Dundee cyclist assaulted by fellow rider he asked to get off pavement and ride on road

Second reported case of cyclist attacking another rider in Dundee in recent months

by Simon_MacMichael   December 15, 2013  

road.cc news

A man in Dundee who asked a fellow cyclist not to ride on the pavement has spoken of how he was pushed against a wall and then had his head banged against a set of railings.

It’s the second report of a cyclist assaulting another bike rider in the city in the past three months.

Wednesday evening’s alleged assault took place on the corner of Liff Road and Buttar’s Loan, reports the Evening Telegraph.

The victim, who lives in Longforgan and wishes to remain anonymous, said: “I was cycling home from work and it happened at about 5.20pm.

“I was riding on the road but I spotted a man cycling on the pavement and shouted over to him that he should be on the road.

“He was an adult and far too old to be on the pavement.

“But he was angry when I said it, and when he caught up with me he was riding along next to me for a while on Liff Road.

“Then he started questioning me and pushed me off my bike.

“He grabbed me and smashed me against a wall. Luckily I had my helmet on which protected my head but my face is still scratched.

“He slammed me up against some railings.

“It was scary because I just wasn’t expecting violence and I am not used to violent confrontation.”

The assailant made off after the victim said he would call the police, although it was not reported whether officers were in fact informed of the incident.

The victim added: “He was a grown man and he should have been on the road, there was no reason for him not to be — it was perfectly safe. He was confident enough to assault someone so he should be confident enough to ride on the road.

“There are people campaigning to make the city safer for cyclists, but they have to do their bit and keep the pavement for pedestrians where necessary.

“Cyclists shouldn’t be afraid of the road — they are entitled to be there, and that’s the message we should be sending.

“He was trying to claim he was on a cycle path but he was not.”

Reports of cyclists attacking other bike riders are fairly rare – but this is the second in Dundee in recent months.

In September, a 70-year-old deaf man suffered two broken eye sockets after an unprovoked attack on a cycle path in Seabraes.

The aggressor, believed to be in his fifties, had started shouting at the victim earlier as he rode through the Nethergate area and then followed him before punching him in the face.

27 user comments

Oldest firstNewest firstBest rated

May i be the first to get in with the 'At least a helmet has some use' comment?
Thank you.

posted by Some Fella [615 posts]
15th December 2013 - 13:32

like this
Like (36)

I'm surprised there isn't more of this throughout the country, specially in London where one cyclist goes around giving people "red cards" like some sort of referee.

Concentrate on your own cycling and leave the idiots to come a cropper themselves

Gkam84's picture

posted by Gkam84 [8134 posts]
15th December 2013 - 14:13

like this
Like (55)

Not nice for victims etc but this idea just makes me lol! Laughing

koko56's picture

posted by koko56 [298 posts]
15th December 2013 - 15:50

like this
Like (27)

Why get involved with someone you don't know. You never know how they react. I hope the victim is only shaken and not stirred and carries on cycling...maybe without comment in future.

posted by Guyz2010 [277 posts]
15th December 2013 - 19:14

like this
Like (18)

Sorry , but you should have kept your Liar out...just not worth it.

posted by kiwimagic64 [9 posts]
15th December 2013 - 19:23

like this
Like (16)

This is the answer to the "should I take RLJ cyclists to task" thread. But how can you live in Dundee and not be used to violence?

posted by deblemund [55 posts]
15th December 2013 - 22:44

like this
Like (23)

If there were more traffic police, or people stopped trying to blame cyclists for the actions of other cyclists, maybe this have a go hero wouldn't have felt the need to try.

posted by a.jumper [654 posts]
16th December 2013 - 9:41

like this
Like (10)

“I was riding on the road but I spotted a man cycling on the pavement and shouted over to him that he should be on the road"

Unfortunately there is more chance of getting a black eye out of this than a response like "Oh, i'm sorry, how foolish of me. Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways"

posted by CameronB [10 posts]
16th December 2013 - 11:54

like this
Like (16)

"Cyclists shouldn’t be afraid of the road — they are entitled to be there, and that’s the message we should be sending."

Being entitled to ride on the road doesn't stop people being scared though. If the pavement rider is causing no danger to anyone else just leave it. I'm intrigued as to how someone riding on the pavement can catch up someone riding on the road though...

posted by teaboy [121 posts]
16th December 2013 - 12:13

like this
Like (13)

Constructive confrontation....yeah, it'll never catch on.....
Just like confronting bad drivers, some are more likely to seek retribution, rather than actually modifying their driving behaviour...
...leave the 'idiots' to get on with it...keep yourself safe...

The_Kaner
FREEEEEEEEDOM!

The _Kaner's picture

posted by The _Kaner [322 posts]
16th December 2013 - 12:24

like this
Like (11)

Schizophrenic signage re: where cyclists should be has a lot to answer for. I see a lot of those little blue signs with the bike flying over the ped's head telling me to pedal along the pavement. I haven't taken the signage too literally and attempted to bunnyhop an old lady but have been tempted to see if I've got the pop to clear a toddler. There's the odd no cycling sign but with the proliferation of 'shared path' signage on otherwise unmarked footways its easy to reach the conclusion (particuaraly if you cycle in mostly urban environs (excepting the big cities)) that our transport planners prefer for us to keep off of the roads wherever possible.

I too feel the urge to point out to some pavement cyclists that they are adults and should behave accordingly but haven't found myself in a fighty enough mood to make comment so far.

posted by Matt eaton [222 posts]
16th December 2013 - 12:36

like this
Like (12)

Matt eaton wrote:
Schizophrenic signage re: where cyclists should be has a lot to answer for. I see a lot of those little blue signs with the bike flying over the ped's head telling me to pedal along the pavement. I haven't taken the signage too literally and attempted to bunnyhop an old lady but have been tempted to see if I've got the pop to clear a toddler. There's the odd no cycling sign but with the proliferation of 'shared path' signage on otherwise unmarked footways its easy to reach the conclusion (particuaraly if you cycle in mostly urban environs (excepting the big cities)) that our transport planners prefer for us to keep off of the roads wherever possible.

I too feel the urge to point out to some pavement cyclists that they are adults and should behave accordingly but haven't found myself in a fighty enough mood to make comment so far.

The problem with those signs, I find, is the way they appear and disappear at random. You'll be on a marked 'shared use' path, then start to wonder "I haven't seen a sign for ages, am I now breaking the law? Oh, wait there's one now", or you'll slowly realise you are now on the pavement illegally and need to get off of it, despite the absence of any dropped kerb or any sign signifying the ending if the shared use bit.

Or you'll be in the road and the first sign that you _could_ have been on the pavement will be the sign saying the shared use bit has just ended, despite the fact there was never any sign telling you it had started.

Or there'll be a toucan crossing yet no indication that the pavement on either side is legally cycleable.

Or you'll be expected to constantly get on and off of a nasty busy road, as the shared use pavement keeps starting and ending every 20 yards for no logical reason ("how come I can use that bit but not this bit when both the pavement and the road are exactly the same?")

End result being I now never bother with them and just stick to the road or get off and walk. Shared use is mostly a crap box-ticking cop out, I think.

And I have a couple of times (as a pedestrian) gotten into altercations with pavement cyclists but only when I'm in a really bad mood that overcomes my common-sense and risk aversion.

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [497 posts]
16th December 2013 - 16:20

like this
Like (15)

Guess we aren't one big happy homogenous group after all

posted by jarredscycling [436 posts]
16th December 2013 - 17:48

like this
Like (6)

CameronB wrote:
“I was riding on the road but I spotted a man cycling on the pavement and shouted over to him that he should be on the road"

Unfortunately there is more chance of getting a black eye out of this than a response like "Oh, i'm sorry, how foolish of me. Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways"

I don't know I often get a positive response, I don't know if this is because 9/10 I'm with a toddler in tow or that I'm a skinhead with tattoos down to my hands.

You do get some dick like responses same as you do with Red light jumpers but these are mostly the sort that use a bike to shuttle stolen video recorders between pubs not that use a bike for commuting or sport.

I hate the catchall term 'cyclist' some of them nay most pavement riders aren't cyclists they just happen to be a 'person on a bike'

William Black's picture

posted by William Black [196 posts]
16th December 2013 - 18:07

like this
Like (21)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Matt eaton wrote:
Schizophrenic signage re: where cyclists should be has a lot to answer for. I see a lot of those little blue signs with the bike flying over the ped's head telling me to pedal along the pavement. I haven't taken the signage too literally and attempted to bunnyhop an old lady but have been tempted to see if I've got the pop to clear a toddler. There's the odd no cycling sign but with the proliferation of 'shared path' signage on otherwise unmarked footways its easy to reach the conclusion (particuaraly if you cycle in mostly urban environs (excepting the big cities)) that our transport planners prefer for us to keep off of the roads wherever possible.

I too feel the urge to point out to some pavement cyclists that they are adults and should behave accordingly but haven't found myself in a fighty enough mood to make comment so far.

The problem with those signs, I find, is the way they appear and disappear at random. You'll be on a marked 'shared use' path, then start to wonder "I haven't seen a sign for ages, am I now breaking the law? Oh, wait there's one now", or you'll slowly realise you are now on the pavement illegally and need to get off of it, despite the absence of any dropped kerb or any sign signifying the ending if the shared use bit.

Or you'll be in the road and the first sign that you _could_ have been on the pavement will be the sign saying the shared use bit has just ended, despite the fact there was never any sign telling you it had started.

Or there'll be a toucan crossing yet no indication that the pavement on either side is legally cycleable.

Or you'll be expected to constantly get on and off of a nasty busy road, as the shared use pavement keeps starting and ending every 20 yards for no logical reason ("how come I can use that bit but not this bit when both the pavement and the road are exactly the same?")

End result being I now never bother with them and just stick to the road or get off and walk. Shared use is mostly a crap box-ticking cop out, I think.

And I have a couple of times (as a pedestrian) gotten into altercations with pavement cyclists but only when I'm in a really bad mood that overcomes my common-sense and risk aversion.

I'm the same as you in that I stick to the roads. Shared use paths of this sort are a recipe for disaster unless you are pootling along at 5mph. I sometimes find them handy if I'm towing the kiddy trailer up a hill but other than that its just not safe enough to progress quickly enough compared to the road. Despite this I can easily see how the decision to stick to the roads (like you and Sleepy could easily go the other way for a less confident cyclist who might choose to stick to the footway instead.

I think that this sort of shared use path is often an afterthought by the road planners. They invest massive amounts of time and money analysing traffic flow and planning road systems with motor vehicles at the heart of them without any thought for cycle provision only to discover that what they have built is out of bounds for all but the most confident riders. Their solution is to make the footways 'shared use', thereby removing bicycles from the road infrastructure and 'solving' the problem that they created. The A34 through Newbury is a good example of this.

posted by Matt eaton [222 posts]
16th December 2013 - 23:09

like this
Like (12)

What a depressing thread. Full of comments that, if you see someone behaving antisocially then just put your head down, swallow it and go on your way. What a pathetic indication of some people's attitude towards those who choose to behave in a **** you manner just because most people won't dare to say anything about it. Such a British problem, I have to say.

Personally, if I come across someone cycling on the pavement I let them experience my disapproval loudly and proudly.

Maybe if more of us expressed our displeasure at some of these scumbags, rather than thinking it's the Po-lice's job (I mean, you are joking, right?), we might actually convey to them that it is a collective response to their disavowal of socially acceptable behaviour rather than expecting some other, largely disinterested, body to do it for us. Which, of course, they never will.

Have we become a nation of "It's not my job" lemmings?

I do wonder.

TiNuts's picture

posted by TiNuts [92 posts]
18th December 2013 - 0:48

like this
Like (21)

TiNuts wrote:
What a depressing thread. Full of comments that, if you see someone behaving antisocially then just put your head down, swallow it and go on your way. What a pathetic indication of some people's attitude towards those who choose to behave in a **** you manner just because most people won't dare to say anything about it. Such a British problem, I have to say.

Personally, if I come across someone cycling on the pavement I let them experience my disapproval loudly and proudly.

Maybe if more of us expressed our displeasure at some of these scumbags, rather than thinking it's the Po-lice's job (I mean, you are joking, right?), we might actually convey to them that it is a collective response to their disavowal of socially acceptable behaviour rather than expecting some other, largely disinterested, body to do it for us. Which, of course, they never will.

Have we become a nation of "It's not my job" lemmings?

I do wonder.

and get beat up for what is in my eyes, a minor thing.....nah you can do what you like, but if I'm going to get a hiding for shouting at someone, its going to be for something worthwhile

Gkam84's picture

posted by Gkam84 [8134 posts]
18th December 2013 - 2:35

like this
Like (13)

Maybe as a mental health professional I tend to be more aware of how many people there are out there suffering from problems of perception. Successive governments have withdrawn funding for support for people with mental health problems, resulting in 'care in the community', aka 'go away and look after yourself, or not, we certainly don't give a sh*t'. You have to be aware that the person you make a remark to may be schizophrenic and will take your apparently mild protest as an extreme attack on him or her. Best to leave it, you just never know.

posted by bikeylikey [154 posts]
18th December 2013 - 8:34

like this
Like (8)

TiNuts wrote:

Have we become a nation of "It's not my job" lemmings?

I do wonder.

Well, its your choice. Perhaps you are good at physical violence. Not everyone is.

As I say, I've sometimes challenged such people, but only when they've annoyed me hugely by nearly crashing into me when I was a pedestrian, and only after making some implicit assessment of whether they were capable of kicking my arse or not.

Even then it has nearly ended up in a fight before we both walked away while angrily posturing just enough to preserve dignity. (I've sometimes thought that if they aren't brave enough to ride on the very road that I regularly ride on myself they surely they won't be brave enough to fight me - but I suspect that might be a dangerously flawed assumption)

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [497 posts]
18th December 2013 - 13:49

like this
Like (7)

bikeylikey wrote:
Maybe as a mental health professional I tend to be more aware of how many people there are out there suffering from problems of perception. Successive governments have withdrawn funding for support for people with mental health problems, resulting in 'care in the community', aka 'go away and look after yourself, or not, we certainly don't give a sh*t'. You have to be aware that the person you make a remark to may be schizophrenic and will take your apparently mild protest as an extreme attack on him or her. Best to leave it, you just never know.

Seriously? we shouldn't pull people up on irresponsible and illegal behaviour just in case they are schizophenic and have an episode? I agree with your view on 'care in the community'.

Personally I'd be unlikely to call someone on pavement cycling as it's generally not a big deal. It might be different in a busy environment or if they were travelling fast but usually its because of lack of confidence or fear of traffic.

posted by Matt eaton [222 posts]
18th December 2013 - 13:59

like this
Like (7)

"You have to be aware that the person you make a remark to may be schizophrenic and will take your apparently mild protest as an extreme attack on him or her." That's an awful lot of bad car and van drivers that are schizophrenics then...

posted by IHphoto [72 posts]
18th December 2013 - 14:21

like this
Like (13)

IHphoto wrote:
"You have to be aware that the person you make a remark to may be schizophrenic and will take your apparently mild protest as an extreme attack on him or her." That's an awful lot of bad car and van drivers that are schizophrenics then...

I'm not comfortable with the emphasis on 'schizophrenia' in particular. I don't see any reason to single those guys out!

I'd say its more just that many people, particularly in inner city areas, have 'anger management issues' or multiple 'mental health issues' and personality disorders, and its by no means limited to those with official diagnosies. In fact I suspect the formally diagnosed probably consitute a minority of them (and at least those people _know_ they have a problem!).

I would suggest that mental health is a contiuum and also that what gets labelled as such is dependent on social and political issues as much as anything objective.

All I know is areas I have lived in see plenty of unprovoked aggression as it is, and so if you are going to reproach people for bad behaviour you have to be aware it might not go well.

posted by FluffyKittenofT... [497 posts]
18th December 2013 - 14:47

like this
Like (11)

Completly agree, we shouldn't get focussed on schizophrenia in particular and to be fair I think bikeylikey was just using schizophrenia as one example.

The frustration is that unless some of us are brave enough to call people out we will continue to see irresponsible and illegal behaviour being accepted. With the greatest respect to any police officers reading this there are not sufficient numbers of police on the streets to act as a deterrent and the police that are out there probably have more important things to attend to

posted by Matt eaton [222 posts]
18th December 2013 - 15:43

like this
Like (7)

Could care less about a criminally violent yob. Happens all the time regardless of mode of transport.

What we should all be properly cross about here is the clear inference, in writing, by Road.CC no less, that he was a 'fellow' cyclist.

Like fuck he was.

My 'fellows' are other middle-aged blokes with kids, on eBay'd used bikes of assorted gruppo. People who I know, care about, lend money to etc. Brother's keeper etc.

If I ride next to someone like this guy, the semblance starts and ends with 'also male'. When a pedestrian attacks another pedestrian, as 99.99999% of violent crimes are, are they reported as 'A man in Dundee who asked a fellow pedestrian not to walk on the pavement has spoken of how he was pushed against a wall and then had his head banged against a set of railings"?

No. The use of 'fellow' in this case implies a sub-group, a community, a minority. Road.CC, please don't seek to reinforce the idea that all cyclists know/are responsible for all other cyclists. We see every day what that gets us in the eyes of legislators and authorities.

I am surprisingly cross about this.

I was told there would be Cake. Luckily there's http://TestValleyCC.org.uk

KiwiMike's picture

posted by KiwiMike [362 posts]
19th December 2013 - 15:40

like this
Like (7)

Anyone who says "could care less" has to watch the video. It's the law.

Dave Atkinson's picture

posted by Dave Atkinson [7028 posts]
19th December 2013 - 15:46

like this
Like (6)

*n't*. Mea culpa.

I was told there would be Cake. Luckily there's http://TestValleyCC.org.uk

KiwiMike's picture

posted by KiwiMike [362 posts]
19th December 2013 - 16:18

like this
Like (5)

CameronB wrote:

Unfortunately there is more chance of getting a black eye out of this than a response like "Oh, i'm sorry, how foolish of me. Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways"

Two lovely black eyes!
Oh! what a surprise!
Only for telling a man he was wrong,
Two lovely black eyes!

http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/t/twolovelyblackeyes.shtml

posted by Cauld Lubter [113 posts]
19th December 2013 - 16:44

like this
Like (8)