Sussex Police have arrested a man after a cyclist sustained “significant head injuries” when he was allegedly assaulted by a motorist with what is believed to be a metal pole.
The incident happened at around 4.50pm on Paddockhurst Road, Turners Hill, West Sussex.
Officers say that the driver of a black Mercedes passed the cyclist then got out of his vehicle and assaulted him.
The cyclist, a man aged in his 40s, was taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton.
Police subsequently arrested a 28-year-old man from East Grinstead on suspicion of grievous bodily harm with intent.
Investigating Officer Detective Inspector Jon Robeson said: “This is a fast-moving investigation with officers able to make a swift arrest.
“The victim has suffered significant head injuries and is currently in hospital receiving medical treatment.
“Did you witness the incident? We would like to hear from anyone who witnessed the alleged assault or has dash cam footage of the incident.
“You can report information to us either online or by calling 101 quoting serial 1042 of 13/04.”
33 thoughts on “Arrest made after Sussex cyclist injured in serious assault”
Remind me again why
Remind me again why assaulting someone because they are riding a bike isn’t a hate crime?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
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).
hawkinspeter wrote:
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
Hmmm – maybe we need to dress as goths for cycling, then?
Well at least you wouldn’t
Well at least you wouldn’t get comments about not wearing a helmet.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Learning to ride side saddle will be tricky…
Captain Badger wrote:
Hmmm – maybe we need to dress as goths for cycling, then?
— Captain Badger Learning to ride side saddle will be tricky…— hawkinspeter
You could get a stepthrough?
Jenova20 wrote:
It’s the pedalling that I was worried about – need very short cranks, or just pedal on one side
hawkinspeter wrote:
Oh but we do. Because until it is socially unacceptable things will not begin to change.
Where does it say the victim
Where does it say the victim was assaulted because he was riding a bike?
but would he have been
but would he have been assaulted if he wasn’t riding one?
Brauchsel wrote:
Where does it say that he wasn’t?
It also doesn’t say that he
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.
Brauchsel wrote:
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.
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. — Brauchsel
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.
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. — Brauchsel
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?)
Brauchsel wrote:
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.
— BrauchselYou 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 😉
The hate aspect of this
The hate aspect of this debate is interesting. Clearly the very serious crime in this instance is someone having been attacked with a metal pole. However it is highly likely, and it may become clear, that the attack was motivated by hatred of cyclists. If that is the case I think it is important that he should be prosecuted for a hate crime as well as the assault. Why? Because one of the purposes of the law is to demonstrate to society what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. Imagine that someone had been attacked with metal pole because they are black (or Jewish or Asian). Would we deem it acceptable for people to go around saying “I hate Blacks (Jews/Asians)” as long as they don’t actually assault them? Of course we wouldn’t because it encourages violent attacks like this awful one.
And indeed, if you spend any
And indeed, if you spend any time on social media, you will see the ‘I hate cyclists’ theme has become a series of memes; it’s not just a view of older people any more, and is becoming increasingly socially acceptable. I had a – purely verbal – run in on a towpath the other day, and the other party’s clinching argument was ‘well everyone hates f-ing cyclists, so think about that.’
Sadly this I believe is the
Sadly this I believe is the case and it needs to be addressed.
This country has gone
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.
Runningwolf wrote:
I blame Thatcher.
brooksby wrote:
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
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.
Jenova20 wrote:
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.
brooksby wrote:
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
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.
Runningwolf wrote:
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]
[/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,
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
Maybe they were a church organ repairer, using a spare pipe.
Why on earth would some bloke
Why on earth would some bloke driving a Mercedes also have a metal pole conveniently to hand…?
Drug Dealer or gang member?
Drug Dealer or gang member?
why did they get out the car
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.
Just prosecuting for the
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.