Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Road rage driver convicted by own dashcam footage following altercation with two-abreast cyclists

Said he was reaching for some pies when he laid his hands on an 18-inch machete lying on the passenger seat

A Yorkshire motorist has admitted a public order offence after a video camera on his dashboard captured an angry confrontation with a cyclist on November 19 last year. 54-year-old farmer Raymond Goodsell reportedly submitted the footage to police himself, “to prove his point”.

The Harrogate Advertiser reports that Goodsell had been driving his Cherokee Jeep on the B6451 near Darley when he happened upon a group of cyclists riding two abreast.

He honked his horn as he approached and then overtook. The road is narrow and prosecutor Richard Holland said the cyclists felt he had passed too closely. One gave chase and pulled alongside when Goodsell stopped at a give-way line.

An angry exchange ensued. The cyclist at one point lashed out at the Jeep’s wing mirror, while Goodsell shouted “Do you want some?” as he put his hand on a large machete on the passenger seat.

Goodsell claimed that he had not been deliberately reaching for the 18-inch serrated Garza knife, but had in fact been attempting to prevent some pies lying next to it from falling off the seat.

The Crown accepted that he had the knife for work purposes and dropped a charge of having an offensive weapon after accepting that he did not pick it up or wield it. Holland did however say that the cyclist must have seen it, describing the incident as “certainly very frightening.”

The Crown also accepted that Goodsell had overtaken correctly and was driving at a “sensible speed” before the exchange.

Goodsell had a previous conviction for causing bodily harm by furious driving in 1994 – the same offence for which London fixed gear cyclist Charlie Alliston was recently convicted.

Judge Paul Worlsey QC told Goodsell: “Your behaviour was not forgivable. Your reaction was a very unattractive one and it’s (reactions) like that which can lead to violence.”

Goodsell was ordered to carry out 120 hours’ unpaid work and pay £250 costs.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

28 comments

Avatar
dee4life2005 | 6 years ago
7 likes

I thought that anything that could be used as a "weapon" (e.g. stanley knives, tools etc) had to be stored securely and out of reach ... i.e. in the boot. Having an 18inch machete within reach surely has to be an offence, especially as he was threatening the cyclists at that point. Whether he intended to use it as a weapon is surely irrelevant?

Avatar
andystow replied to dee4life2005 | 6 years ago
0 likes
dee4life2005 wrote:

I thought that anything that could be used as a "weapon" (e.g. stanley knives, tools etc) had to be stored securely and out of reach ... i.e. in the boot. 

Which is ironic at best, to have to store anything that can be used as a weapon in the boot of a 2-tonne "thing that can be used as a weapon."

Avatar
pockstone | 6 years ago
2 likes

'Really? I often tell drivers if they've a broken light or a flat tyre. The worst response I've had is a grunt, followed by a grudging, "Oh, thanks."'

People usually change their tune when they realise you're trying to do them a favour. Perhaps they're already feeling guilty about their driving when I give them a friendly wave or tap on the window? Some people however have a real reluctance to row back from their initial position of aggrievement.

Defendant above may be just such a person. I sometimes find that a quick google search can offer further insight into cases like these.

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to pockstone | 6 years ago
3 likes
pockstone wrote:

Some people however have a real reluctance to row back from their initial position of aggrievement.

I think this is a really important point. I think it applies to almost all of us at times. And we're especially reluctant to do it (i) on the spot, (ii) in front of the "accuser" (which would look like giving in), and (iii) if the discussion escalates into a loud "discussion" of who's a bigger c**t.

Sometimes a point needs to be made. Make it clearly and politely, and if they don't engage in kind, there's not much more you can - usefully - do.

Avatar
pockstone | 6 years ago
4 likes

Approaching drivers about defects etc. does seem to elicit responses ranging from astonishment to outright aggression, almost as if we have NO business addressing them in their precious vehicles. I've pointed out open doors, expensive looking frocks sticking out of doors, even flat (and I mean completely flat!) tyres that car occupants have been unaware of, and the initial stock response always seems to be that I'm trying to start a fight.

Drivers, eh!?

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to pockstone | 6 years ago
2 likes
pockstone wrote:

Approaching drivers about defects etc. does seem to elicit responses ranging from astonishment to outright aggression, almost as if we have NO business addressing them in their precious vehicles. I've pointed out open doors, expensive looking frocks sticking out of doors, even flat (and I mean completely flat!) tyres that car occupants have been unaware of, and the initial stock response always seems to be that I'm trying to start a fight.

Drivers, eh!?

 

Really? I often tell drivers if they've a broken light or a flat tyre. The worst response I've had is a grunt, followed by a grudging, "Oh, thanks."

It's worth taking note of the registration if you see a vehicle in obviously unroadworthy condition, with bald tyres or steering/chassis defects that mean it's crabbing down the road. Cross check the reg no with the DVLA website and you'll (not) be surprised to find that many old wrecks aren't up to date with VED or MOT. Once you know that, report the vehicle to the cops and there's a good chance it'll then be listed on the ANPR system so that some cops will pull it over. It's of note too that many old wrecks on the road are driven by driving offenders and/or low level criminals. There is a distinct correlation between driving offences, drug abuse and criminal behaviour.

Avatar
burtthebike | 6 years ago
3 likes

I wonder what would happen if a cyclist was to openly carry a 14" knife and grab it when being confronted by a ranting driver?  Immediate incarceration would be my guess.

Avatar
Grumpy17 replied to burtthebike | 6 years ago
2 likes
burtthebike wrote:

I wonder what would happen if a cyclist was to openly carry a 14" knife and grab it when being confronted by a ranting driver?  Immediate incarceration would be my guess.

More than likely.

However, you could happily carry one of these around with you and it would be unlikely to ever get you in trouble;

https://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/park-sr2-2-shop-sprocket-remover-chain-wh...

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Grumpy17 | 6 years ago
2 likes
Grumpy17 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

I wonder what would happen if a cyclist was to openly carry a 14" knife and grab it when being confronted by a ranting driver?  Immediate incarceration would be my guess.

More than likely.

However, you could happily carry one of these around with you and it would be unlikely to ever get you in trouble;

https://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/park-sr2-2-shop-sprocket-remover-chain-wh...

Especially if you ride a fixie and carry a different size sprocket.

Avatar
fenix | 6 years ago
1 like

So his driving was fine and it was Just his arguing with the cyclist that he's got all that community service for ?
The story in the paper makes it look like he overtook dangerously.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to fenix | 6 years ago
1 like

I usually find pointing out vehicle defects (like not having your lights on in the dark) is met with a slightly bewildered look, sometimes I get a thankyou though. My favourite is when I catch up to drivers at the next set of lights and ask if they are aware that what they just did was illegal/dangerous/both and they just say "Yeah" in complete apathy.

fenix wrote:

So his driving was fine and it was Just his arguing with the cyclist that he's got all that community service for ? The story in the paper makes it look like he overtook dangerously.

I'd suggest that if the cyclist(s) were aggrieved and felt they should have a word with him then his driving was not OK.

Avatar
SculturaD | 6 years ago
7 likes

Thought the law stated something like. You can carry a knife in your vehicle ect, if you have a justifiable reason to do so. But, said bladed implement should not be in plain view as to cause fear or alarm to others.

In other words, the crown not following the full letter of the law.

Avatar
mrchrispy replied to SculturaD | 6 years ago
10 likes
SculturaD wrote:

 In other words, the crown not following the full letter of the law.

The letter of the law doesnt come into it when vehicles are involved. 

Avatar
1961BikiE | 6 years ago
5 likes

Don't go bashing people's cars you're always going to come off worse. But honest. An 18" machete on the passenger seat. I accept he's a farmer but really. Let's hope he never has to do an emergency stop next time it's on the front seat. It would be terrible if it ended up inbedded in him. I hope someone warns him of the potential danger he's putting himself in.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
19 likes

This is why it pays to be nice to people. This whole "Do you want some?" incident could have ended up with the cyclists sharing some neatly cut slices of tasty pie.

 

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
2 likes
Mungecrundle wrote:

This is why it pays to be nice to people. This whole "Do you want some?" incident could have ended up with the cyclists sharing some neatly cut slices of tasty pie.

Indeed. You can make your point clearly and politely.

Ranting is just self-indulgence and ill-discipline. And counter-productive. What does it achieve? Just to make drivers more angry and hateful, forgetting the initial incident and not reflecting on their driving but more on what a c**t you are because you just called them a c**t. Great!

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet replied to Dnnnnnn | 6 years ago
7 likes
Duncann wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:

This is why it pays to be nice to people. This whole "Do you want some?" incident could have ended up with the cyclists sharing some neatly cut slices of tasty pie.

Indeed. You can make your point clearly and politely.

Ranting is just self-indulgence and ill-discipline. And counter-productive. What does it achieve? Just to make drivers more angry and hateful, forgetting the initial incident and not reflecting on their driving but more on what a c**t you are because you just called them a c**t. Great!

But if never confronted about their behaviour it normalizes it for them. Some people need to be told they're wrong, just make sure you're harder than them first!

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
2 likes
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Duncann wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:

This is why it pays to be nice to people. This whole "Do you want some?" incident could have ended up with the cyclists sharing some neatly cut slices of tasty pie.

Indeed. You can make your point clearly and politely.

Ranting is just self-indulgence and ill-discipline. And counter-productive. What does it achieve? Just to make drivers more angry and hateful, forgetting the initial incident and not reflecting on their driving but more on what a c**t you are because you just called them a c**t. Great!

But if never confronted about their behaviour it normalizes it for them. Some people need to be told they're wrong, just make sure you're harder than them first!

I agree and you should tell people they've done wrong, and why, particularly if they endanger you.

But if the point of telling them they're wrong is - presumably - to get them to accept that. Which I suspect they're less likely to do if you rant and rave.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Dnnnnnn | 6 years ago
5 likes
Duncann wrote:
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Duncann wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:

This is why it pays to be nice to people. This whole "Do you want some?" incident could have ended up with the cyclists sharing some neatly cut slices of tasty pie.

Indeed. You can make your point clearly and politely.

Ranting is just self-indulgence and ill-discipline. And counter-productive. What does it achieve? Just to make drivers more angry and hateful, forgetting the initial incident and not reflecting on their driving but more on what a c**t you are because you just called them a c**t. Great!

But if never confronted about their behaviour it normalizes it for them. Some people need to be told they're wrong, just make sure you're harder than them first!

I agree and you should tell people they've done wrong, and why, particularly if they endanger you.

But if the point of telling them they're wrong is - presumably - to get them to accept that. Which I suspect they're less likely to do if you rant and rave.

Some people will respond badly no matter what. I pulled alongside a van I'd been following this evening, politely told the driver that only one of his three brake lights was working; I figured he'd be pleased someone had told him (how else is he going to know?). But nooo- I just got a face full of abuse off him, apparently for daring to mention it: some people, eh?

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to brooksby | 6 years ago
1 like
brooksby wrote:
Duncann wrote:
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Duncann wrote:
Mungecrundle wrote:

This is why it pays to be nice to people. This whole "Do you want some?" incident could have ended up with the cyclists sharing some neatly cut slices of tasty pie.

Indeed. You can make your point clearly and politely.

Ranting is just self-indulgence and ill-discipline. And counter-productive. What does it achieve? Just to make drivers more angry and hateful, forgetting the initial incident and not reflecting on their driving but more on what a c**t you are because you just called them a c**t. Great!

But if never confronted about their behaviour it normalizes it for them. Some people need to be told they're wrong, just make sure you're harder than them first!

I agree and you should tell people they've done wrong, and why, particularly if they endanger you.

But if the point of telling them they're wrong is - presumably - to get them to accept that. Which I suspect they're less likely to do if you rant and rave.

Some people will respond badly no matter what. I pulled alongside a van I'd been following this evening, politely told the driver that only one of his three brake lights was working; I figured he'd be pleased someone had told him (how else is he going to know?). But nooo- I just got a face full of abuse off him, apparently for daring to mention it: some people, eh?

Yes, some people act like dicks. But that doesn't mean you should (I'm sure you didn't).

I've also occasionally told people about faulty lights, flatt-ish tyres, etc. They've always been fine with it, if usually a bit bemused.

Who knows, maybe that van driver felt a bit silly about his reaction later. OK, I'm being optimistic - but hopefully he remembered to check his lights (the important thing), rather than a shouting match.

Avatar
Pandashag replied to Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
4 likes
Mungecrundle wrote:

This is why it pays to be nice to people. This whole "Do you want some?" incident could have ended up with the cyclists sharing some neatly cut slices of tasty pie.

 

 

Yes indeed. i love pies

 

Avatar
Pandashag replied to Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
2 likes
Mungecrundle wrote:

This is why it pays to be nice to people. This whole "Do you want some?" incident could have ended up with the cyclists sharing some neatly cut slices of tasty pie.

 

 

Yes indeed. i love pies

 

Avatar
Zjtm231 replied to Mungecrundle | 6 years ago
1 like
Mungecrundle wrote:

This is why it pays to be nice to people. This whole "Do you want some?" incident could have ended up with the cyclists sharing some neatly cut slices of tasty pie.

Be nice to people who just nearly killed you?

 

Avatar
Grumpy17 | 6 years ago
19 likes

So the unprovoked aggressive driving (close pass accompanied by honking on horn)  went unpunished as did the rather questionable matter of him having a large knife close to hand while he was making the threats. All he was convicted of was the threat itself. Bit rubbish really.

 

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to Grumpy17 | 6 years ago
2 likes
Grumpy17 wrote:

So the unprovoked aggressive driving (close pass accompanied by honking on horn)  went unpunished as did the rather questionable matter of him having a large knife close to hand while he was making the threats. All he was convicted of was the threat itself. Bit rubbish really.

The prosecution accepted that the overtaking was OK and that he was entitled to have the knife, which he did not actually wield. 

Avatar
Grumpy17 replied to Dnnnnnn | 6 years ago
6 likes
Duncann wrote:
Grumpy17 wrote:

So the unprovoked aggressive driving (close pass accompanied by honking on horn)  went unpunished as did the rather questionable matter of him having a large knife close to hand while he was making the threats. All he was convicted of was the threat itself. Bit rubbish really.

The prosecution accepted that the overtaking was OK and that he was entitled to have the knife, which he did not actually wield. 

 

Yeah.Thanks.I read the article.

Rather the case here  that the prosecution weren't willing to prove otherwise by going ahead with a trial.

It's called  plea bargaining.

it is not a genuine reflection of the true facts of a case.

 

 

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to Grumpy17 | 6 years ago
2 likes
Grumpy17 wrote:
Duncann wrote:
Grumpy17 wrote:

So the unprovoked aggressive driving (close pass accompanied by honking on horn)  went unpunished as did the rather questionable matter of him having a large knife close to hand while he was making the threats. All he was convicted of was the threat itself. Bit rubbish really.

The prosecution accepted that the overtaking was OK and that he was entitled to have the knife, which he did not actually wield. 

Yeah.Thanks.I read the article.

Rather the case here  that the prosecution weren't willing to prove otherwise by going ahead with a trial.

It's called  plea bargaining.

it is not a genuine reflection of the true facts of a case.

Where does it say there was a plea bargain? There's more than one reason why you mightn't pursue a charge. Perhaps they just accepted that their case wasn't very strong? 

Avatar
Grumpy17 replied to Dnnnnnn | 6 years ago
4 likes
Duncann wrote:
Grumpy17 wrote:
Duncann wrote:
Grumpy17 wrote:

So the unprovoked aggressive driving (close pass accompanied by honking on horn)  went unpunished as did the rather questionable matter of him having a large knife close to hand while he was making the threats. All he was convicted of was the threat itself. Bit rubbish really.

The prosecution accepted that the overtaking was OK and that he was entitled to have the knife, which he did not actually wield. 

Yeah.Thanks.I read the article.

Rather the case here  that the prosecution weren't willing to prove otherwise by going ahead with a trial.

It's called  plea bargaining.

it is not a genuine reflection of the true facts of a case.

Where does it say there was a plea bargain? There's more than one reason why you mightn't pursue a charge. Perhaps they just accepted that their case wasn't very strong? 

 

Try reading the article linked to: <<< He appeared for what was due to be a trial at the Crown Court on Monday, but admitted the public-order offence before a jury was sworn in.>>>>

 

To enlighten you this means the prosecution accepted his guilty plea, in discussion before the trial, to the lesser offence of public order to avoid the need for a trial- This is called a plea bargain.Whether the local rag call it that or not is irrelevant, as that is what it is.
 

Latest Comments