A cyclist described as a “nutjob” has received a suspended prison sentence after threatening another rider and attacking him with D-locks as well as stamping on his bike on London’s CS3, the capital’s flagship cycle route that runs along the north side of the Thames.
Michael Reyes, the victim, took footage of the shocking incident on a helmet-mounted camera, and has posted a video to YouTube now the court case has been concluded, with the footage flagged to road.cc by Mike van Erp, whose videos posted under the name Cycling Mikey have secured the conviction of hundreds of motorists for a range of driving offences.
In the description to the video, Mr Reyes says that the unnamed perpetrator was convicted at City of London Magistrates’ Court with using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour causing fear of or provoking violence, an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, and with criminal damage to property valued under £5,000, contrary to the Criminal Damage Act 1971.
The incident on 17 July 2020 started shortly before the Blackfriars underpass on CS3 as both cyclists headed westward, with the perpetrator apparently dropping back before catching up with the victim again at a red light just before the ramp up to the junction at the northern end of Blackfriars Bridge.
Mr Reyes said: “Last July I had started playing around with different places to mount a camera to record my bike rides. On one fateful day I chose to test it mounted to my helmet. Little did I know how much that would save me just a few hours later.
“On this day the weather was fantastic so I left work about an hour early so I could get a nice long ride in before I commuted home. Unfortunately I only made it about a half mile from my office when I was verbally abused and attacked by another cyclist.
“At first I thought the rant was amusing because I had the camera on my head pointing right at him so I assumed he was just trying to be entertaining but when he pointed out my accent and how it’s a problem I realised it maybe wasn’t very funny so I tried to just get away.
“He catches back up with me at the next red light and attempts to attack me with two different D-locks. I manage to defend myself and he runs off. I step away from the scene to apologise to those around me when he comes back to my bike and stomps on it, bending the fork, frame, wheel, and disc brake. Luckily as he flees he is stopped by a member of the City of London Police.”
In his text commentary to the video, Mr Reyes said that the police officer “took our statements, witness statements, and called for additional officers.
“No arrests were made on the day,” he continued. “I specifically said I didn’t think it was necessary.
“Only after reviewing the footage when I got home did I realise he could have really hurt me.
“By October 2020 the investigating officer asked him to come in for an interview. He didn’t.
“A warrant was put out for his arrest and by mid-January 2021 he was finally arrested.”
He was charged with the offences in February, and pleaded not guilty to them at an initial hearing in late March, which the trial taking place in August.
Mr Reyes said that once the case went to trial, the defence “rested completely on the belief that his locks supposedly fell out of his pockets as he pulled alongside me and I allegedly grabbed them to hit him. The damage to my bike was supposedly caused by it falling to the ground.
“I know defence lawyers need to represent their client as best as possible but their claims were asinine when viewing the video evidence put forward,” he said.
The offences of which the defendant was convicted carry maximum penalties, on summary conviction (ie at magistrates’ court), of six months’ imprisonment or a fine in the case of threatening behaviour and three months’ imprisonment for property damage.
Mr Reyes added: “Luckily the City of London Magistrates’ Court agreed with me and he was found guilty and eventually sentenced to 26 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, 20 days Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, and ordered to compensate me for my bike.”
81 thoughts on “Video: “Nutjob” cyclist attacks another rider for overtaking him on London’s CS3 (warning: contains extreme language)”
“and ordered to compensate me
“and ordered to compensate me for my bike.” Which inevitably, you won’t ever get. Not from this type of character.
For reference, an ex-partner
For reference, an ex-partner has still not been compensated for an iPhone (stolen from behind a shop till, then binned before the bobbies caught him). The phone was stolen and the rotter ordered to pay compensation in 2016…
I believe you can get a court
I believe you can get a court to do it. They can literally have property seized and sold to pay the claim.
https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/enforce-a-judgment
Fees to the court are on the order of 10-15% of the judgment. I suspect he would have to give anything collected to his insurer, however, as they’ve already paid his claim.
Total nut job!!! You do get
Total nut job!!! You do get them from time to time. Well done to the police and justice system for once…though I wonder what would have happened if it was a car driver giving the abuse and doing the attack (not really, I know)
The victim handled it pretty well tbh, not sure what else he could have done
Hopefully the perp has learnt
Hopefully the perp has learnt his lesson and next time will use a car to attack the cyclist and get off with caution.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Oh come now, you’re just being silly…how would it ever get to a caution? Police would probably label it NFA and send Mr Reyes a warning about his provocative behaviour.
The difference between this
The difference between this outcome and the wiltshire assault will e largely down to 2 things 1. His unwillingness to admit the offence, and 2. His previous good/bad character.
Ride On wrote:
Also, “Luckily as he flees he is stopped by a member of the City of London Police.” I assume the police officer witnessed it. Much more believable than a mere camera.
Hi, Mr. Reyes here. The
Hi, Mr. Reyes here. The officer was behind a wall on the other side of Puddle Dock Rd. In his statement he said he didn’t have direct line of sight to the incident but said he heard a commotion so he emerged to see the defendant running away when he ordered him to stop so he could see what was going on.
When the additional officers arrived they initially said “sorry bud, but unless we can get some CCTV it’s really just your word against his” which is when I showed them that I had a camera on my helmet. Their eyes lit up and they then seemed more willing to help. Probably because they knew that if the video recording aligned with mine and the independent witness statements then it would be a pretty open and shut case, which it was.
So you’re right, probably not just because of the camera. But nothing would have happened in the end without it.
officers arrived they
officers arrived they initially said “sorry bud…
Hope they didn’t! We’re still smarting over 1776. Thanks for giving us the information and follow-up ‘from the horse’s mouth’- that sounds American.
Haha oops. You can take the
Haha oops. You can take the man out of America but never the American out of the man. Ironically I don’t think I ever say bud in normal conversation.
mpr1991 wrote:
Gotcha.
What’s all the stuff on his
What’s all the stuff on his shoulders?
It looks like the sort of ‘tacticool’ nonsense you see the gravy seals wear.
Donaldp wrote:
gravy seals
lukei1 wrote:
Semper Pie dudes….
On a side note the nut job
On a side note the nut job does seem passionate about his bicycle. Look at all the dedicated investment in bar mounted illumination and the post apocalyptic urban warrior costume. One can’t help but wonder how all those lights were acquired….
Blackthorne wrote:
And 2 D-locks! A thug’s Viennetta. One is never enough…..
Captain Badger wrote:
Aldi sells some tiny Viennetta-on-a-stick – the mint flavour is especially great and because they’re small you can have two if you like.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Astonishing! I can only
Astonishing! I can only assume that this guy was off his meds and not in control of his actions, but no such claim appears to have been made in court, in which case the headline of “nut job” is entirely justified.
Just like all the road rage drivers, this road rage cyclist should be banned, or at least have his bike crushed in front of him.
I think the clue is on the
I think the clue is in the sentence including a RAR. He must have issues that would benefit from rehabilitation.
Gosh! What’s a troll to do,
Gosh! What’s a troll to do? No thuggish driver behaviour to defend.
Ah well, let’s look on the bright side. We can still say it’s the cyclist’s fault. Probably both of them……
Captain Badger wrote:
More surprisingly, no troll activity on the Poole bridge story. You’d have thought that would be, er, home ground, as it were…
The guy is a nut job. Maybe
The guy is a nut job. Maybe he’ll learn a lesson from this, mybe not. From his behaviour I do wonder whether he’s had convictions previously.
I think that “we” do forget
I think that “we” do forget that sometimes other cyclists can be just as “difficult” as motorists.
We’re all individuals, all just folks, so some of “us” are probably “nut jobs” and @rses too.
Anecdote alert:
sarcasm=on
I particularly enjoyed being run off the Pill Path – the narrow bit of flat path approaching Horseshoe Bend – on my way home last night. I moved as far left as I could, slowing down, but the approaching pair of MTBers (male and female) didn’t deviate from their line, didn’t slow down at all, and I ended up tangled in bramble. What fun!
sarcasm=off
brooksby wrote:
I find it works really well to just stop, completely, on the left side of the path. At that point it’s up to them to swerve around you. I’ve done this for walkers using the full path too. I’ve also done it while I’ve been walking on the pavement.
Passive aggression is the best aggression. Maybe don’t do this in a secluded area at night, though.
With the current delays in
With the current delays in court proceedings (due to underfunding whatever the Johnson Govt say) I’m amazed it came to trial so quickly.
Also for me highlights one of my dislikes of these cycle lanes. In places especially in London they can be very crowded and there are no rules. The American is not at fault but when he says keep left tbh thats a matter of opinion.
Hi, “The American” here. The
Hi, “The American” here. The “keep to the left” remark was more of a shorthand way of saying “hey you’re drifting into the right lane as I’m overtaking you” rather than a “we ride on the left side of the road on this island”
Im glad you where ok. The man
Im glad you where ok. The man was clearly deranged.
But there are no lanes on a cycle path so you may as well walk behind someone on the pavement on Oxford Street and say keep left.
nicmason wrote:
I mean, no, that’s not necessarily true nor is it a fair comparison to equate walking on a pavement to riding on a segregated bike path.
There’s no lanes on the road in the picture have attached to this comment but that doesn’t make it a free for all on road position. You still expect traffic to move on the side of the path in which we move in this country.
Don’t worry MPR, you will be
Don’t worry MPR, you will be used to nicmason’s attempts to victim blame in most cases on here. Yours isn’t the first and won’t be the last.
(Oh and some particularly busy pavements do have lane shaping.) The old ramp into a big shopping centre in Birmingham had a line down it, signs stating walk to the left for each direction and the occaisional shout on the tannoy in busy periods.
Oh is he a common troll in
Oh is he a common troll in the road.cc comments? I’m pretty new to the comments section on this site as I sort of got pulled into it.
Yeah I don’t really understand their comment. Even London specific there are dozens of “keep left/right” signs at tube stations and building entrances. Westfield Stratford and Shepherd’s Bush try to route walkers to keep left. Also last I was there Bluewater Shopping Center was actually using security to enforce walking direction.
Victime blaming ? I dont
Victime blaming ? I dont think so.
If you can find a law tells
If you can find a law tells me there are rules and lanes on a cycle path feel free. And yes thats a road with no lane markings so not a cycle path.
nicmason wrote:
So these things on the path at the beginning of Mike’s video are…?
They are advisory. If you
They are advisory. If you follow them or not its up to you. There is now law that says you must and those marking are frequently ignored. The highway code stops where the road is.
Another example woud be on the road you stop at a light the car behind stops behind you (hopefully) . they dont drive round you and wedge themselves in front of you. Thats something that happens continually on cycle lanes.
nicmason wrote:
Nic Mason: There are no lanes on a cycle path
Me: Here are some lanes on a cycle path
Nic Mason: Oh they’re not real lanes
Very clever. as I said they
Very clever. as I said they are effectively decorative with no standing in law.
The highway code stops where
Well, that’s not true, for a start.
Steve K wrote:
The highway code stops where the road is.
— Steve K Well, that’s not true, for a start.— nicmason
Quite, fairly sure if I went through any of the red lights all along the EW superhighway and hit a pedestrian the police wouldn’t say, “Unfortunately he wasn’t disobeying any regulations…”
Im exaggerating for effect.
Im exaggerating for effect. But its safe because I knew the roadcc warriors would be dusting of their leather bound well thumbed highway codes.
nicmason wrote:
Yeah – I don’t think anyone’s going to be buying that one.
I think most people look up
I think most people look up the online version or pdf.
A few such as hoarsemann dig into the actual regs and SIs.
It does cut both ways eg pointing out that a driver did not do something illegal as in the scenario presented, the cyclist is not a vehicle.
You would save your self a bit of time if you acknowledged your post ‘But there are no lanes on a cycle path’ was inaccurate.
I’d stand by my comment.
I’d stand by my comment. There are no enforceable lanes on cycle paths.
Not what you wrote though is
Not what you wrote though is it.
Don’t bother, Nic. You’ll
Don’t bother, Nic. You’ll just get the usual vicious attack dogs who prefer keeping these comments a reason-free, reality-free zone.
Telling people what the law actually is will not make you popular round here.
Steve K wrote:
The highway code stops where the road is.
— Steve K Well, that’s not true, for a start.— nicmason
As evinced the HWC advice on pedestrian attire, dogs on leads, and instructions for cyclists not to ride on the pavement.
Not that they take any bladdy notice….
You dont ride on many cycle
You dont ride on many cycle paths do you ?
I try to avoid them .Ii feel
I try to avoid them .Ii feel safer on the road. Many of those Cycle superhighways give a false sense of security and are confusing at side turnings.
nicmason wrote:
The EW Superhighway (the one in question here) runs from Parliament Square to Blackfriars without a single side turning; from thence to Tower Bridge there are three or four side turnings, each one light controlled. If you find that confusing perhaps riding a bicycle on public roads isn’t for you.
Unfortunate that you came up
Unfortunate that you came up against a clearly unhinged personality looking for an excuse for trouble. Luckily he wasn’t in charge of a motor vehicle. Only thing I would suggest is using an “On your right” before passing which cannot be mistaken for giving the other person an order. Of course using an American accent would then probably be enough to trigger the aggressive response or possibly having the wrong colour socks, or even insisting on spelling colour as ‘color’ or glancing at him a bit funny as you passed but whatever spurious reason I’m sure our resident Mr Mason would be along to tell you that was your fault in provoking him.
Not at all but good to know
Not at all but good to know the roadcc cabal are having a problem. Maybe shake you out of your cozy groupthinks.
nicmason wrote:
It genuinely confounds me why someone who clearly disagrees with the ethos of both the editorial staff and the overwhelming majority of readers and commenters on a website would keep coming back to it. It’s almost like you’re just pointlessly trying to annoy people and start arguments, someone’ll come up with a nickname for folks like you one day…
It troubles me that someone
It troubles me that someone would take it upon themselves to hound anyone with a different opinion and try to persuade them to stop commenting.
It’s a really problematic personality trait.
Rich_cb wrote:
True that. Why do you do it? Why do people like you and NM and NG continually come on here with no aim to discuss cycling but to bang on about extraneous political issues such as Brexit, or refugees, or your hatred of what you regard as “woke”, or how virtually every car driver is a saint and all cyclists are to blame for aggression towards them? You know what you’re playing at, and so does everyone else. Trolling is definitely “a really problematic personality trait.”
Thats fairly weird. I have
Thats fairly weird. I have never done any of those things. What I have done is disagree with viewpoints. TBH I dont care if you agree or disagree. And I dont see abusing the police as a “cycling discussion” though it very frequent on here. Its lazy thinking. .
What is lazy thinking is
What is lazy thinking is always defending the police no matter what the circumstances.
What’s your solution to the systemic failures of police forces? Why do certain forces fail to act whilst others do act?
You’re doing it once more.
If discussing the treatment of refugees below an article about, um, the treatment of refugees is problematic for you I would suggest it is you that has the problem.
I regularly post purely about cycling on this forum, if there are articles which contain an element of politics, a common occurrence, I am happy to discuss the politics involved.
You also seem happy to discuss politics, even on articles where there is only a tangential link. For some reason you see my behaviour as problematic but don’t see any issues with your own. Why is that?
Throughout history there have been those in human society who wish to aggressively impose conformity on society.
When we reflect on those periods of time do we judge those people well?
Perhaps that’s something you should consider as you reflect on your own behaviour on this forum.
I don’t think Rich_cb is at
I don’t think Rich_cb is at all a troll – he may get involved in lengthy discussions from time to time, but he’s most definitely posted interesting bike related stuff as well.
He’s definitely not a a troll
He’s definitely not a a troll. He presents clear arguments and is always polite and a lot of the time, people don’t have an answer !
I have only seen him argue about politics where it is the subject or closely linked to the topic. He also points out inconsistencies in approaches to allowing political comments or even editorial approaches.
Can’t quite remember the image he posted which was airbrushed from history, but it reminded me of
I tend to agree and there’s a
I tend to agree and there’s a few on here similar. The distinction is such a fine line though. Especially when people have abhorrent views on certain matters and they go on and on, regularly citing evidence contrary to their own claims. It looks like trolling even if it’s not their intention. I suppose feigning outrage or claiming they are being silenced/ attacked when people dare to challenge their (seemingly felt) superiority is a common reaction of both subsets of people, so it’s an understandable conclusion to draw.
I’d just stop digging.
I’d just stop digging.
If your annoyed thats not my
If your annoyed thats not my problem. IMO anyone who gets annoyed about comments in somewhere like this probably has a few issues they should deal with.
Classic baiting.
Classic baiting.
Perhaps people who bait have a few issues they should deal with.
not really . I have no
not really . I have no problem. If you want a forum where everyone agrees with you I suggest you all get together and set one up,. You can moderate it and expel anyone who disagrees with you. There are plenty of free portals for that sort of thing. I imagine it’ll be quite unstimulating.
That doesn’t follow at all
That doesn’t follow at all from what I put and you were baiting.
Where do I suggest I want a forum where everyone agrees with me?
a. i wasnt baiting.
a. i wasnt baiting.
b. that should have been a reply to Rendel Harris. sorry for that.
Ah, OK.
Ah, OK.
Agreed, since the incident I
Agreed, since the incident I have evaluated my behavior to help encounters not escalate in the future and your suggestion is already something I’ve done. Announce my presence rather than direct others.
Though with the guy in the video it’s unlikely it would have mattered. He was out to get someone and I just happened to be the unlucky one who approached him. My being a dirty foreigner probably set him off more.
mpr1991 wrote:
we don’t mind the accent, but please learn English spelling ?
Steve K wrote:
When I first moved here I tried. Honestly, I did. But then I came across “manoeuvre” [maneuver] and got irrationally angry at the level of ridiculousness so now I use my American spelling as a form of protest ?
mpr1991 wrote:
When I first moved here I tried. Honestly, I did. But then I came across “manoeuvre” [maneuver] and got irrationally angry at the level of ridiculousness so now I use my American spelling as a form of protest ?— mpr1991
Right, I’m siding with the ‘nutjob’ now 😉
(Seriously, though, what a horrible experience for you to go through.)
mpr1991 wrote:
Ha! Pritti Fascist will soon put paid to this protest nonsense….
I appreciate that “keep left”
I appreciate that “keep left” is more of a general guideline… But if you are going to drift over to the right isn’t it just common sense to shoulder check before you do so?
Im not 100% sure but I think
Im not 100% sure but I think if you are about to be attacked and you fear for your life. You are allowed to jump a red light to get away because that is an ‘extreme circumstance’
I know for certain if someone is coming to attack you but you pre-emptively strike him first in self defence — its legal. In most cases striking someone is a last resort. The main priority should be avoiding any confrontation and putting as much distance between you and your attacker for your own safety and hopefully diffusing the situation enough that it doesnt resort in fistycuffs or someone being stabbed.
“Im not 100% sure but I think
“Im not 100% sure but I think if you are about to be attacked and you fear for your life. You are allowed to jump a red light to get away because that is an ‘extreme circumstance'”
It’s an absolute offence, so your intentions don’t come into it; you’ve either done it or you haven’t. You never have any excuse – not even getting out of the way of an ambulance with blue lights and sirens going.
If the police don’t show discretion when prosecuting, you would be able to argue mitigating circumstances when it comes to sentencing, but you wouldn’t have any grounds for a not-guilty plea.
Sentence shouldn’t have been
Sentence shouldn’t have been suspended in the absence of a certified psychiatric diagnosis. Has he actually paid up for the damage to the bike?
No and honestly I’m not
No and honestly I’m not expecting anything. I had an insurance policy on the bike so I was paid out for it less than 10 days after the incident so at this point it’s just water under the bridge for me.
I’d be giving my insurance
I’d be giving my insurance company every encouragement to recover their losses from the perp. Both because insurance companies don’t in fact nurse their losses, they extract the money in premiums from all of us. And because you should not be paying to insure him against the cost of his own tantrums.
But that’s entirely down to
But that’s entirely down to the insurance company, isn’t it? Once they’ve paid out I don’t see what Mike could or should do to “encourage” them to reclaim their funds. I entirely agree that it’s crap that insurance companies tend lazily to up our premiums rather than chase the guilty, but that’s on them, not Mike, and in any case, unless Mike had a brand-new Dogma the cost of recovery would probably far exceed the cost of the payout, and the perpetrator doesn’t look to me like someone who’d have a lot of assets to seize anyway.
Yeah, I’m not expert on how
Yeah, I’m not expert on how it all works, and obviously it’s not on Mike, but I’m pretty sure insurance companies have loss recovery departments. Send them any assistance you can I guess, copy of the video? If he has no assets maybe they can apply for an attachment of his earnings? That might focus his mind over an extended period, as he pays off the cost of his behaviour. He needs to learn that he simply can not afford to trash someone’s bike.