Titmawz

WTF ?!

https://road.cc/content/news/31482-br...ge-says-lawyer

DX-MAN

Oh.
Hell.
No.

Can you say "third eye in the forehead?"

iforgotmename

Bs!

dougmc

Really, you didn't see that coming? It was either "stuck accelerator", "accelerator/brake confusion" or "cyclists attacked the car and he did what he had to to survive". Obviously he chose the latter.

(You didn't think it was going to be "I was in a hurry so I drove through the crowd", did you?)

It's possible that he's telling the truth. Certainly, things have escalated in CM rides before where a bunch of people were attacking a car and the driver ran over a few bikes and/or a few people trying to escape -- videos aren't hard to find. Though what people tend to forget is that CM riders don't attack cars just because they were honking or in the wrong place at the wrong time -- the drivers have to do more, like intentionally hit somebody or assault people (like run up at somebody with the car and stop at the last second) repeatedly. If his car was being attacked, it was because he provoked it somehow -- and it's not clear that his car was ever attacked. (That said, if people were attacking his car, while he may have provoked it, it's certainly not a legal response to whatever he did to provoke it. At least not in the US.)

(And to be fair, sometimes a motorist will unintentionally hit a rider, and riders will go ape****. Though usually when this happens, the motorist is trying to use their car to force their way through or something, so it's not entirely unwarranted.)

Hopefully more video will appear of what lead up to this.

CB HI

So it was selfdefense that he ran over 20 cyclist?

And it was self-defense that he removed his license plates?

And it was self-defense that he abandoned the evidence of his self-defense?

Forknroad

If he has enough money, yes.

If he has enough money, yes.

If he has enough money, yes.


This happened in a different world from which you and I live.

Don't be surprised if this guy walks away. But you never know...

Just sayin'.

XianRL

Tragic.

Forknroad, by "different world" do you mean this sort of stuff doesn't happen in the U.S.? Just looking for clarification there.

Aren't acts of aggression against cyclists fairly common in the U.S.? Wasn't it recently that a driver in Colorado got a misdemeanor for breaking a cyclist's neck and driving away? If I recall he got the misdemeanor because charging him with anything more would have hurt his stature and ability to do his job, according to the verdict; he was a stock broker, I think.

In December, an 18-year-old was killed in a hit and run in Hawaii. As far as I know, no suspect got charged.

Just wondering how our world is so different when it comes to bicyclist-motorist relations.

billdsd

The Colorado incident was not an act of aggression. It was just bad driving and hit-and-run. But yeah, the DA let the driver off lightly.

Drivers rarely get charged when they kill a bicyclist. "I didn't see him" is usually enough to get you out of so much as a ticket.

Forknroad

No, I'm sure this type of thing can and does happen in the US (I'm in Canada, btw). But the political and justice systems in Brazil work a lot differently than they do in our part of the world. I was referring to a penalty, or lack thereof for this fellow if he has the money to buy his way out.

RunningPirate

A fair and lovely lady in my life that hails from the UK has taught me a word to describe that defense. That word: Bollocks!

Of course, I'm not surprised. I would wager that only a small percentage of the world population would be willing to own up to their actions - especially something as egregious as this.

While I'm open-minded enough to understand that there are two sides to every story, I'm having a hard time understanding how his side could possibly justify a straight-head balls-out shot through the crowd. If he were truly fearful, why not take a left or a right? Or, for that matter, stop and let the "bad guys" keep rolling on away from you.

Digital_Cowboy

Yeah, sure this was “self-defense.” If this is/was “self-defense,” than I’m the pope.

Digital_Cowboy

Or why didn’t he put his car into reverse and attempt to get out of harms way? Why plow through a crowd that from all accounts consisted of “old lady’s” and children? I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the “self-defense” line.

XianRL

billdsd, it may not have been an intentional act of aggression, but once a culprit flees the scene, I deem it intentional. Stopping, getting out and helping would prove to me that it was an accident. That clown in Colorado drove away. And definitely had the money to get away with it.

This is universal.

Captain Blight

What's the Portuguese for "That's a GD lie, you lying liar?"

Northwestrider

Forknroad said it all. "If he has enough money, yes". It is beyond all understanding to me that there is even a possibility that the driver will be allowed to walk free.

Forknroad

Yes, in most parts of the world this is true. But in countries like Brazil, it's even more so.

dougmc

The video doesn't show everything, your possible holiness.

If, back before the section of the road that the video shows, a bunch of riders started attacking his car, smashing it with U-locks, trying to flip it over, and he tried to escape, it could be self defense. Granted, the people we saw get hit on video were all innocent, but he could have been trying to save himself from bodily harm which would qualify as self defense.

Now, I've no evidence that people were actually attacking his car, and I'll bet his car is covered in dents and such even if this didn't happen (he fled the scene and lawyered up -- his lawyer probably reminded him that such a story would be more convincing if his car was covered in U-lock dents and smashed windows.)

In any event, it's certainly plausible that his car was attacked and that's why he drove through the crowd. I won't say that's the appropriate response, but at least in the US that would lead a jury to acquit you. And of course, if his car was attacked, it didn't happen by accident -- he did something to provoke it. I guarantee he's not blameless here, but it's also possible that he didn't actually want to drive through a group of cyclists but felt he was forced to.

As for putting the car in reverse, it may be that there were even more cyclists behind him than in front of him. Or perhaps there were cars behind him preventing him from going back.

KD5NRH

Not even in Texas: Penal Code Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

dougmc

Nice. This could certainly go either way, however -- if the defense could suggest that the entire ride was illegal, then the people struck would not be innocent, though the videos we've seen certainly suggests that the people hit weren't doing anything wrong. And the prosecutor would have to show that this action was actually reckless, which has a specific legal meaning. A jury might have a hard time seeing that somebody fighting to save their life could ever be reckless, even if multiple innocent people were injured -- the devil would be in the details.

Still, no way was this guy simply defending himself against the cycling hoard -- that's not the way it works. He had to have started it somehow, and even Texas law (no idea about Brazil law) doesn't give you carte blanch self defense if you started it. And even this assumes that he was attacked -- so far, there's no evidence of that.

I hope video was taken of him before this all started, and we just haven't seen it yet.

Digital_Cowboy

All of your points are valid. I would think that if there were other cars behind them that at least one of them would have backed up his story by now.

And as you said the most telling thing is that even with the little regard that a lot of us hold CM rides. It is probable that the motorist did something to "encourage" the riders to "attack his car for no reason."

XianRL

I have a really hard time believing he did not provoke the riders. I have an even harder time believing that riders attacked his vehicle for no good reason. I get it: CM rides are about bike advocacy and taking back the roads, etc., but I can't imagine riders choosing to attack an idle car.

If he wasn't getting provoked and this is indeed an act of violence, I hope he's punished to the fullest extent and his 15-year-old son/passenger is taught that what his father did was wrong.

Carley P.

I haven't gotten to watch the video yet, but I've read the article.

I'll tell you what is really scary here; the author of this article has yet to master the use of commas. I could barely understand what he was even saying.

Edit: I just watched the video. I didn't think it was going to be that serious. That video scared me to death and made me slightly sick.

badbradclark

Why am I getting a Firearms Training Institute ad while viewing this thread? Hmmm....

John E

I see two troubling trends worldwide: a decrease in motorist attentiveness and an increase in road rage. I hope someone can convince me I am wrong, because both trends scare and discourage me.