man deliberately hits bikers with car, is acquitted.

[thwart]

Sounds like there were some minor inconsistencies in the rider's accounts, but really... ?

And this verdict occurred in the bike-friendly Madison WI area.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/courts/man-acquitted-of-charges-in-crash-with-bicyclists-in-fitchburg/article_28490a2e-2561-5cee-a573-b3fb1491df2d.html

Maybe the jury loved his black Jaguar.

[jimcav]

Sounds like there were some minor inconsistencies in the rider's accounts, but really... ?

And this verdict occurred in the bike-friendly Madison WI area.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/courts/man-acquitted-of-charges-in-crash-with-bicyclists-in-fitchburg/article_28490a2e-2561-5cee-a573-b3fb1491df2d.html

Maybe the jury loved his black Jaguar.

but the way i read that article is really poor preparation of the cyclists for the trial and a prosecutor who didn't paint a good picture or tell a compelling story for the jury.

[oldpotatoe]

Sounds like there were some minor inconsistencies in the rider's accounts, but really... ?

And this verdict occurred in the bike-friendly Madison WI area.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/courts/man-acquitted-of-charges-in-crash-with-bicyclists-in-fitchburg/article_28490a2e-2561-5cee-a573-b3fb1491df2d.html

Maybe the jury loved his black Jaguar.

Really poor prep by cyclist’s attorney(s), sounds like. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’...sounds like there was some. The one who said he couldn’t ride then did the next day wasn’t smart.

[thwart]

Really poor prep by cyclist’s attorney(s), sounds like. ‘Beyond a reasonable doubt’...sounds like there was some. The one who said he couldn’t ride then did the next day wasn’t smart.

Completely agree.

I know a bit more about the story here. A motorist, upset by two guys riding abreast, decides to nudge them off the road... and then walks scot-free.

Only in America.

[Kontact]

Completely agree.

I know a bit more about the story here. A motorist, upset by two guys riding abreast, decides to nudge them off the road... and then walks scot-free.

Only in America.

Well, did he do that?

He was accused of doing that by two guys who told a number of lies, so maybe it actually didn't happen at all. It isn't like there was video and he got off anyway on a technicality. There's only victim accounts that aren't internally consistent.


Recently a woman accused a police officer of rape, and a bunch of people got very upset about it. Until the dash cam video showed her story to be completely fabricated. This isn't really different.

[echappist]

Well, did he do that?

He was accused of doing that by two guys who told a number of lies, so maybe it actually didn't happen at all. It isn't like there was video and he got off anyway on a technicality. There's only victim accounts that aren't internally consistent.


Recently a woman accused a police officer of rape, and a bunch of people got very upset about it. Until the dash cam video showed her story to be completely fabricated. This isn't really different.

No, there is a difference. In your example, there was actually exculpatory evidence clearing the officer.

Here's, there was not sufficient evidence (at least in the view of the jury) to convict.

[Kontact]

No, there is a difference. In your example, there was actually exculpatory evidence clearing the officer.

Here's, there was not sufficient evidence (at least in the view of the jury) to convict.

Sure, there's that difference. But if there wasn't video exonerating the officer, would that mean that he actually raped the woman because she claimed he did?

The point here is that the claim by the victims may be equally invented, and the fact that they lied about certain things makes it seem unlikely that what they claim is true.

It isn't like the perpetrator admitted to hitting them, so it is just two groups claiming two different things are true.


I could accuse you of ripping me off on the classifieds, and I hope no one would believe me without evidence or a credible story.

[thwart]

No video, apparently.

But here's the article immediately after the incident... now almost three years ago.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime-and-courts/fitchburg-police-ask-for-charges-against-driver-for-allegedly-running/article_fe6fd8e9-c5f4-58c5-9f1c-f455cb638b06.html

According to the report, police interviewed a 64-year-old woman who was cycling about a half-mile behind Ackermann and Maloney who said Dohm also pulled behind her and honked before speeding by. She didn't see the accident involving the two cyclists, but said she knew they were ahead of her and she thought the Jaguar was going to be "a problem."

[Kontact]

No video, apparently.

But here's the article immediately after the incident... now almost three years ago.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime-and-courts/fitchburg-police-ask-for-charges-against-driver-for-allegedly-running/article_fe6fd8e9-c5f4-58c5-9f1c-f455cb638b06.html

The driver was clearly an obnoxious ass who harassed cyclists. What is unknown is if he ran these two guys off the road or whether they concocted that part of the story in retribution for a verbal altercation.


I don't know which one happened, I'm just surprised any one else is claiming to know one or the other happened.

[thwart]

The driver was clearly an obnoxious ass who harassed cyclists. What is unknown is if he ran these two guys off the road or whether they concocted that part of the story in retribution for a verbal altercation.


I don't know which one happened, I'm just surprised any one else is claiming to know one or the other happened.

Scuffs down the side of his car and damaged/totaled bikes.

They, being such inexperienced cyclists, probably weaved into him.

:rolleyes:

[Kontact]

Scuffs down the side of his car and damaged/totaled bikes.

They, being such inexperienced cyclists, probably weaved into him.

:rolleyes:
I didn't see the other article. If the police demonstrated that the scrapes where from the bikes, then they don't need witnesses. So what happened to that evidence in the trial?

[DRZRM]

So two cyclists being hassled by a driver who was trying to start an altercation by passing, stopping to argue, and passing again, a driver with two previous drunk driving charges, chose to slam into the side of his car, crash $15,000 worth of bikes resulting in concussions and a injured knee for "retribution"? Sure, I often try to teach a driver a lesson by sideswiping him on my bike.

There are always unknowns, but there is also a tendency for people to side with drivers and not hold them accountable in this country. Based on the evidence at hand, seems like that's what happened here.

The driver was clearly an obnoxious ass who harassed cyclists. What is unknown is if he ran these two guys off the road or whether they concocted that part of the story in retribution for a verbal altercation.

I don't know which one happened, I'm just surprised any one else is claiming to know one or the other happened.

[thwart]

I didn't see the other article. If the police demonstrated that the scrapes where from the bikes, then they don't need witnesses. So what happened to that evidence in the trial?

According to the report he told police that as he approached the cyclists the first time he honked to let them know they needed to let him pass, and as he did so one of the cyclists flipped him off and said, “F--- you.” He pulled over to the shoulder, got out of the car and asked the cyclists, “You want to talk about this?” as they passed, but they told him, “F--- you,” and continued down the road.

He told police that he got back in the car and approached the cyclists again, when one of them “appeared to travel or move over towards his vehicle,” the report states, then hit the car.

Again, only in America. If you brush a cyclist because of anger and poor self control, in most developed countries you suffer consequences.

These guys were 21 and 25 at the time. They probably figured it was a slam-dunk and weren't too careful with the details of their stories and such. And the legal system (read: get an expensive lawyer) failed them.

And us.

[rcnute]

Completely agree.

I know a bit more about the story here. A motorist, upset by two guys riding abreast, decides to nudge them off the road... and then walks scot-free.

Only in America.

Jurors try really hard. The state didn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm glad that's how it works in America.

Ryan

[thwart]

Jurors try really hard. The state didn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm glad that's how it works in America.

Ryan

Sincerely hope you (or your family) is never disappointed in a verdict when an over-worked prosecutor is out-gunned by a plaintiff's expensive lawyer.

[Seramount]

Jurors try really hard.

some do...some don't...

served on a murder trial a long time ago where the defendant had allegedly strangled his landlady and left a note pinned to the body requesting forgiveness.

lot of evidence presented, guy had motive (lover's quarrel) and a handwriting expert said it was definitively his writing...

TWO jurors on the panel voted 'not guilty' because 'he seemed like a nice old man' and it would be 'awful to send an elderly person to prison.'

#missingthepoint

[gdw]

Again, only in America. If you brush a cyclist because of anger and poor self control, in most developed countries you suffer consequences.

These guys were 21 and 25 at the time. They probably figured it was a slam-dunk and weren't too careful with the details of their stories and such. And the legal system (read: get an expensive lawyer) failed them.

And us.

Don't blame the system or the prosecutor. The cyclists couldn't keep their stories straight and were caught lying. Dishonest, or stupid, witnesses make it very hard to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Kontact]

Sincerely hope you (or your family) is never disappointed in a verdict when an over-worked prosecutor is out-gunned by a plaintiff's expensive lawyer.

Or you get found guilty because you had a public defender and the DA put the full force of his office against you.


But overall, unless we actually know more than the jury, I'd be inclined to believe that a Wisconsin jury weighed the evidence reasonably. Chances are that several of the jurors are cyclists or have family members that are. (I lived in Madison for 7 years and new several cyclists in the DA's office.)

[joosttx]

Don't blame the system or the prosecutor. The cyclists couldn't keep their stories straight and were caught lying. Dishonest, or stupid, witnesses make it very hard to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

First thing I thought when I read the title of this thread was I know a cyclist who deliberately hit motorists and then sues their insurance companies.

It is very hard to understand a court case when you are not there.

[thwart]

Dishonest, or stupid, witnesses make it very hard to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

As mentioned earlier, you have a point. The expensive defense attorney exaggerated the inconsistencies (wrong cycling outfit... no longer has the ones worn that day... ) which somehow slipped by the assistant DA, and the slight variance in their accounts.

And cycling the day after a 'concussion' is stupid on several levels.


But overall, unless we actually know more than the jury, I'd be inclined to believe that a Wisconsin jury weighed the evidence reasonably. Chances are that several of the jurors are cyclists or have family members that are. (I lived in Madison for 7 years and knew several cyclists in the DA's office.)
Well, I bike in Dane County. In spite of Midwest 'nice' I am well aware of the anger a lot of folks here have toward road cyclists, who they feel act entitled and are seen as not obeying the laws of the road. Would that have some influence in a jury deliberation... ?

[Kontact]

Well, I bike in Dane County. In spite of Midwest 'nice' I am well aware of the anger a lot of folks here have toward road cyclists who they feel act entitled and are seen as not obeying the laws of the road. Would that have some influence in a jury deliberation... ?

Hey, me too. Do you do the Wednesday Night Ride?

I didn't mean midwest nice, just that the average Wisconsinite has an above average education and less bias than other parts of the country. And I've seen a lot of the rest of the country.


In this case, I'm not saying the guy didn't run them off the road. I'm saying that is a serious charge with major repercussions, so the case needs to be solid.

[thwart]

Hey, me too. Do you do the Wednesday Night Ride?

I didn't mean midwest nice, just that the average Wisconsinite has an above average education and less bias than other parts of the country. And I've seen a lot of the rest of the country.


In this case, I'm not saying the guy didn't run them off the road. I'm saying that is a serious charge with major repercussions, so the case needs to be solid.
Yes, I've done the WNBR a few times.

You're right of course... it wasn't a solid case. It's not clear whether part of the the fault lies with our under-funded system and inadequate legal preparation.

It's just unfortunate when it appears a (wealthy) guy with both an alcohol and anger management problem got away with running a couple guys off the road.

I'm out.

[Plum Hill]

Same type of thing happened in a St. Louis suburb a few years back. Cyclist made allegation, cycling community backed him, got a lot of press coverage, case got dropped because of inconsistencies.
Cyclist was hurt so bad he couldn’t work, yet rode and posted to Strava. He claimed bike was damaged but was photographed riding bike, but said it belonged to a teammate. Teammate subpoenaed; case dropped.
Prosecuting attorneys also presented case poorly.

Do any of these people not realize the repercussions when they “swear to tell the truth” and then don’t?

[OtayBW]

I didn't read the article and acknowledge that I'm not fully up on all the facts, but shouldn't one of these 2 riders have ducked in behind the other when there was a 'CAR BACK'? Again, I am not in any way excusing what appears to be wreckless/raging driver behavior, but there is a time and place to ride 2-abreast, and a time to single up. What happened here?

[HenryA]

Sincerely hope you (or your family) is never disappointed in a verdict when an over-worked prosecutor is out-gunned by a plaintiff's expensive lawyer.

Here, let me re-write that for you in a way that reflects reality:

Hope you are never disappointed in a verdict where the immense power and resources of the State are insufficient to overcome a defense that effectively negates the “beyond a reasonable doubt” that is required by our sometimes majestic system of criminal justice.

That done, keep in mind that the victims got caught in lies during the trial. Lying at trial and getting caught at it is a sure way to lose. The prosecutor probably should have offered a better plea deal when he knew that his victims were not going to be good witnesses.

[GParkes]

So, two nights ago me and a buddy were doing intervals on our TT bikes. The road we're on is in good condition, doesn't get much traffic (particularly the time we were on it). Very common road for cyclist in the area. Second interval my buddy is about 20 yards behind me (his estimate) and a silver Nissan Titan, extended cab, pinstriped, red neck confederate flag (I say this because in the Capital District of New York, there is no celebrating his southern heritage) decal across the full back window buzzes me so close, his side view mirror is about 12 inches from my shoulder. I am riding the white line, not in the lane. My buddy says the truck passed him, then consciously moved over toward me and drove up alongside of me as close as he could. There was no traffic on the road in either direction.

Here's the difference between me and my friend and the other cyclists in this case - I have a time, place, and a witness. Small local area, I'll find the truck, get the license plate, and let the police know of the incident. Then I'll post to the local FB pages and forums to be on the look out in the event something happens in the future. Build the case now. Nothing happened to me, but maybe to someone in the future may need this history to support their case. I'm tired of this sh-t.

[oldpotatoe]

So two cyclists being hassled by a driver who was trying to start an altercation by passing, stopping to argue, and passing again, a driver with two previous drunk driving charges, chose to slam into the side of his car, crash $15,000 worth of bikes resulting in concussions and a injured knee for "retribution"? Sure, I often try to teach a driver a lesson by sideswiping him on my bike.

There are always unknowns, but there is also a tendency for people to side with drivers and not hold them accountable in this country. Based on the evidence at hand, seems like that's what happened here.

Disagree..based on the 'evidence at hand', for us, which is very limited, the cyclists attorneys did a VERY poor job of presenting their case. Remember 'proper' jurists go into a case w/o any prior knowledge and 'try' to be completely objective. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt'..there was some due to the lies the cyclists told(couldn't ride). WHY lie? Unless their stroy wasn't as they initially presented it. BUT that broad brush, 'side with drivers and not hold them accountable in this country' is a leap, IMHO. As much as 'cyclists gets hit by car it's always the car driver's fault' idea. NOT defending the car driver but the again, the cyclists and their attorneys did a really crappy job..maybe because the cyclists story wasn't accurate(?).

[parris]

I've been in court during a number of trials. One of the things that I've seen is that once a party gives the appearance of lying on the stand that side of the case is in trouble. It becomes very easy for an attorney to pick apart the person's testimony leading to doubt in the jury.

One of the cases I remember seeing was a witness on the stand during a criminal case. The defense attorney had done his homework. When he started questioning this witness he had a whiteboard on an easel that he would mark every time he caught the witness in a lie. By the time he finished questioning this witness he had I believe 23 check marks on that board. He then used this visual in his closing to invalidate the DA's case.

Did the driver run the cyclists off the road and such? Maybe he did. Did the cyclists embellish their case? Maybe they did. At the end of the day the cyclists story was found to be suspect at least in part.

Oh the attorney in the above case is now one of our best county court judges.

[sitzmark]

The cyclist's case was in jeopardy from the very beginning. If I follow the linked press reports correctly, the initial case was suspended due in part to submitting false evidence (different jersey/kit than involved in crash) and documentation of riding post "injury".

The cyclist's legal team appealed and the case was reinstated. Driver's legal team once again tried to have case dropped because of conflicting evidence and called for a hearing with the cyclists to testify before a judge. The judge denied the request, saying cyclist's testimony was appropriate for a courtroom/jury.

Both sides presented their case to the jury ... jury decided.

[jlwdm]

Sincerely hope you (or your family) is never disappointed in a verdict when an over-worked prosecutor is out-gunned by a plaintiff's expensive lawyer.

But it is very likely that these riders were not believable on the stand. The jurors got to look the witnesses in the eye. We are looking at written reports.

Jeff

[mdeth1313]

This is why I started riding w/ one of those fly6 cameras on my seatpost. Haven't needed to use it for anything like this yet, although I was able to diffuse a potentially bad confrontation by letting an angry driver know the whole thing was being recorded.

As one person already mentioned earlier (about the murder trial). Jurors can (and usually are in some way) biased, sometimes just plain stupid and when you factor that in with the inconsistencies, I'm not surprised at the outcome.

[bikingshearer]

No, there is a difference. In your example, there was actually exculpatory evidence clearing the officer.

Here's, there was not sufficient evidence (at least in the view of the jury) to convict.

This is the critical civic lesson out of this. The acquittal does not mean the a-hole didn't it, just as the OJ verdict does not mean he didn't do it. In both cases, it means we can't put the perp behind bars for what they most likely did.

Put another way, "most likely did it" is good enough to find civil liability and award damages, but it is not enough for a criminal conviction and putting the accused in prison. And the occasional upsetting not guilty" verdict notwithstanding, that's a good thing.

Given the chance, I'd still be veeeery tempted to key the hell out of this perp's Jag, though.

[Waldo]

I didn't read the article and acknowledge that I'm not fully up on all the facts, but shouldn't one of these 2 riders have ducked in behind the other when there was a 'CAR BACK'? Again, I am not in any way excusing what appears to be wreckless/raging driver behavior, but there is a time and place to ride 2-abreast, and a time to single up. What happened here?

- Victim blaming is what happened here.

[OtayBW]

- Victim blaming is what happened here.Only if you see the world in black and white. This seems to be a complicated situation where not everything is as neatly defined as you might like.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Waldo]

Yes, the way you’d have it, it’s cyclists’ job, when legally using the road, to get the hell out of motor vehicles’ way.

[OtayBW]

Yes, the way you’d have it, it’s cyclists’ job, when legally using the road, to get the hell out of motor vehicles’ way.
Well, yes -that is the law around here and most every other place that I've ever lived.

MD 21-1205 Riding on roadways or on highway.

Riding to right side of roadway. – Each person operating a bicycle or a motor scooter at a speed less than the speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing on a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable and safe, except when:

Making or attempting to make a left turn;
Operating on a one-way street;
Passing a stopped or slower moving vehicle;
Avoiding pedestrians or road hazards;
The right lane is a right turn lane; or
Operating in a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motor scooter and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
Riding two abreast. – Each person operating a bicycle or motor scooter on a roadway may ride two abreast only if the flow of traffic is unimpeded.


Again, I'm not going to second guess all the details in complex situation, but on balance, when riding on state roads, you stay as far to the right as is practicable. You are indeed permitted to ride 2 abreast when appropriate, and we all have to decide what that means. For me, I ride 2 abreast all the time on the back roads around here, but unless I am intentionally taking the lane and directly engaging with the traffic at their pace, I am moving over when someone yells Car Back. I sure as hell am not going to hang in there 2 abreast on a two lane with someone flying up behind me at 55+ mpg. That would be stupid, but we'll all seen it.

[oliver1850]

Don't know what WI law says about riding two abreast. Believe I've read that Iowa DOT recommends it for visibility reasons.

I think the real issue here is that the laws need addressing. Pretty sure you couldn't hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk and get off with no penalty, and you shouldn't be able to hit a cyclist from behind (no matter where he is in the lane) and get away with it either.

[zap]

Edit

Again, I'm not going to second guess all the details in complex situation, but on balance, when riding on state roads, you stay as far to the right as is practicable. You are indeed permitted to ride 2 abreast when appropriate, and we all have to decide what that means. For me, I ride 2 abreast all the time on the back roads around here, but unless I am intentionally taking the lane and directly engaging with the traffic at their pace, I am moving over when someone yells Car Back. I sure as hell am not going to hang in there 2 abreast on a two lane with someone flying up behind me at 55+ mpg. That would be stupid, but we'll all seen it.

Drifting.

You are in Merryland were I lived and cycled 'til the end of 16. I know in Montgomery Co. police on occasion would ask groups of cyclists to single up......even with no traffic back.

In the Raleigh area in NC where I now live, groups riding 2 abreast is common, accepted and policy (announced at ride starts) of many cycling clubs.

[djg21]

This is why I started riding w/ one of those fly6 cameras on my seatpost. Haven't needed to use it for anything like this yet, although I was able to diffuse a potentially bad confrontation by letting an angry driver know the whole thing was being recorded.

As one person already mentioned earlier (about the murder trial). Jurors can (and usually are in some way) biased, sometimes just plain stupid and when you factor that in with the inconsistencies, I'm not surprised at the outcome.

I use a Fly12 and a Fly 6. I also carry a Kimber Pepper Blaster (https://www.kimberamerica.com/pepper-blaster) in my jersey pocket.

[OtayBW]

I know in Montgomery Co. police on occasion would ask groups of cyclists to single up......even with no traffic back.I'm not surprised in a sprawling suburban community like Mont. Co. - but they would be wrong, and you have every right to ride 2 abreast when 'not impeding other traffic' - or as I prefer to interpret it: when it's safe for you to do so.

In the Raleigh area in NC where I now live, groups riding 2 abreast is common, accepted and policy (announced at ride starts) of many cycling clubs.Same law applies in NC, and as I've said before, it is pretty much common everywhere I've ever ridden to double up when appropriate. If it is your groups' policy to stay 2 abreast throughout an entire ride, through all kinds of traffic situations, well, then I'm happy for you. Otherwise to me, this ain't complicated: you ride 2 abreast when appropriate, you take the lane when appropriate, and you single up as well when appropriate....and you go home and live to do it again another day.