- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclist punched repeatedly in the head by aggressive driver furious that group were riding two abreast
Update, 13/09/21, 5:44pm: a Wiltshire Police spokesman has now responded after being asked for comment. The full statement is below, and the original article appears underneath it.
“In line with national policy, in cases of common assault with no injury, where the offender is identified and fully admits the offence, then an adult caution is deemed a suitable outcome.
“We are committed to providing a high level of service for all victims of crime, and if any victim is dissatisfied with the service they have received then they can make a formal complaint via the Office for the Police and Crime Commissioner.”
A shocking video shows a cyclist being punched multiple times in the face by a driver who was enraged that he was riding two abreast in a group.
Ady Short's wife, who was riding in front of the car, was also knocked off her bike by the driver as he attacked her husband through the car window.
Mr Short was out with his wife and six other Swindon Wheelers club members when the driver of a black Nissan caught up with them on a bendy section of road where he was unable to overtake.
Mr Short said: "He followed us for about 90 seconds, overtook us and braked hard in front of the group causing us to swerve around him but as we rode around him he took off again within the group causing further issues whilst remonstrating about us not singling out (he wouldn’t have got past one person let alone eight through the bendy section)."
While this, as Mr Short pointed out is, sadly, an all too common occurrence for cyclists on Britain's roads, what happened next was shocking.
> Aggressive driver in total meltdown with Carmarthenshire cyclists after close pass
Mr Short continued: "As club secretary and a trained Ride Lead we’re meant to de-escalate any situations so normally (happens too often) we wait to hear what they say and then explain why we were riding two abreast.
"He was very angry as you can see but before I could explain he started hitting me, I just suffered a black eye as a result and didn’t actually get the chance to say anything before he hit me.
"He also knocked my wife off her bike, the camera was hers and she suffered cuts and bruises but wasn’t considered part of the case as the police couldn’t actually see her.
"We made the guy wait as the police were called and told him when he tried to drive off that he would end up in more trouble."
> Police install 'give cyclists room' signs...local asks for 'cyclists single file' version
Mr Short said he had been told by Wiltshire Police that the driver 'fully admitted' the assault and claimed to be very remorseful.
The driver was only handed a caution for the unprovoked attack.
Mr Short said the group were looking into appealing the seemingly light punishment.
He also explained why he had tried to talk to the driver in the first place.
He said: "Generally, in our experience, it just humanises the situation if we can let them blow off steam and appear calm, we usually explain that we all drive cars as well and apologise for any inconvenience even though we shouldn’t have to apologise it just seems to take the anger out of the situation.
"Its a case by case basis as to whether we talk about must and should where the highway code is concerned, this guy was absolutely adamant that we must ride single file which is what he was shouting about as I cycled by him...
"What took the steam out of this situation more than anything post fracas was my wife shouting that we had cameras."
Wiltshire Police have been contacted for comment.
Update, 13/09/2021: We've had a huge response to this article, with many readers expressing shock and distress, plus surprise at the response from Wiltshire Police. You can contact the office for the Wiltshire Police and Crime Commissioner here, and if you were directly affected, you can make a complaint here.
Latest Comments
- P3t3 1 sec ago
Pedal reflectors are brilliant, you can tell its a bike form a long way off, I htin the fact that the reflectors are moving up and down when...
- mctrials23 18 min 8 sec ago
The drivers are also licensed so they obviously behave themselves as well.
- chrisonabike 46 min 50 sec ago
But... the last is only not the case with drivers on normal roads because driving on the cycle path / footway / rolling a vehicle up there is seen...
- wtjs 53 min 18 sec ago
YOU'VE RUINED MY LIFE! WHAT FOR?!...
- mdavidford 1 hour 24 min ago
I think you're missing an opportunity to pack even more tech into it - add accelerometers that can detect whether they're pedalling or stepping....
- chrisonabike 1 hour 49 min ago
Thanks. I guess the question is "need". If the road is busy, it sounds like it is a desired route between places? In which case (given this an...
- mdavidford 1 hour 57 min ago
Don't know what you mean. I thought my suggestion was entirely practical.
- mdavidford 1 hour 59 min ago
...and a square of faux sheepskin for the back of your saddle.
- Rapha Nadal 2 hours 31 min ago
I'd buy a motorbike fo rthat kind of money!
Add new comment
205 comments
likewise . I'm very glad i'm not you. hang on there's a freemason under the bed.
Are we looking at the same video? I'm looking at one where the driver first brake checked a fast-moving group of cyclists, then pulled a cyclist from his bike and started hitting him whilst still moving - something that could easily have seen the cyclist's legs or more disappear under the wheels - and whilst he is doing so he continues moving forward and hits the cyclist in front of him, knocking her down. This is "a bit happy slappy", "just incompetent" and "All a bit handbags"? I know you are hard-wired to defend any decisions of your friends in blue but you're just being ridiculous here.
I'd agree it was dangerous driving and fits the description, however, the police know that a court is unlikely to convict for all but the worst examples (think joyrider on police camera action), because it means a minimum 12 month ban. Also, the police are able to bring a prosecution for careless driving without involving the CPS. You would have thought a careless driving charge could be pursued.
As for the caution. It's a criminal record, that will show up on some database checks and depending on your job, you may need to inform your employer. It may also have to be declared on some job applications and when travelling abroad.
So, if you're in a job that requires police checks and frequent travelling, it could be devastating. If you're self-employed, not working, in a job that doesn't require police checks or a career criminal, it will probably have no impact at all.
How the hell did this turn into an attack on civil servants?
Black eye = bruising = ABH not common assault.
Also arguably that this wasn't common - driver drove past, then specifically waiting to engage in confrontation and punched cyclist - this potentially creates an aggravated assault, so the common assault guidance wouldn't apply - certainly it would be trivial for the coppers to interpret the situation more seriously in the first instance and go beyond calling this a simple common assault had they wished to!
Sounds like you're up against it. So easy to pick off individuals, unfortunately. I seem to remember that you are a member of British Cycling, if so have you asked them to get involved?
Any way, I admire your perseverence and wish you luck. I look forward to hearing your report on the proceedings you witness.
A caution is considered to be "spent" immediately, so it wouldn't need to be disclosed when applying for most jobs and wouldn't appear on a basic DBS check. It would appear on a standard or enhanced DBS check, so could prevent you from working with children or vunerable adults.
(Also not a lawyer)
You made me feel dirty for actually following that link!
However, they've got the complete video and more complete quotes from Mr Short, so they're doing a better job than the BBC.
Keep it in perspective. Its a scuffle . Words of advice but as usual the cycling lawyers are out in force here describing it as a full on attack with a cyclist beaten half to death and another repeatedly run over. its none of that really is it.
Spot on. Found a good web resource here.
Some solace that he's probably not going to be driving a taxi in the next 6 years.
Although apparently his wife fell in front of the car (must be imaginging the initial crunch before he fall then. ) Then states cycling organisations have lobbied the governement for Highway code changes.
A scuffle is two people engaging with each other in a minor physical altercation. This is one person launching a cowardly and unprovoked attack on another, grabbing him by the arm and pulling him off his bike whilst using the other arm to strike him about the head. All this whilst still in control of a moving vehicle. As I said above, it's pure luck that the male cyclist didn't go under the wheels, and it's also pure luck that the female cyclist wasn't more badly injured by being struck.
A scuffle is what you break up between two children in a playground, not a grown adult in a moving vehicle dragging a cyclist off his bike in order to punch him. See the difference?
Loving your definition of scuffle. " two people engaging with each other in a minor physical altercation" spot on and thats what this was.
And the cyclist in front that he drove into, what about a charge for that bit of negligence behind the wheel?
The police here in Australia get criticised a lot, but there's no doubt that driver would be facing multiple charges if he'd done that here.
I do hope you never end up on a jury, and that indeed despite appearances you never were a police officer, as you are utterly incapable of seeing what is right in front of your face. Once again for the hard of thinking, grabbing a moving cyclist by the neck and punching him in the face with your other hand whilst your car is still moving and running it into another cyclist is not a minor physical altercation. You can defend all you like but whomever you think is at fault it's just not minor.
Well right back at you. I can see the video and that is all the evidence and its a minor incident.
I remember your interpretation of a video on a near miss where you stated both cyclists rode up the inside of the vehicle ahead of them when one of them was ALWAYS in front of the vehicle in question. So forgive me if I do not trust your visual capacity or reasoning skills.
No one said that though.
Although I forgot, you don't do consequences. It's simply what happened not what could have happened following reckless actions.
I think you'll find law doesnt do what might have happened just what did happen.
Really - you should look up how recklessness is defined. Or criminal damage.
I think you'll find that the law does indeed "do what might have happened" as a result of actions, otherwise drunk drivers would be let off unless they caused an accident, people who discharge firearms in public places would be let off if they didn't hit anyone, people carrying knives would be let off unless they actually used them on someone...there is a panoply of laws that exist to sanction behaviour that might lead to undesirable results, and that result doesn't have to be achieved for sanction to be applied.
If I shoot at you and miss, would I not be charged with attempted murder because what "might have happened" didn't?
The key bit here which makes the incident so serious is that the offender was doing so whilst operating a vehicle that could easily have caused serious injury or worse. Intent started with the horn beep and then the brake check truly exposed the offender's dangerous behaviour. At this stage the rider in my opinion used the wrong tactic to try and "defuse" the situation. The assault occurred from the moment the driver grabbed the rider's arm (whilst the vehicle was moving). At that stage there was a serious risk of the rider being dragged under the wheels of the car, the punches that followed (feeble as they were) only heightened that risk.
On another day we could have been talking about a fatality and it is only luck that didn't happen. This is before we consider the fact the driver nearly ran over the rider's wife. The caution will inevitably make the driver feel he got away with it. This driver will be back on the road with the satisfaction of a lenient punishment and nothing to prevent him from carrying out his cowardly prejudice on other vulnerable road users, because that too has not been addressed!
This is an epic fail from the police in providing the punishment necessary to deter future actions, with the added clanger of not providing any tools of prevention (such as an anger management course and psychiatric therapy before being allowed behind the wheel again). Here's the irony, in an effort to save themselves time and hassle, they will inevitably be dodging bullets on this issue for a long time to come!
Who is the "we" you keep referring to ? You and your mates down at the lets google law club.
Nope, we = wider society.
I did do law at A-level and as part of my degree but didn't quite make it to the "bar".
Actually I think its we as in "people like me who agree with me" like a me-we or a we-me. Try and get out more. It may be helpful.
So you're telling me what my own interpretation of "we" is when I answered your question directly?!
This is exactly the type of blinkered and egotistical attitude that led to this motorist becoming enraged over the cyclists perfectly legal and actually recommended riding position.
I get out plenty thanks, unfortunately all too often my enjoyment is spoiled by ignorant, incompetent and at times dangerous drivers. But hey, at least they'll have you to defend them!
youre quoting "wider society". what on earth does that mean. people who watch GBnews probably think"wider society" agrees with them.
I'm not quoting wider society am I?! How would I do that?! I suppose the best spokesperson for wider society would be Boris Johnson, but unfortunately he was not available.
The "we" which you are fixated on is in respect to how most good people would see the horror of the incident, flagrant disregard for the riders' safety and what will be seen as a lenient punishment generally.
Try getting along more, being less aggressive / dismissive / confrontational.
You might even find that you change people's mind.
The way that you go about things, all you do is entrench their positions.
'How to win friends and influence people'. Go on, give it a try. I dare you.
not aggressive at all. disagreeing withthe usual roadcc group think yes.
Pages