A 67-year-old cyclist says he was left shaken after being pelted with cement by an angry worker accused of blocking a cycle lane in Edinburgh.
John Mitchell was cycling towards Potterrow from Nicholson Square, in the city’s Old Town, near the University of Edinburgh, when he was forced to slow down after noticing that the bike lane he was using was obstructed by a cement mixer.
Mitchell stopped to film the obstruction before asking one of the workers if they had permission to block the path.
After an angry confrontation, Mitchell says he started to cycle away when the worker threw a shovel full of cement at his back, plastering his jacket and parts of his Moulton bike.
“When I approached Potterrow from Nicholson Square it was all cornered off with no signs put up and there was a cement mixer blocking the road,” Mitchell told Edinburgh Live.
“As I headed into that section, the cement mixer was completely blocking the road and with the barriers up I couldn’t get out, so I stopped and got off to video it.
It’s actually Potterrow. I phoned the police as it was an assault pic.twitter.com/l8Hkf5rEzF
— John Mitchell (@john_auldtoon) February 8, 2022
“There was a couple of workmen in the restaurant and a big chap came out. I asked if they had permission and he said, ‘No and I don’t f****** care’, when I said that wasn’t on.
“I then told him I’d report it to the council and he replied in an aggressive manner, ‘do what you like.’ He was over six foot tall and built like a tenement block. I’m 67 and five foot six, so I decided to just leave it and got on my bike to cycle away,” he said.
“As I squeezed onto the pavement to cycle off, he threw a spade full of cement at me. I couldn’t believe it and said I’m phoning the police, to which he said again ‘phone who you f****** want.’ It’s outrageous so I phoned 999. I was concerned if he were to behave like that and hurt somebody else.
“There was a witness there, a young student who saw it and said that’s not okay. The police came around this morning [Wednesday] and took a statement.
“They said they are investigating but they might charge him with vandalism rather than assault, as assault has to show intent to harm.
“I was so shaken, I just went home. My bike and clothes are covered in cement. He covered me in it. It’s a wax jacket so I’m hoping it’ll brush off. Hopefully it will come off my old Moulton easily.”
According to Mitchell, police are now investigating both the worker and his employer, while the City of Edinburgh Council has also said that the matter has been passed to their roads team for further action.
74 thoughts on “Cyclist left shaken after being pelted with cement on Edinburgh bike path”
Chucking a spade of cement is
Chucking a spade of cement is obviously intended to cause harm – what other possible reason could there be? Vandalising the back of someone’s head?
To cause annoyance or to
To cause annoyance or to damage the victim’s clothes and bicycle? The quote above says “harm” but I believe the a more accurate statement is that assault has to cause “injury or fear of injury”. (https://crime.scot/assault/)
Now I can only imagine that having cement thrown at you is incredibly unpleaseant, but would you expect it to “injure” you? I’m not sure exactly what the threshold for “injury” in Scots law is, but I imagine it’s comparable to “Bodily Harm” in English law, which the CPS define as “any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim: such hurt need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling”. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
Reading the twitter thread,
Reading the twitter thread, there is a suggestion that the chemicals in it may cause harm.
“That’s pretty awful and potentially a great deal more hazardous than is obvious, cement is not a product to get anywhere near skin or face.”
“Concrete or mortar dosn’t matter it still contains cement which is caustic and can easily cause chemical burns if it gets on skin when wet… Which actually makes this assault fall under the same category as the acid attacks”
I’m not a chemist though
Fair enough – I didn’t
Fair enough – I didn’t realise cement was quite so dangerous!
I once spent all day filling
I once spent all day filling in a shed base with concrete. Must have been a couple of cubic meters of the stuff as it was on a steep slope. Though I was wearing gloves and a long sleeve shirt my wrists would get bits on them as I shoveled cement into the mixer. I didn’t notice until last thing at night. I had really painful burns across my wrists for 6 weeks and it took 3 months for the skin inflammation to die down.
on a professional site not having full PPE when messing with concrete/cement will get you fired.
OnYerBike wrote:
From https://www.healthline.com/health/concrete-burns
The pH scale is a measure of how acidic or basic a substance is on a scale of 1 to 14. A pH of 1 means it’s a strong acid, a pH of 7 means it’s neutral, and a pH of 14 means it’s a strong base. The natural pH of skin, on average, is 4.7. Substances on the high or low end of the scale can cause chemical burns that damage your skin.
Chemicals in wet cement react with sweat and water molecules in your skin and produce ions made of an oxygen and hydrogen molecule. These molecules dissolve proteins and collagen fibers. They also break down fats and dehydrate cells.
The longer wet cement touches your skin, the longer it reacts with water molecules and the worse your burn becomes. In an older 2007 study, researchers reviewed cases of cement burn injuries at St James’s Hospital in Dublin, Ireland between the years 1996 to 2005. They found that the average time of exposure for people admitted to the burn unit was 60 minutes.
Feel free to search for cement burn pictures – they look horrific though they’re usually associated with long exposure times. It’s perfectly feasible that some cement gets caught in John’s collar which could then lead to significant discomfort. In terms of intent, throwing significantly caustic substances is surely an intent to cause harm.
Wet cement contains calcium
Wet cement contains calcium hydroxide which can cause serious burns on unprotected skin, up to a level needing skin grafts to repair them. Anyone used to working with cement would know this; on my inglorious forays into building site work when I was a student even the most blase, health and safety’s all bollocks merchants would warn you to be careful to keep covered up. Given that the assailant would have been taught this on his training it should definitely be regarded as an attempt to injure, in my opinion.
I agree, I am unsure if
I agree, I am unsure if Scotland is covered by the Health and Safety executive or if it is just E&W, but this incident needs drawing to their attention. Cement is a hazadous material and will come with a COSSH data sheet, the assailant would be aware if this and throwing the cement could potentially have entered his eyes should he have turned. The police need to reconsider their charge and place it back to one of assault.
Little thought experiment.
Little thought experiment.
Throw a shovel full of cement at a police office, would you expect to be charged with vandalism?
That would depend on if they
That would depend on if they had any concrete evidence
They’d never make it stick.
They’d never make it stick. You can’t build a case on that.
ktache wrote:
I don’t know, but I do know what you’re charged with if you throw Domestos over a constable:
Bleach of the police.
eburtthebike wrote:
A tip of the helmet to you! Although I just can’t see how the concepts of “police” and “whitewashing” could sit together.
Could claim that he was
Could claim that he was fearful this was a mafia hit. Aren’t they big on covering folks in concrete?
OnYerBike wrote:
depends if any ends up going down his neck, instead of just on the bck of his clothes
https://www.healthline.com/health/concrete-burns#how-to-treat-concrete-burns
Concrete is pretty dangerous stuff and not to be taken lightly around exposed skin
The company information for
The company information for Domus Joinery and Building Projects is interesting.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC616092/filing-history
The current incarnation of the company was formed in 2018. It’s sole director is Jenifer Hamilton who has listed her occupation as “social worker”.
Meanwhile the company webpage claims it was started and is run by Ian Hamilton from 2016 onwards – and his LinkedIn profile says the same.
There’s presumably a reason Mr Hamilton claims to be the owner whilst it’s actually set up legally to give the appearance of being run by someone else – possibly his spouse.
Others will I’m sure be able to fill in the gaps.
It could just be random
It could just be random coincidence but it isn’t the first company a person with the spelling ‘Jenifer’ has been a director of at some stage that has ‘Domus’ in its name, they also appear to have been born in the same month.
open_roads wrote:
Jenifer is listed as sole director, sole shareholder, and sole ‘person with significant control’, and the company’s accounts say that they have 1 employee.
However, if Ian Hamilton actually tends to run things and Jenifer tends to do what he says, then he should be listed as a person with significant control “having other significant influence” regardless of his not being a director or shareholder.
You know, that’s the sort of omission that ought to be notified to Companies House…
As someone who’s had to spend
As someone who’s had to spend a bit of time digging about Companies House records for work I can safely say
To be fair to the Companies
To be fair to the Companies House people this is entirely the fault of their masters who set the rules. Or rather they don’t, they don’t provide resources to detect – let alone do something about – people recording nonsense with CH or indeed just not bothering to. Our politicians do provide clear direction here though. It’s totally clear that the last thing we want is to cause any trouble to money coming into this country. Or influential folks within the UK squirrelling it away.
IAF they do seem to be
IAF they do seem to be (finally) cracking down a bit of late. We’ve had several letters come in here relating to clients or former clients querying what’s been declared as the PSCs.
Yeah – though it’s a bit like
Yeah – though it’s a bit like the school setting a policy of pupils marking their own homework and then deciding it needs to try to avoid plagarism and everyone getting full marks. So they decide to have an occasional check up where they ask “is this your own work? Is this mark correct?” – but always accept the pupil’s answer. On some of their forums you can sense the incredulity – especially from people outside the UK. Here’s an official register but which has no investigatory powers and there’s barely any validation of individual fields of data, never mind checks on whether that bears any relation to reality. (Yes you can report a few things here and insolvency/unfitness to direct is dealt with).
You probably know of plenty but Graham Barrow’s blog has some interesting comment.
On the other hand just from the data point of view keeping a reasonably simple record for over 100 years [ 00034786 RC000830 ] when culture changes, the rules change, the laws change, even countries change shape, name and indeed existence is always going to be an interesting exercise!
chrisonatrike wrote:
I share your pain 😀
Done for tax purposes.. good
Done for tax purposes.. good luck with reporting your suspicions.
I have no idea of the
I have no idea of the intricacies of Scottish common law, but in E&W there absolutely doesn’t need to be any intent; intent is only required for GBH/wounding.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/news/item/assault-offences-explained/
Why didn’t Mr Mitchell simply
Why didn’t Mr Mitchell simply cycle or walk around the temporary obstruction without causing a fuss? That would have cost him a second or two rather than the hours spent complaining and cleaning his gear. The workman was just trying to earn a living.
Perhaps he was not just
Perhaps he was not just thinking about himself, but the nuisance to other legitimate users of the lane including school children?
It is telling that the builder blocked the bike lane, not the pavement.
IanMSpencer wrote:
or the road
Why didn’t the workman simply
Why didn’t the workman simply park in the vehicle lane? The one made for vehicles… that would be fine as he is simply trying to earn a living
Great precedent, let’s allow
Great precedent, let’s allow anyone to block the cycle lane as long as they’re earning a living. Cement mixers in the cycle lane? No problem, they’re just earning a living. Delivery vans and taxi drop offs in the cycle lane? No problem, they’re just earning a living. Market traders’ stalls in the cycle lane…
Good for Mr M for standing up to a violent bully and for the principle that cycle lanes are to be kept clear for cyclists. Already in some parts of London numerous tradespeople are starting to block cycle lanes willy-nilly whenever it’s convenient for them and pushing riders out into the road – where of course other commercial drivers yell at them for not being in the cycle lane. People should cause a fuss.
Your post implies that basically the cyclist deserved, as a 5’6″ pensioner, to have a much larger, younger, man attack him with potentially hazardous substances because he refused to let the bully have his own way.
Why didn’t the workman
Why didn’t the workman apologise and move his mixer. It wouldn’t have taken in him long and would have saved in hours in police, council, HSE discussions that he will now be having
Also various infringements
Lack of signs as required by law – Chapter 8 Traffic signs manual Works on/using the highway also require a licence from Council.
Offending per #Section95 #RoadsSc1984 soiling the road with cement
No H&S plan for COSSH
But hey, he was earning a living so we’ll let him off. Who needs all that red tape to keep the public safe ?
Would the same workman have
Would the same workman have placed the mixer on the carriageway if there was no cycle lane? Whether he placed it on the pavement or the road he would have been blocking progress. Even with that there’s no guarantee he would remove spilt concrete once done. The builder could of course done it the old fashioned way and mixed by hand inside the building.
Reading the article it doesn
Reading the article it doesn’t see like Mr Mitchell caused a fuss. He filmed this, asked a question and said he’d report this to the council. He then went on his way. Sounds like the builders got bolshy and then assaulted him.
I’d say it was assault because cement can definitely cause injury just by sitting on you. Plus having a shovel-full would be a few kilos of material flung at you. At the very least you’ve possibly written off some property (damage to clothes / bike).
Unfortunately it’s very common for people to deposit their property on footways and cycle tracks / paths – or use this for their commercial gain or private projects. You can of course go round it – more or less conveniently. Maybe much less conveniently if you’re old / disabled, occasionally not at all. You may be forced into the road. That may be difficult (high kerb which may be impassible in a wheelchair). And aside from the normal risk of being in the road it might well be a specifically dangerous place to move into the traffic.
So in this case the workman makes his wage, the builder gets his fee, someone has their property improved, but it’s at everyone else’s inconvenience and possibly increased risk.
Let’s all choose to look the
Let’s all choose to look the other way and leave it up to a pensioner with a sense of pride to stand up to some arsehole with sense of entitlement.
Vigilante action is never a
Vigilante action is never a good idea; report to the relevant authority.
It’s not really vigilante
It’s not really vigilante action though – that involves a decision on guilt, enforcement and retribution. Hangman, judge and Judy, that kind of thing.
The victim merely asked the perpetrator not to continue with his bad behaviour.
TheBillder wrote:
Spot on, I am so bored with people saying a cyclist reporting an offence – or simply asking others to stop committing an offence – is “vigilante action.” Vigilante action is taking the law into one’s own hands and meting out punishment to malefactors, not acting to report or point out to others transgressions of the law. I’d like to live next door to some of these people (well I wouldn’t, but just for this purpose): “Sorry mate, I saw your house being burgled but because I know you don’t like ‘vigilante action’ I didn’t try to stop them, film them or call the police, I knew you’d approve.”
We’ve already explained to
We’ve already explained to you the meaning of vigilantism in other threads. Please don’t make us repeat ourselves.
giff77 wrote:
You can say that again!
No need – you just did it for
No need – you just did it for them.
Joeinpoole wrote:
You seem to suggest that he was preventing the workmen from earning a living (he didn’t, they will be paid anyway), and that the workman was justified in slinging a load of concrete at him (they weren’t, with no need for a qualifier)
Whether the workmen were operating reasonably or not is moot, but abuse and assault/vandalism is not an acceptable response in this situation.
The company is operating for a profit. Ensuring that their operation minimises inconvenience in the public space, and adheres to regulations and good practice needs to be costed into their model. It’s not the public’s responsibility to ensure this happens.
Edinburgh, this morning. We
Edinburgh, this morning. We have a road that’s been designated as part of a “cycle route” where traffic calming is in place – so regular build-outs to narrow the road to a single lane. Bypasses for bikes. Non-mandatory cycle lanes. Just before a build-out I find Stellar Cleaning Services window-cleaner parked in the cycle lane. Bearing in mind this is not illegal (because non-mandatory lane…) it however hides me from on-coming traffic (the build-out block is on the right side here). You can just see the sign at left showing that I’ve priority at the narrowing / build-out.
I caused no fuss and just went around after taking pictures. This is absolutely standard though. Ultimately the road design and “culture” are the issue. My beef is if we actually want “normal people” (e.g. most people) to cycle we need to sort this. Otherwise you’re taking them for fools – they’ll sensibly not want to do this multiple times every trip.
A mile or so further on –
A mile or so further on – slightly different type of blockage but similar idea. Again – no-one’s doing anything illegal, it’s not as bad as a hole in the road or as dangerous as routing bikes around HGVs. Having this constantly repeated just makes cycling feel less save and much less convenient. Plus it’s effectively a design mistake that we’ve all paid for. Failure to think it through – it’s “professional amateurism”.
Anyway I don’t bother to note these normally as it’s so normal.
chrisonatrike wrote:
— chrisonatrikeIt is illegal, it’s obstructing the highway.
I had the same about ten years ago, but the perpetrator had a caravan on his drive with the same reg, so I knocked on his door at 0700 when I was trying to ride to work, and asked him to move it because it was causing an obstruction, or I would be forced to report it to the police, which he did. About six months later I found out he was a policeman.
Surely in the same way as it
Surely in the same way as it’s unconscionable that politicians could break the law – they just make it – the police can never do anything illegal?
I can see this whole “optimism” thing will take more effort than I thought.
Have one of these at a
Have one of these at a roundabout exit by Glasgow Airport. I think the plan was to allow you to circumnavigate the roundabout without stopping. People now seem to use it as a parking bay. ? There’s no way this is encouraging infra for new cyclists.
giff77 wrote:
Sadly this is self-fulfilling e.g. we notice there are no cyclists, so to get some we put in cheap interventions. We can’t find money or will to do it properly – because there are no cyclists. Because the interventions are poor and don’t form a network you get no more cyclists. Because there are no cyclists drivists think “what a waste, I might as well use it”. So you end up with no cyclists.
It’s hard to break that cycle because if money is found and the will to do something properly it’s almost inevitable that this only stretches to doing it in one place. So as this doesn’t link up to other routes you still get few takers because no-one wants to brave the roads to get there.
Although they’re definitely “second class” when compared to The Netherlands I think models like Sweden / Denmark or maybe better Seville point the way. They’ve created a network. Yes – it’s not going everywhere yet, some of it’s pretty poor and they still have tons of space for cars. However although compromised it feels like it’s been designed by people who cycle. My rant about the new Edinburgh stuff is basically that it doesn’t. It feels like it was designed by someone who had certainly seen some good cycle infra but not actually ridden on any.
So maybe the way is to get as much money as possible but spread it a little more wide and thin. It’s important to set a minimum standard (no paint-only stuff, no “sign it better”, no posts in the middle of the cycle path). But in the interests of getting a coherent network maybe that can be low. So ugly and a bit bumpy is OK, concrete blocks and slaps of tarmac are OK. Make a network – even if it doesn’t cover the whole town / city. Address the junctions first – those are the real “road blocks” for both convenience and feeling safe. It should be possible to get pedestrians on-side here too!
Joeinpoole wrote:
My partner (not a cyclist) has suffered verbal abuse at the hands of a “workman” that was just trying to earn a living….. Why?
Because they asked a van driver who was parked blocking the pavement, preventing an elderly gentleman in a mobility scooter from being able to pass the vehicle, to move their van to let the elderly gentleman past. My partner passed the van on their way to the shop and passed the elderly gentleman a little further up the road. Despite it being clear that the elderly gentleman wanted past the “poor hard working van driver” completely ignored them for at least 10 minutes before my partner returned. Given that it was November and was cold, wet and windy (and the scooter was not a covered scooter) it wasn’t a place where I would be wanting to sit for 10 minutes, let alone a pensioner.
To make things worse this was about 50m away from the location where an elderly gentleman had been killed crossing the road less than 7 days earlier.
So I really don’t buy the “just trying to earn a living” excuse
TriTaxMan wrote:
Perhaps “hard pressed”?
At 67, I’d say he’s retired..
At 67, I’d say he’s retired.. he’s got nothing better to do than confront angry workmen; but seriously, don’t be a cycling Mikey type and confront people about infractions.. take discrete video and later report to the relevant authority and/or employer.
Builders and roads.
Builders and roads.
I reported the builder of this house:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oxV8WKW1L8cbKRKc6
Note that when finished he parked a Range aRover on the drive. I pointed out to the planning committee that the drive was not a turning area as presented in the plans and the sarcastic response from the councillors was that the owners would just have to buy a small car – a very strange attitude.
The builder got a visit from health and safety over site safety, his workers balanced on top of half built walls over an open cellar – one and a half storey drop – but he also set up a trestle in the highway and vehicles had to simply drive around his heap of wood and tools for a couple of weeks.
“There was a witness there, a
“There was a witness there, a young student who saw it and said that’s not okay. The police came around this morning [Wednesday] and took a statement.
“They said they are investigating but they might charge him with vandalism rather than assault, as assault has to show intent to harm.
“I was so shaken, I just went home. My bike and clothes are covered in cement. He covered me in it. It’s a wax jacket so I’m hoping it’ll brush off. Hopefully it will come off my old Moulton easily.”
This is bizarre, he’s talking about the incident of the previous day and hoping the cement comes off, he should have cleaned it off as soon as he got home. Of course then the police would not even charge with vandalism due to lack of evidence.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I hope he sues the company for the damage to his Moulton and jacket and any possible rehabilitation (e.g. spa days) to help him get over the incident.
wycombewheeler wrote:
He says himself that he was badly shaken, quite understandably; people don’t always act rationally when they’ve had a shock.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Meanwhile another cyclist got jealous. “Cement? What I wouldn’t give for a shovelfull of cement. Luxury…”
bicycle? luxury; in my day, I
bicycle? luxury; in my day, I had to carry cement and bricks on my back!
Is this a Scottish law thing?
Is this a Scottish law thing?
In England, assault includes simply believing you were going to hit, there does not actually have to be physical contact.
On the Twitter thread, you
On the Twitter thread, you can see the number plate on one of the vans is SK20 YYE which is currently untaxed
You’d have thought they would
You’d have thought they would have remedied that by now !
hirsute wrote:
Oops – I just dropped a cup on my keyboard and it somehow reported an untaxed vehicle to the DVLA
hawkinspeter wrote:
Buy that cup a coffee!
hawkinspeter wrote:
Thats rather unfortunate.
giff77 wrote:
It’s okay – the cup was empty and there’s no damage done to the keyboard
Venn diagram of:
Venn diagram of:
-Entitled arseholes who take the space made available to others because… well just because
-Defensive arseholes who explode with violence when their shortcomings are pointed out
-Exploitative arseholes who evade tax and use deception to get round laws designed to protect people
-Hypocritical arseholes, the ones that will scream at people to get out of the road, accuse various ‘others’ of not adhering to laws, the ones that are belligerent in claims that their taxes are being misspent on things they don’t approve of.
Well done on the guy for asking a reasonable question, and a shame that he was assaulted for it. My first thought was that I might have called the non-emergency number but that’s easy for me to say when I’m far younger and haven’t just been attacked by some unstable arsehole
Sounds like aggregated
Sounds like aggregated assault to me.
Does that make them a
Does that make them a hardcore criminal?
mdavidford wrote:
Stop hoggin the thread…
I think it’s a cover-up and
I think it’s a cover-up and as a scottish resident I won’t have you harling accusations about.
No, but if he goes to prison
No, but if he goes to prison he will be mixing with some hardcore types.
Mungecrundle wrote:
There’s mortar this than meets the eye.
Just hope when the police
Just hope when the police come knocking this thug will be bricking it…
eburtthebike wrote:
Well, all the evidence is pointing to it…
Captain Badger wrote:
Certainly from what’s been cobbled together here.
He was shaken,not stirred..
He was shaken,not stirred..