Originally Posted by
mr_bill
One person on a bicycle "could not remember anything," according to Jim Elias, the executive director who arrived shortly after the incident. One was taken by helicopter to the hospital. The three others were taken by ambulance. How much did *any* of them see of the driver who intentionally hit them FROM BEHIND?
Do you really believe that *any* of those witnesses could give a description of the vehicle as anything other than a "dark pickup truck," let alone a slightly lifted midnight blue, circa 2007 Dodge Ram crew cab with black rims that protrude past the bodywork and missing a front license plate? How about a description of the driver?
Agreed. We had a hit-and-run crash on one of our club rides awhile back. Two riders were a little ahead of the rest of the group when one of them was hit from behind by an SUV that came over the fog line. But the only description anyone could give was that it was a silverish SUV. We were later able to determine the make/model/year from the mirror that was left behind but the driver was never identified. The incident led to several camera sales in our group. Fortunately the rider made a full recovery but it was a lengthy process due to the severity of his injuries.
Originally Posted by genec
Think of the Doctor involved in the Mandeville Canyon Road incident in 2008. The cyclists had a GPS to prove their case... but was not the testimony of 2 cyclists enough?
And then we have the situation of the Kalamazoo cyclists killed by a drugged driver (has not gone to court yet)... will the testimony of the survivors be enough?
Also pending is the Natchez Trace Parkway case, caught with a gopro... would there be a case without the camera... in spite of the two cycling witnesses?
Sure in a 1:1 situation there is that he said/she said issue... but any time there are more witness/victims, is there any reason to not to go with their word?
I doubt that the testimony of multiple cyclists riding together would have been sufficient in any of these cases. The doctor in Mandeville Cyn. was convicted mainly on the basis of his own statements at the time as well as the pattern shown by previous independent reports. The Kalamazoo case also has multiple independent witnesses besides the cyclists as well as toxicology and other physical evidence.
Testimony by multiple cyclists riding together is a little better than just a single witness, but is likely to be viewed by at least some jurors as not really independent - i.e. they're riding together so they might be friends backing each other up. If it's just their word vs. the driver's without any clear physical evidence then the 'beyond reasonable doubt' bar is a hard one to overcome. Without the video I doubt the Natchez Trace case would have even merited much of an investigation.