Sussex Police are seeking a cyclist who may have witnessed a £53,000 Mercedes being damaged in a road rage incident.
The female cyclist, pictured above, wearing a pink high-viz jacket, was thought to be in the area when a vehicle pulled out in front of the valuable car.
The Mercedes driver sounded his horn, which prompted an incident in which four nearside panels of the car were damaged.
It all happened in Preston Drove, Brighton, at around 4.15pm on Friday March 3rd.
It is thought that the cost of repairs may run into four figures.
The force said: “It is believed that the cyclist shown may have important information and police have asked for her to contact them.”
Officers have asked her or anyone who knows who she is to contact them by calling101 quoting serial 913 of March 3.
Alternatively contact Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.
33 thoughts on “Do you recognise this cyclist?”
A tin box has been damaged.
A tin box has been damaged. Quick, pull out all the stops!
this is the worst cycling
this is the worst cycling quiz I’ve ever seen!
is it Jess Varnish’s mum?
Looks like a canny gradient.
Looks like a canny gradient.
bstock wrote:
No shortage of those in Brighton!
I’ve been meaning to try and put together a Pittsburgh-dirty-dozen type event thing in Brighton for a while ….. would be fun I reckon.
Seems like a bit of an
Seems like a bit of an invasion of privacy. If she’d wanted to come forward she would have done and now the Police have plastered her photo, without her permission, online even though she’s not guilty or accused of anything.
Click bait if ever I saw it!
Click bait if ever I saw it!
That said, it seems that damaging an expensive vehicle is taken somewhat more seriously than driving dangerously around cyclists and pedestrians.
No helmet, just saying…
No helmet, just saying…
merckxman1 wrote:
…….or disc brakes.
Is it ?
Is it
?
Is dash cam footage of the
Is dash cam footage of the incident not enough, they also need a witness?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Dashcam records what is in front,if you read the article it states that 4 near side panels were damaged, so the alleged incident would have been behind and to the left of the camera, so yes the police will want independent witnesses.
No helmet.
No helmet.
Rim brakes.
Looks pretty angry about something.
Is it SuperPython?!
The cyclist is only a witness
The cyclist is only a witness, so why is her picture shared without her consent? Invasion of privacy? Or is she actually accused of something?
I actually think road.cc should remove this picture.
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:
They (roadcc) also posted it to twitter, so that’s it now. It’s out there and it’s never coming back.
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:
If they could have asked for her consent, they wouldn’t have needed to share her picture in the first place! It’s not an invasion of privacy to share a picture of someone in a public place and if she comes forward to ask them to not share it, then there would be no need to share it anymore.
The police have reason to believe that she witnessed the criminal damage incident, so they’re doing their job in trying to find out what she saw. She’s not being accused or defamed at all and cycling websites are a logical place to look for cyclists.
hawkinspeter wrote:
The headline and the tweet text are: “Police appeal: Do you recognise this cyclist?”, plus the photos.
I’m pretty sure many casual readers get the impression she’s suspected of a crime, not just a possible witness, as the police don’t normally look for witnesses with such an image.
In fact the press release on the Sussex Police website does not even mention the word “witness”, and it is far from clear what her involvement is, the text can also be read that she was the person who smashed the windows. The main news page shows her photo with the text: “Mercedes damaged in suspected Brighton road rage incident. Police want to speak to a cyclist in connection with a suspected road rage incident in Brighton in which a car was damaged.”
I find it very misleading and worrying to use the picture in this way, if she is only a witness.
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:
the sussex police page is under the heading of witness appeals and does mention another vehicle involved – so it does seem she is only a witness at this stage
beezus fufoon wrote:
Sorry, no. Being listed there just means they are looking for witnesses who saw this woman or the incident, not that she is only wanted as witness. The Sussex Police Police Website lists under “witness appeal” also “Search for burglars who made off..”, “Man who has been acting suspiciously is being sought..” and “Schoolgirl confronted by man”, where clearly these persons are not sought as witnesses.
Nothing in the actual text says she is a witness, and there is no mention that the driver of the other vehicles did anything other than pull out. The text can also be understood that the Mercedes driver sounded the horn at the other car, upon which the cyclist thought it was directed at her, got angry and smashed the windows.
In any case, if you are correct and she is only wanted as witness, then publishing the photo with this text is quite worrying, as it can easily damage her reputation.
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:
yes, I agree it isn’t very clear.
this part however, seems a bit of a leap on your part, with an added judgement tacked on.
“Police appeal after £53k
“Police appeal after £53k Mercedes damaged in road rage attack”
What is the lower limit whereby police show no interest?
dodgy wrote:
wheels, 2
I think this lady hs a case
I think this lady hs a case to answer for… I wouldn’t be surprised if she didn’t incite the road rage incident in the first place.
The police want to speak to her, so there is clearly something she is hiding.
…I think the above is how it works these days isn’t it?
Oh, I forgot… I’ll respect her privacy the day she starts paying road tax… and insurance.
Is the valuable car expected
Is the valuable car expected to survive?
This article is a true WTF.
This is the kind of article I
This is the kind of article I read, get to the comments section, and have no idea what to say.
Just…the police priorities to make an appeal for criminal damage when PEOPLE GET KILLED AND THEY DO FUCK ALL. Or permanently disfigured AND THEY DON’T EVEN CHARGE THE FUCKERS.
Yet they make an appeal about this.
FFS.
Really?
Twats.
Forget the value of the car.
Forget the value of the car. The police are rightly trying to catch a violent maniac who has trashed someone’s car. Not just a flip out, 4 panels. That’s a sustained attack and was probably very frightening for the victim.
Frankly this woman should have contacted the police on her own. Too many people these days are too selfish and stand by and watch people in trouble
Trickytree1984 wrote:
Sounds like you have some information: have you contacted Plod yet?
Unless, that is, your post is complete speculation about a violent maniac and a sustained attack.
Trickytree1984 wrote:
If we’re going to go for wild and reckless speculation, then I’d imagine the owner of the 53K Merc is a member of the same Lodge as the local chief constable and that’s why there’s such interest in the incident…
Trickytree1984 wrote:
See, I knew it… I knew it was the cyclists fault.
There should be a national an hunt for lycra l-witch… when we catch her we should jail her for at least 10 years for obstructing the police.
That would be one less on the roads if nothing else.
Horn should not be used as a
Horn should not be used as a rebuke.
I’m surprised this hasn’t
I’m surprised this hasn’t appeared on the Mail on Line site with a disingenuous ‘Police seek woman cyclist after she damages car ‘ title.
I called them to tell them I
I called them to tell them I had no idea who the woman was, but that I’d quite happily even out the damaged merc by putting dents in all the panels so they did at least match…
ungrateful bastards weren’t impressed
Be a witness against a four
Be a witness against a four panel nutter who knows your commute route?
No, I’d steer well clear, let the car insurance deal with it.
A crime of property against a
A crime of property against a car driver, where do I sign up to put myself at risk of personal injury against a proven nutter who now has my picture and drives the way i ride home?
FFS