I don't think a jury would buy that. Split second PTSD that steers clear of oncoming men, but veers into a woman and attempts to murder her then, jogs on and back over the same bridge and goes about his day. That's a very convenient story. He'd have to be demonstrating very strange behaviour around that time for it to stand as a likely argument.
I was once on a jury where the defendant on a murder charge had a history of psychotic mental illness and so it was strongly suggested he was psychotic during the attack. But it was premeditated. And everything he did immediately before and after pointed to him being in full charge of his senses. He was convicted.