Trial over cyclist deliberately run over: “I was then thrown onto the windscreen”

Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar: Zum deutschen Artikel.

This growing city, with its limited road space, is also a constant source of potential conflict between cyclists and motorists. Of course, it does not always have to end as it did in the case that came before the Magistrates’ Court on Monday, 21 September 2026: a 47-year-old man is alleged to have deliberately run over a cyclist who was cycling home in the evening following a heated argument.

At any rate, this was the serious charge brought by the Leipzig Public Prosecutor’s Office against Marcel F.: they charged the 47-year-old with a serious intentional offence against road traffic, causing grievous bodily harm and leaving the scene of an accident without authorisation.

Escalation following a forced emergency stop

It was a cool autumn evening around a year ago, on 10 October 2025, when it is alleged that everything began in the vicinity of Prager Straße. At around 10.15 pm, cyclist Matthias B. (name altered) was cycling home when the defendant, driving an Audi A3, is alleged to have used a footpath to turn from Güntzstraße onto Prager Straße, heading into the city centre. This behaviour forced him to slam on the brakes, the 35-year-old Matthias B. explained on Monday as a witness before the magistrates’ court.

The situation is said to have escalated as a result. Near the junction with Kregelstraße, the cycling witness admitted to giving vent to his anger: “I shouted something at the car, out of sheer frustration.” There was no reaction from inside the car. After turning onto Kregelstraße on his bike, Matthias B. said, he had already considered the whole matter settled.

But: “Then suddenly the horn went off right behind me. The vehicle raced past me, really at a hair’s breadth. I lost my balance on my bike.” At the next junction, Matthias B. is said to have possibly struck the car’s wing mirror whilst cycling. The man himself described his behaviour as a defensive reaction, saying he may have touched the car with his leg.

Serious injuries following the fall

Moments later, the driver of the Audi is said to have pursued the cyclist at the Stötteritzer Straße junction and caused the young man to fall: “At that moment, the car hit me with its front wing. I was then thrown onto the windscreen,” Matthias B. recalled.

He fell heavily, sustaining bruises and grazes, and was on sick leave for over two weeks following the incident. “I had trouble sitting down for at least half a year. Generally speaking, the whole right side of my body was quite badly affected by the impact.”

Defence disputes the evidential value of the identification

Marcel F. did not comment on the charges against him at any point during the trial. The 47-year-old came to the attention of the police who had been called to the scene that very same evening, as the cyclist and other witnesses had noted down the registration number of the fleeing car. Officers rang F.’s doorbell at around 11.00 pm.

However, as defence lawyer Stefan Costabel pointed out, his client had been questioned as a witness, even though he was already considered a suspect at that point. The statements made in this context were therefore inadmissible. Furthermore, the fact that Matthias B. insisted he had recognised Marcel F. in the courtroom was not conclusive evidence, as he had been granted access to the case file prior to the trial and had seen a photograph of the defendant in the process.

Too many doubts: trial ends in acquittal

On Monday, following a trial lasting several hours, the lay judges’ court accepted the defence’s arguments and acquitted the defendant. There was no conclusive evidence as to who was actually driving the Audi on that autumn evening. Furthermore, it was not clear how reliable the injured cyclist’s memories were in detail, said presiding judge Bettina Zander. There were no other witnesses who could identify Marcel F., not least because of the darkness. The defendant is now also likely to receive compensation for the revocation of his driving licence.

The representative of the public prosecutor’s office, by contrast, had called for a guilty verdict. She had sought a total sentence of one year and seven months, suspended, taking into account another case. That case concerned an attack by the defendant on a police officer on the fringes of a football match.

An appeal may still be lodged against the verdict.