Police in Bristol have launched an appeal for information after a cyclist allegedly hit a van driver over the head with a bike lock last month.
The incident, which is being treated as suspected grievous bodily harm, happened on Foxcroft Road at the junction of Whitehall Road on Tuesday December 18 at around 12.40pm.
According to Avon & Somerset Constabulary, after a collision involving the van and bicycle, the driver got out of his vehicle and was then hit over the head by the cyclist with a bike lock.
The cyclist then rode off towards St George Park, and the victim believes a bystander may have chased after him on foot.
In an appeal, please said: “The victim believes that a bystander may have chased the cyclist on foot. Were you in the area at the time? Did you witness this assault? Were you the man who tried to help by chasing the cyclist?”
Anyone who has information is asked to call police on 101 quoting reference number 5218279076 and ask to speak to PC 313 Richichi, or the charity Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555111.
44 thoughts on “Police seek cyclist who allegedly hit van driver over head with bike lock”
…and so it begins
…and so it begins
Quote:
Be nice if incidents of drivers who hit bike riders over their head with their van were treated in the same way.
slappop wrote:
Be nice if incidents of drivers who hit bike riders over their head with their van were treated in the same way.
This
slappop wrote:
Be nice if incidents of drivers who hit bike riders over their head with their van were treated in the same way.
I know I should really deplore all acts of road violence.
However having been victim of so many casual acts of violence in London by drivers including being hit delibrately going to the old bailey with video evidence and two witnesses and the driver getting off then all I can think here is well done that man…..
Quote:
Surely it’s careless cycling and the ‘culprit’ should be sent on a cycling awareness course…
alansmurphy wrote:
Careless D-lock waving. Needs to be sent on a safe D-lock-use course. Run in the room next to the knife-safety course.
“In an appeal, please said:”
“In an appeal, please said:”
PolicePlease get some proof readers.The police will have a few
The police will have a few prime suspects off this forum.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I’d suspect myself as St George’s Park is just a bit more than a stone’s throw from my house. However, I don’t carry a D-Lock – they always seem to get dirty with bits of matted hair and blood on them.
HawkinsPeter wrote:
I see from your post that your refer to throwing stones. Clearly not a stranger to violence. When a driver gets stoned by a cyclist then we’ll know who it was.
I’d love to hear the cyclist
I’d love to hear the cyclist’s version of events; I’ll bet it’s rather different to the van driver’s.
As Slappop says, assault with a motor vehicle isn’t assault in the eyes of the law, but defending yourself with a D-lock is.
I’d love to hear the cyclist
Double post. There are so many of these, perhaps we need a delete button as well as an edit?
Reminds me of this gem
Reminds me of this gem
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-42661262
“Thought you were a bloke”
Perhaps the sun was in the
Perhaps the sun was in the cyclists eyes ? Smdsy ?
Driver would have been unhurt
Driver would have been unhurt if they had worn a helmet
Also no reference to the van
Also no reference to the van drivers Hiviz or helmet, so what does he expect ? Sound like his own fault to me.
I expect the cyclist
I expect the cyclist temporarily blacked out and fell forwards whilst holding a lock which had fallen off in the collision.
So, the poor hard-pressed
So, the poor hard-pressed driver got out of his vehicle and was then hit with a d-lock by the cyclist. I would be willing to bet that there’s a piece of the narrative missing… Before the usual suspects surface, I’m not saying all drivers are evil and all cyclists are saints – I just don’t think we’re seeing the whole story.
Sounds like someone was happy
Sounds like someone was happy to try and dish it out, a bit less happy to be on the receiving end.
#Mummy
Ooh – I think it’s triggered
Ooh – I think it’s triggered the loonies of Bristol!!
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/cyclist-attack-motorist-road-rage-2392174
lllnorrislll wrote:
I’ll have you know that we’re not all loonies despite the evidence.
*shakes head at BristolPost comment section whilst donning my squirrel suit*
HawkinsPeter wrote:
I’ll have you know that we’re not all loonies despite the evidence.
*shakes head at BristolPost comment section whilst donning my squirrel suit*
— lllnorrislll
I do believe squirrels and nuts have a slight affinity!
lllnorrislll wrote:
“Cyclists could never own the road. Considering they cannot afford a car, what chance have they got of ever owning the road.”
hirsute wrote:
“Cyclists could never own the road. Considering they cannot afford a car, what chance have they got of ever owning the road.”
— lllnorrislll
Well, I could easily afford a car (my bike cost more than a decent 2nd hand one), but having never learnt to drive, I don’t really see the point.
Also, I wouldn’t even know where to buy a road from.
HawkinsPeter wrote:
Well, I suppose the tail would get in the way.
hirsute wrote:
Surprisingly, no it doesn’t.
HawkinsPeter wrote:
Ah, a fellow ‘golden’ cyclist. Welcome.
lllnorrislll wrote:
Well, I read all of those comments; dirty job but someone’s got to do it. Now I’m embarrased to admit that I’m Bristolian. The level of stupidity, ignorance and bias is staggering.
Still, it’s a web page so they could be from anywhere I suppose.
If he managed to ride off,
If he managed to ride off, the bike cannot have been too damaged.
Funny that the police said it
A collision between a van and a bicycle? Seems more likely it was a van driven into a person!? Was this not then followed by a collision between a van driver and a d-lock?
Oops Hawkinspeter – I think
Oops Hawkinspeter – I think my post might have been taken wrong, werent having a dig, just trying to have a bit of banter. I love squirrels – even the greys!!
lllnorrislll wrote:
Not at all, I assumed you were joking.
@Yorkshire Wallet – if they choose to not wear a helmet (which would protect very well from thrown stones) then that’s their own fault for not taking responsibility for their own safety.
Should be entitled “Van
Should be entitled “Van driver comes off worse after altercation with cyclist.”
If you’re going to jump out of your van to faceup someone – one day you will come up against someone who’s not the pushover you expect.
Learn your lesson mate.
bikeman01 wrote:
Thats the thing. Whatever the circumstances that brought the van and the bicycle into collision, I do not for one moment believe that the van driver was getting out to check if the cyclist was OK (as was suggested by the Bristol Post commenters…
).
brooksby wrote:
— brooksbyC’mon – they all love cyclists in Bristol !
I have been the victim of
I have been the victim of deliberate violence by drivers on more than one occasion but I’m shocked at the very worrying comments here – hopefully in jest (but in very poor taste).
None of us have enough info to infer liability let alone culpability here. In any case, extreme violence like this is really not the answer. Whoever did this rightly risks a v long sentence, but could easily have killed their victim. Anyone who condones this kind of action by cyclists should expect cyclists to receive the same treatment from motorists – and of course there will only be one winner there…
Crazyhorse wrote:
I’d guess these comments are in jest (at least until Legs11 show up) , but if you go and visit the comment section of any cyclist/motorist conflict in local news sites, you’ll see lots and lots of people condoning violence against cyclists, so you can see this as simply a reaction against what some idiot motorists already do.
Ideally, we’d like the motorists to stop killing so many cyclists first and then maybe we can work on ensuring our comments are completely non-violent and politically correct.
Crazyhorse wrote:
Apart from 2, they are simply based on cases where cyclists have been hit/killed/injured by drivers.
Here’s my ‘blacked out’
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/17199076.christopher-gibbs-was-cycling-home-along-the-a338-spur-road-when-he-was-hit/
Crazyhorse wrote:
I’m reminded of the situation in the USA about thirty years ago, when there was a spate of drivers being killed with a gun by another driver who felt that they hadn’t respected their rights on the road; suddenly all drivers became very polite. Perhaps we need an equivalence of outcome, where the driver, mostly responsible for cyclists’ deaths, has the same chance of death as the cyclist. If a few cyclists started carrying guns and a few drivers ended up dead, I’ll bet they started giving us a little more respect.
To be serious for a second, the lack of respect by drivers is the problem, and the knowledge that even if they kill a cyclist with their callous behaviour, they will more than likely walk off scot-free, or with a token slap on the wrist. To quote that Americanism, they have no skin in the game.
Until drivers stop killing us and treating us like fifth class citizens, I’m afraid there are going to be a lot more things said in jest, or not. To be honest, there have been times when if I could have caught up with the driver, I would have attempted to pull them out of their car and inflict bodily harm on them, and I’m sure more than a few people share that experience.
But the government review of 2014 is definitely going to sort it out when they get around to starting it.
Crazyhorse wrote:
Hear hear.
Many of the comments here are no better that those in the Bristol Post or the Daily Mail – made without knowing the circumstances of the case, tarring huge groups with the same brush (for “drivers”, see also “immigrants” or “Muslims”), and actually supporting actions which would be counter-productive for cyclists.
Whatever the circumstances of this case, it’s unlikely to make drivers (good, bad or indifferent) think they must be more considerate towards cyclists. More likely just one more reason to see ‘us’ (because we’re a homogenous group…) as a problem. And there are more of them than there are of us, which means their view tends to prevail.
Duncann wrote:
And there are more of them than there are of us, so we need to surrender to that fallacious thniking and adopt it as our own? Nah.
Also, both of those taking your position have referred to unspecified ‘many’ comments. What are the specific ones you object to? I don’t see anyone particularly recomending this approach in general.
They mostly appear to merely be noting the contrast in how this is treated compared to how the law reacts to the common case where it’s the other way round and the cause of damage is a motorised vehicle rather than a D-lock. Or raising an eyebrow at the implication that the attack was entirely without provocation (I dunno, myself, could be either – there are crazy angry people around on all modes of transport, but it’s not exactly unknown for a driver to get out and go for a cyclist is it?)
How come those helmet-pushers who declare “its no good being right if you are dead” if it’s a cyclist being threatened by bad motorist behaviour aren’t saying the same thing here? Doesn’t the same logic apply?
Crazyhorse wrote:
Presumably, that means you can understand why a cyclist having been hit by a motor vehicle might feel like attack is the best form of defence?
Fixed that for you. Given that you don’t have enough info, you don’t know that the cyclist wasn’t just defending themself.
Bullshit.
Because someone else condones that behaviour I should expect a motorist to treat me that way when I ride a bike?!
Flip your logic on it’s head, should I expect a cyclist to whack me over the head with a D-lock when I get out of my vehicle just because some anti-cyclist morons condones running over cyclists?!
Crazy – a lot of jest but
Crazy – a lot of jest but also a little satire when you look at the treatment of cyclists.
You can drive a car at 60mph the wrong side of a traffic island and be prosecuted for ‘careless’, or you can use the excuse “i thought it was a man” when pushing a rider off their machine into the road.
If we are to be consistent then as the cyclist was in control of a vehicle then normal law doesn’t apply – it’s carelss, a collision or an accident…
Two road users, for reasons
Two road users, for reasons unknown, got into an argument. It escalated to the point where a physical altercation occured where one of the protagonists used a bicycle lock as a weapon to strike the other. He then left the scene on a bicycle. Police wish to interview the man to investigate the circumstances and determine wether a crime has been commited.
That really is all there is.