why do you choose to believe him at all on minor points that can't be proven, when his main contention (the cyclist targeted him and intentionally used his bike as a weapon) is proven to be a lie?