Crime

Alleged hit-and-run driver who struck 2 cyclists is arrested

Moment of impact: the car owned by Michael Patrick Medaglia hits one of two cyclists riding up Tunnel Road on April 25

Berkeley Police have arrested the owner of the car which was involved in a hit-and-run collision with two cyclists on Tunnel Road in Berkeley on the afternoon of April 25.

Michael Patrick Medaglia, 43, of Oakland, was arrested at the Jack London Inn in Oakland late this afternoon after he attempted to shift blame for his crime by reporting that his vehicle had been stolen after Wednesday’s hit-and-run incident.

Medaglia was arrested on suspicion of possession of heroin, felon in possession of ammunition, violation of probation, and felony hit-and-run, according to BPD. He was taken into custody without incident. Medaglia’s misdemeanor probation violation stems from an August 2010 case for a violation of PC 653(k), possession of a switchblade.

On April 25, after the hit-and-run incident, Medaglia reported to the Oakland Police Department that his vehicle had been stolen. A Berkeley Police alert was placed on the vehicle. This morning, the Oakland Police located the reportedly stolen vehicle and advised Berkeley Police of the recovery. Berkeley Police Crime Scene Unit personnel examined the vehicle, identified Medaglia’s probable place of residence and made the arrest there.

Investigators continue to seek witnesses and additional evidence in the hit-and-run investigation. Anyone having any information is encouraged to contact the Berkeley Police Department at (510) 981-5900.

The collision was captured on video by one of the cyclists who had a camera mounted on his bike. The video has been viewed more than 65,000 times on YouTube where it has also generated over 360 comments to date. It has also been picked up by many media outlets.

Related:
Video: Two cyclists struck by hit-and-run driver on Tunnel Road [04.27.12]

Print Friendly
Tagged ,
  • bgal4

    just another probationer using illegal drugs.

    check the crime blotter details for BPD pedestrian stops and suspicious persons, BPD indicates several on probation.

    Alameda County has the highest % of parolees and probationers, yet we never hear much from the Board of Supts about how they intend to monitor offenders, especially now with realignment from the state to county supervision.

  • John Holland

    Medaglia was arrested for possession of heroin, felon in possession of ammunition, violation of probation, and felony hit-and-run,

    Yeah , but what about the cyclists?! After all, they ran a stop sign!

  • PragmaticProgressive

    Highest % in the state?

  • PragmaticProgressive

    No, they ran two stop signs. And despite your bullying in the other thread, no one believes that there was a causal connection between those events and the hit and run. They are isolated events and yet blowing stop signs is STILL not ok.

    As a pedestrian, I have ad cyclists ignore my right of way in a crosswalk. Not cool, especially when I am walking with small kids who don’t always proceed at the rate and direction that cyclists anticipate.

    As a driver, I am happy to cede the right of way to a cyclist, but when they just take it unbidden, that is a dangerous play. I do not want to hit someone, and there is little comfort in knowing that it wasn’t my fault.

    As a cyclist, I can see other drivers are expecting me to pull something. Because they anticipate crazy behavior, the whole encounter is overdetermined. Rarely, some even yell at me when I’ve done nothing wrong. The worst is when these people choose to drive on a bicycle boulevard: what did they expect to find there?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UTAORC2LANQF2ONEFJYXBSITTA bingo

    Yes, John, your “point”–such as it is–has been trumpeted loudly with mechanical repetitiveness.  Pragmatic has also nicely summarized the complementary view (to which I happen to agree with).  No need to recapitulate an 80 response thread again, right?  It’s a lovely day, let’s all go outside while the legal process ratchets onwards.  Unless you simply enjoy rehashing internet banter all. day. long.

  • bgal4

    Yes, county comparison rates.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    Interesting. I wonder what the distribution within AC looks like, adjusted for population.

  • cranky

    A great response, Prag! I’d drive/bike/walk with you any day! 

  • John Holland

    In another thread, I wrote:

    I disagree. I thought their riding was fine, and their violations were nothing compared to the drivers.

    I guess we’ll just disagree on this one.

    and then “Pragmatic Progressive” wrote:

    despite your bullying in the other thread,

    You call this “bullying”? If not, please quote what I said that you consider bullying, or please stop with the ad hominems.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    You also acknowledged Guest’s perspective that you were repeatedly chastising another poster for saying things that you only imagined her to have said.

    John, you’re the loudest guy in every thread you enter and you seem to delight in slugging it out with straw men, facts be damned. It’s tedious and more than a little intimidating for people who don’t want to wrestle with you ad nauseam. Further, in cases where I might be persuaded to agree with you, I recoil from your tactics. It’s just distasteful.

    Maybe you don’t see yourself in this light, but please consider that others most definitely do see you this way. I have things to do, so won’t spend more time on this. Just think it over.

  • bgal4

     I think the most important issue is this guy represents the results of county supervision programs as are currently structured.

    Jack London Inn is known as the Santa Rita annex, any probationers living there is likely violating conditions with drug use.

  • John Holland

    “bgal4″ wrote:

    Alameda County has the highest % of parolees and probationers

    I’m not sure what this statistic means. Do you mean that as an absolute number, Alameda Countey has more parolees that any other county? Can you link to your source?

    To me the more important number is the ratio of % of parolees to % county population. In that case, it looks like Alameda County ranks 3rd (to your point, still very high), but not first. Check out page 5 of this PDF.

  • John Holland

    “PragmaticProgressive” wrote:

    I wonder what the distribution within AC looks like, adjusted for population.

    I’m not sure, but I think page 5 of this pdf says Alameda County ranks third.

  • Bruce Love

    I’m not sure, but I think page 5 of this pdf says Alameda County ranks third.

    That’s not quite what it says.

    “Figure 6″ compares specific cities.   It asks: what percentage of the population of this city is on parole?   Bakersfield “wins”, followed by San Bernadino, Fresno, Sacramento, Riverside, Stockton …. and then Oakland trails.   So that’s about Oakland, not all of Alameda.  And it’s only about parolees, not probationers.

    “Figure 5″ is just kind of strange, if you ask me.  It again looks at cities.  It looks at the ratio of the % of parolees in the cities population, to the percentage of the county population that lives in that city.

    So, X% of people in Alameda county live in Oakland.   Y% of people in Oakland are on parole.    “Figure 5″ shows Y / X.     Within Alameda county, Oakland has more than twice its “share” of parolees compared to other cities in Alameda.

    That said, the original claim:

    Alameda County has the highest % of parolees and probationers [in the state]

    isn’t clearly stated enough to be certain what is even meant, nevermind whether or not it is true.

  • Berkeleyfarm

    With all due respect, John … leave it.

    I’m sure this was intended as a joke, but it’s not actually funny.    “Timing” and “Know Your Audience” are both elements of successful humor, and this fails on both counts. 

  • pdquick

    I generally support equal enforcement of traffic laws for bicyclists and motorists, but I think it would be prosecutorial overkill to cite the bicyclists for running the stop signs, when that had nothing to do with the hit-and-run. The principle at stake here has little to do with the eternal bicyclists vs motorists debate; people who are the victims of crimes of bodily aggression are generally not cited for minor incidental infractions discovered during the course of investigation, and that’s as it should be.

  • Berkeleyfarm

    Exactly. 

  • Guest

    Hopefully they are never allowed to drive again.

  • Anonymous

    There’s nothing strange about fig. 5, it’s a standard and elegant way of representing concentration. I’m surprised an expert like yourself, “Bruce”, wouldn’t know that.

  • Anonymous

    He’ll probably claim he had a seizure like that psychopath Sharam Farschi that was running over people on Solano a while ago and get off free and clear.

  • Roman

     generally support equal enforcement of traffic laws for bicyclists and motorists

    As do many of us, cyclists and motorists alike.  But we would prefer to see motorists cited for rolling stop signs (thousands of times every day in Berkeley alone) before citing cyclists for the identical, safer and far less frequent, behavior.

    But we’re not likely to see either as law enforcement has more important things to do.  If they were to take an interest in cyclists, however, perhaps they could would consider a sting as they have done for pedestrians, citing motorists for violating cross walk rights of way (for example).  Or even something truly in the name of safety such as citing “fixie” cyclists without brakes, or riding without lights at night.  Like that’ll ever happen…  We’ll sooner see decoy cyclists on MLK, University and San Pablo filming motorists passing with less than 3 feet of clearance, or pulling over in front of them, or cutting them off at intersections, than we’ll ever see law enforcement writing tickets for such aggressive driving.

    We cyclists see this differential enforcement, and motorists’ differential concern for full stops, for what it is: bias, prejudice and bigotry (and might makes right) and we ride accordingly.  Can you blame us?  If we’re not going to be protected by the law or by traffic engineering, much less by law enforcement or the judiciary, why should we give a flying ^%$.  And if motorists are not going to stop at stop signs why should we?

    So go ahead and rant about the two bicyclists who didn’t come to a full stop at the sign, the same stop sign where dozens of motorists didn’t stop on the same day.  Go ahead and cite this as (implied) justification for vehicular assault and hit-and-run, go ahead and use this same bogus logic every time a cyclist is harassed or otherwise endangered by a motorist.  Your prejudice is not lost on those of us who see it and suffer it on every bicycle ride. 

    The 2 Brazilian cyclists perhaps now understand that while America is often promoted as the land of the free, where all are created equal, it is in not even close to that ideal.  A fact that is not lost on any US bicyclist.  You want equality for bicyclists?  Go to Holland or Denmark or Japan.  Here in the US we don’t suffer heretics gladly, and our religion is the automobile.  You have been warned.

  • Bruce Love

    What I find strange is that for each city Fig. 5 measures concentration of parolees relative to other parts of the same county — but then compares those ratios across counties.  It isn’t clear to me why we should regard those inter-county comparisons of intra-county variation as meaningful and helpful to public policy formation.   Certainly, I don’t think it helps their explanation:

    The report itself asserts an interpretation:  “This means the City of San Bernardino bears a disproportionate burden on top of disproportionate burden—because of California’s large number of parolees compared to other States.” 

    That interpretation is supported by figure 6.   Figure 5 doesn’t seem particularly helpful there.

  • PragmaticProgressive

    Great, logical fallacies and off-topic race baiting — the last refuge of Berkeleyside scoundrels.

  • Sandy_Green

    The majority of bicyclists in Berkeley seem to have a death wish, seemingly having no objection to forcing motorists involvement with their suicides. Respect bicyclists that refuse to honor the agreements that allow us to regularly get from here to there? I think not. 

  • Annie Painter

    I suspect many motorists do not understand the reason some cyclists fail to come to a complete stop because they (motorists) don’t ride a bike. Not saying it’s right or wrong, but lack of understanding the other person’s perspective does not help. Isn’t there a country somewhere that requires motorists to take a cycling course before being issued a license to drive a car? Pushing off from a dead stop takes loads more energy that simply slowing down, and at the speed more cyclists approach a stop (discounting recent events in SF) it is much easier to assess traffic at a stop than it would be for a car driver whose senses are restricted by the vehicle itself.

  • The Sharkey

    A person making a comment about X being wrong does not imply that the person does not think that Y is wrong as well.

    Noting that a cyclist runs a stop sign does not imply approval of cars doing the same thing.

  • The Sharkey

    I find cyclists in Berkeley to be much mellower and conscientious in sharing the road than cyclists in San Francisco. The overall Berkeley bike culture is very well behaved. There may be specific individuals who cause trouble, but you should try to make an effort to see them as individual bad actors and not characterize the entire community by the actions of a distinct minority.

  • Charles_Siegel

    I agree completely with Sharkey, and I will add that drivers violate the law at least as often as cyclists. 

    I don’t know of any driver who strictly observes the 25 mph speed limit