Avon & Somerset Constabulary have appealed for witnesses to an assault in Yate, South Gloucestershire, that left a cyclist with a broken arm.
According to police, the incident took place in the town, 12 miles northeast of Bristol, at around 10pm on Saturday 8 June.
The witness appeal continued: “The victim, a man in his 50s, was cycling past Tesco Express on Station Road when he was involved in an incident with two people in a silver BMW.
“The victim turned into Cranleigh Gardens where the occupants of the car followed him, pulled him off his bike and assaulted him. They then drove off leaving him on the floor with a broken arm.
“The occupants of the silver BMW were a man and woman in their 20s.”
Police say that they have opened an investigation into the assault after it was reported to them and have asked anyone with information to contact DC Celia White by calling 101 and quoting 55000/13.
10 thoughts on “Witness appeal as road rage assault leaves cyclist with broken arm”
This is an interesting one…
This is an interesting one… if they’d used the car to hurt him, they wouldn’t be facing the possibility of a charge of assault.
Indeed. Stupid of them to
Indeed. Stupid of them to realize that. “It was an accident” is the ultimate defence against any crime committed using a vehicle.
I take it that the CCTV used
I take it that the CCTV used by the shop didn’t get the original incident and/or the number plate of the car?
Unfortunately most shops only
Unfortunately most shops only cover their front doors and an angle for their windows and not the whole street / road.
You find to many do-gooders complain its breaching human rights if a camera covers anywhere else X(
stumps wrote:You find to many
I agree with the do-gooders. Britain has 1% of the world’s population but 20% of the world’s cameras also a private company cannot breach someone’s Human Rights only the state and those employed by the State can.
But I digress I hope they catch the b*****d
Wesselwookie wrote:stumps
Erm, yes they can.
The human rights act was not
The human rights act was not set up for people to complain about a shop camera pointing to far into a road, or a neighbours camera partly covering their driveway.
The country has gone human rights mad. Cameras are a necessary evil and to be honest if you do nothing wrong and they aren’t staring into your house, why worry ?
Your quote about 20% camera’s is an interesting fact, it seems an awfully high number considering virtually every city in every country is covered with them and especially the US who have cameras at virtually every major junction. 😕
But i also digress, i hope the offenders get caught and dealt with severely. 😀
stumps wrote:The human rights
Why on earth are you all talking about the human rights act? Has this become the daily mail? It’s nothing to do with the human rights act – the street is a public place, so the right to privacy would not be infringed by a shop camera pointing out into the road.
If there’s any legal problem, it’s more likely to be from the data protection act, because the pictures of passers-by in the street maybe aren’t needed for the purpose of securing the shop, but I guess having it pointing so it could see the number plates of possible looters might be OK.
But I also digress to deal with all the loony human-rights bashing. I hope the cyclist-bashers are caught and convicted, with appropriate punishment.
a.jumper, you know how the
a.jumper, you know how the forum works, it goes off piste regularly with topics within topics.
northstar, your right, the prevention of disorder / crime can impinge on the right to a private life.
I think that the victim (when
I think that the victim (when he has recovered) should be allowed to hit his assailants with a chainset in the face, that way, every morning they would be reminded that they are utter ***ts.