Police in Dorset have launched an appeal for witnesses after a cyclist overtaking two other riders reportedly pushed one of them with his shoulder, sending him crashing to the ground.
The incident, which police are describing as an assault, happened at around 11.30 am on Dover Road in Stour Row near Shaftesbury on Sunday 21 February.
The victim, a man aged 49, sustained a back injury and police say that while the rider who had crashed into him did stop to offer his contact details, he was told to move on.
Police Constable Simon Rogers, of North Dorset police, said: “I am appealing for the cyclist to come forward so I can find out what exactly happened.
“I would also like to hear from anyone who has information about the cyclist involved.”
Anyone who saw the incident or has information is asked to contact Dorset Police on 101 quoting incident number 21:165 or the charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
21 thoughts on “Witness appeal as cyclist pushes another rider off bike”
So, he stopped and was told
So, he stopped and was told to move on. Move on by who?
bendertherobot wrote:
Move along you. Nothing to see here.
bendertherobot wrote:
Probably by the same blokes he got off their bikes… They might have felt a little stupid, as in, ‘What do do now? Accuse him? Have all of us wait for the police?’…
So…he overtook (badly)..
So…he overtook (badly)…stopped to presumably apologise and (definately) offer his contact details (as he presumably admitted fault)….was told to move on and now police are treating this as assault?!?!?
what the fucking fuck?
StoopidUserName wrote:
I’m guessing they are looking to sue him.
Amazing that police are
Amazing that police are describing this as an assault but refuse to countenance the idea of assault in the case of a motorist.
Fifth Gear wrote:
When I was run off the road they would not accept, at all, that one could use a vehicle to assault someone.
Under the counting rules
Under the counting rules (National Crime Recording Standard) supplied by the Govt if the lad who came off his bike said he had been assaulted then it gets crimed as an assault and we have to speak to the other party concerned. There is nothing to say it will go any further but we have to crime it.
However i can imagine the incident – rider gets knocked off and loses his temper telling other rider to fcuk off, which he does do despite his protestations of innocence.
As for the car assault post its not an assault as it comes under the road traffic act there is a big difference.
stumps wrote:
What is the big difference between using a car as a weapon compared to other weapons?
stumps wrote:
Yep a big difference, the legal system dishes out proper punishments for assault (when you don’t choose a vehicle as a weapon).
Why wouldn’t a collision between 2 vehicles on a road come under the road traffic act if they are both bicycles?
stumps wrote:
so why does a collision between two bikes not come under the road traffic act?
stumps wrote:
Interesting. What’s the legal prohibition for not charging a driver for an assault rather than one of the “motoring” offences.
Or, did you mean to say that the CPS might prefer to chare a motoring offence to another form of offence?
Do you mean that a car cannot fall within the defition of weapon?
The assault occurred when he
The assault occurred when he made contact with his body with the IP’s body, its got nothing to do with the bikes.
In simple terms under the road traffic act to be a motor vehicle it has to be “mechanically propelled” so that would include electric bikes but not a push bike.
There are sections where a pedal cycle is included in the road traffic act.
If people are actually interested there are numerous search results explaining it more fully.
stumps wrote:
Yet there are cycling offences which one might prefer to an assault investigation.
And road traffic offences which one might prefer to an assault investigation.
There’s no evidence here of an intent to do any specific thing. It would be odd if, once you assaulted someone, you then stopped for a chat.
I think what irks people is that this has been indentified as an assault rather than an investigation into the circumstances of an incident. Whereas motoring offences, road rage apart, don’t tend to be reported as such.
bendertherobot wrote:
stumps wrote:
In the UK, road rage can result in criminal penalties for assault or more serious offences against the person. The Public Order Act 1986 can also apply to road rage. Sections 4A and 5 of the 1986 Act prohibit public acts likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Section 4 also prohibits threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause a victim to believe that violence will be used against himself or another
I’m not mixed up. At this
I’m not mixed up. At this moment in time nothing in what the police have said states anything other than a collision occurred. What seems to be the case is that there’s more than they are saying. But in saying so little you do question why it’s automatic that this is being investigated as an assault rather than a road traffic offence. That’s what the other posters are getting at.
It’s also a little disheartening to see that he’s described as the “offending rider” without having been able to give his side of the story.
Now, back to that vehicle thing again. Are you sure you can’t assault someone with a vehicle?
Its an assault, the opening
Its an assault, the opening two lines are:
Police in Dorset have launched an appeal for witnesses after a cyclist overtaking two other riders reportedly pushed one of them with his shoulder, sending him crashing to the ground. –
So he’s used force to cause an injury to another. He hasn’t ridden his bike into the other one, he’s used his shoulder and its no different to him cycling along and using his hand to push him.
Read my last post – IF THE RIDER STATES HE HAS BEEN ASSAULTED…………
Here’s something else for you to read.
The law defines a reportable road traffic collision as an accident involving a mechanically-propelled vehicle on a road or other public area which causes:
Injury or damage to anybody – other than the driver of that vehicle,
Injury or damage to an animal- other than one being carried on that vehicle (an animal is classed as a horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog).
Damage to a vehicle – other than the vehicle which caused the accident.
Damage to property constructed on, affixed to, growing in, or otherwise forming part of the land where the road is.
So a pedal cycle is NOT a mechanically propelled vehicle so this is not a road traffic accident.
You appear to be a bit
You appear to be a bit confused. It’s not in dispute that they can investigate it as an assault. What’s in dispute is that the automatic assumption appears to be that is the case rather than any of the road traffic offences (not accidents) that might be available here. As I’ve said I’d imagine there’s more than they are saying, perhaps an altercation before, but it’s a case which reads rather unusually given that the “offending rider” stopped to discuss it.
Now, I’ve read that other bit, I’m not sure what you’re answering there, we’re going back to an earlier point, can you assault someone with a vehicle? And that’s quite important. If I were to be hit by a car and claim I’d been assaulted would the police follow my recommendation or just prefer it to be a road traffic “accident.”
Interesting distinction. Had
Interesting distinction. Had a head on accident with another cyclist on a shared use path last summer. Couldn’t tell you whether it was our bikes or bodies that first made contact. Seems that if it was bikes that would be a lesser offence than if we’d hit shoulder to shoulder – one is an offence against a person, the other is against property yet the outcome is the same – cuts, bruises, and bent bikes…
So from the article and
So from the article and subsequent discussion:
A cyclist is overtaken by another cyclist, is clipped, shoulder-to-shoulder, falls off their bike, and an assault charge is on the table.
A cyclist is overtaken by a driver at a significantly greater speed, is clipped, bumper-to-leg, falls off their bike, sustaining injuries, and the Road Traffic Act is on the table.
Is this usual? And the distinction is that it isn’t body-to-body contact, it’s 2-ton metal lump-to-body contact?
If so, I think this is why the police and CPS get it in the neck from posters on here, stumps.