If the truck hit the bike and simultaneously slammed on its brakes, then that might explain the bike being there.
But not Mickey. Unless, of course, she was buckled (or otherwise fastened) to the bike...
Had Mickey been hit from behind, her inertia would have continued moving forward.
Given the fact that in the frame we are shown, there is no truck visible; and in the subsequent frame, the supposed "Mickey" figures have moved (by your estimates) only one foot...it simply does not compute. The truck would have to be traveling at an excessively high rate of speed relative to the posted speed limit, and then...coming to a halt, without screeching (because there are no skid marks on the street), thus stopping the bike...but sending Mickey forward.
I'm sorry, I didn't graduate from one of those schools that teaches that the Loch Ness Monster is real, so I'm just not able to buy this line of thinking.
As for the phantom Mickey others are seeing? That's no more Mickey than it is Jesus-on-toast. I'm not going to get into the business of proving a negative, because no one here has proven the affirmative. It's merely a gratuitous assertion and, as such, can easily be countered with an equal-and-opposite gratuitous assertion.
