Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Add new comment
33 comments
Just prosecuting for the assault with a 'metal pole' which resulted in significant injuries would be an improvement on the usual mitigation because the victim was a cyclist 'who had looked at the driver in a funny way' or whatever.
why did they get out the car and hit the cyclist with a metal pole?
if they had just rammed them with the car, and claimed they simply didn’t see the cyclist, they would have got away with it.
Why on earth would some bloke driving a Mercedes also have a metal pole conveniently to hand...?
Drug Dealer or gang member?
This country has gone completely mad. What the hell, attacking another person with a metal bar, really, what is wrong with people. Whilst there is no detail in the article as to why the cyclist was attacked, there is just no excuse for this sort of behaviour in my view. Hope the cyclist makes a good recovery and wishing him all the best.
I blame Thatcher.
Not sure you can blame her for the war on cyclists. It's more prevalent in Australia; so the obvious suspect would be the Murdoch media pushing this.
I think you could make the case that "might is right" is very similar to the "greed is good" culture which Thatcher did nothing to discourage. Thus I think that "might is right" on the roads can be blamed on Thatcher even if she didn't intend it. There have recently been two reports of motorists thinking that cyclist should get out of their way and I have experienced it recently too. Just yesterday I witnessed a lorry bullying it's way through and forcing car drivers to stop. It's the same thing, my vehicle is bigger than yours so get out of my way.
Nope - I'm pretty sure that I can blame her for every sh!tty development in this country since she decided to gut it
Even Nu-Labour (which is usually held up as "but Labour can be bad") was a consequence of Blair having a secret shrine to her in his basement.
Your hatred of Thatcher is apparent, but it's not a valid theory for rage against cyclists, which is prevalent in many countries, and clearly not exclusive to the UK. This makes as much sense as me blaming a certain German leader from the 1940s, because of his policies, for the current anti cycling rage... Or it could be the media, which can clearly be seen to be pushing this very narrative of a road war, to sell papers and generate clicks. But, hey, don't let the obvious perpetrator get in the way, when you can instead push your unsourced political opinions online, and blame dead people you disagree with, for things they didn't do.
IMO much of the state of modern Britain (that is, how Society perceives itself and how the public dislike the rest of the public) can be traced back to her time. I wasn't commenting on other countries.
Just to say... the title of this article is misleading - the body of the article and police article state that it was a metal pole, not a metal bar - i.e. most likely a scaffolding pole, rather than (say) a tyre lever.
Not that makes a massive amount of difference.
[/quote]
Just to say... the title of this article is misleading - the body of the article and police article state that it was a metal pole, not a metal bar - i.e. most likely a scaffolding pole, rather than (say) a tyre lever.
Not that makes a massive amount of difference.
[/quote]
But who carries around scaffolding poles in a black Mercedes, unless they plan to use them as a weapon?
Perhaps it was a tent pole, scaffolding poles are quite long, so unless there was a roof rack, it seems unlikely it was one of those.
Maybe they were a church organ repairer, using a spare pipe.
Remind me again why assaulting someone because they are riding a bike isn't a hate crime?
Because cycling is a choice rather than an innate characteristic.
We don't need to change the laws on assault, but instead there needs to be more appetite in enforcement, especially when drivers use their vehicle as a weapon - that's not a careless driving charge (not relevant in this case though).
Doesn't have to be innate characteristic. Religions aren't innate, neither is being a Goth, but hatred of either of these can be cited as a motivation for hate crime.
And rightly so, if we are going to say that hatred is an aggravating factor in a crime. I've never understood the logic that only hating difference that we deem worthy makes a crime worse - that in itself is a form of oppression.
Hmmm - maybe we need to dress as goths for cycling, then?
Well at least you wouldn't get comments about not wearing a helmet.
Learning to ride side saddle will be tricky...
You could get a stepthrough?
It's the pedalling that I was worried about - need very short cranks, or just pedal on one side
Oh but we do. Because until it is socially unacceptable things will not begin to change.
Where does it say the victim was assaulted because he was riding a bike?
but would he have been assaulted if he wasn't riding one?
Where does it say that he wasn't?
It also doesn't say that he wasn't assaulted because of his age, race, sex, sexuality etc. He will have been being all those things at the time of his assault just as much as he was being a cyclist.
We don't know the reasons, so it's premature to say it was "because" he's a cyclist. And it's hysterical to call it a hate crime if it turns out that was the reason.
None of which is to distract from this sounding like a horrible crime, for which the perpetrator should be jailed for many years. Attacking someone with a metal bar is considerably worse than hating cyclists.
You are of course correct, we don't know enough to make a full conclusion
But it's not an unreasonable hypothesis. More reasonable than age or sex.
To the letter of the law again you are correct - being a cyclist is not a legally protected characteristic.
However if it is the case that horrific crimes such as this are motivated by hatred of cyclists, it's hardly hysterical to call that out. I don't accept the logic that irrational hatred of someone leading to grievous physical attack due to their chosen mode of transport is any more acceptable than any other irrational hatred leading to grievous physical attack.
Indeed. Attacking someone with a metal bar is considerably worse than hating anyone. The issue here is not either-or; it is (if our original hypothesis is correct) attacking someone because you hold an irrational hatred.
Why does hatred make a difference? That is of course a wider question. It may be that a much wider pool of people is at risk of random attack by the hating individual, which in turn causes a de facto limitation on the freedoms of that group as a whole . I'll let you come to your own conclusions (I presume that you believe that irrational hatred is relevant, otherwise why make the distinction between hatred of cyclists and hatred of other out-groups?)
You can't know someone's age, "race", sex, sexuality, etc just by looking at them. But it is clear that he was cycling, therefore a cyclist, which is literally all the driver would have known about him before the attack.
Who is saying he was assaulted because he was a cyclist? It's hysterical to say someone is calling this a hate crime when they are not. I think you might want to untangle your knickers
Pages