Multiple cyclists have come forward to share their stories of having been assaulted on the road by drivers or passengers in motor vehicles, after a cyclist riding to work was pushed off his bike in Nottingham in March, but the perpetrators have gone unarrested by the police who described the act as a “despicable random attack” and a “nasty unprovoked assault”.
Nottinghamshire Police released footage captured by the cyclist’s rear bike camera at 4am on Saturday 9 March, which showed a silver Peugeot van being driven along Nottingham Road, catching up to the cyclist with a man hanging out of the passenger window with his arms outstretched, ready to attack the rider from a few metres away.
The driver seemed to time the movement of the van to make it easier for the man to shove the cyclist, who ended up suffering facial injuries, bruising to his arms and legs and a swollen knee following the incident. The handlebars, brake levers, and rear axle of his bike were also damaged.
The police said: “Officers have already explored several lines of inquiry as part of their ongoing investigation, including inquiries relating to the van driver and registered keeper.”
PC Jon Lingard, from Nottinghamshire Police, said: “This was a nasty unprovoked assault on a man cycling to work. It’s fortunate that he didn’t sustain more serious injuries following this despicable random attack.
“We are now in a position to release this footage as part of our investigation and would ask that anyone who recognises the man pictured to get in touch. We’d also ask that he contacts us if he sees this appeal.”
Anyone who recognises the man or who has any information was requested to call Nottinghamshire Police on 101, quoting incident number 137 of 9 March 2024, or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.
> Police appeal over “serious assault” that saw cyclist pushed from bike by car passenger
Following the release of the footage, cyclists, confused and angered, have questioned the police force’s swiftness in acting as well as many others shared their own stories of having faced such acts on the road, justifying why more and more cyclists feel the need to ride with cameras.
One cyclist from Nottingham commented under the police’s Twitter post: “I once got shunted into oncoming traffic at a roundabout by a car driver who resented I was in front of him. I did nothing to irritate them other than follow the Highway Code… scary. If I had not accelerated into traffic and wove my way through it, I would have been mashed.”
Another Nottingham cyclist wrote: “Similar thing happened to me, but it was lads in a car. They pushed me into some railings. They enjoyed doing it enough to turn back and come by again and spook me some more.”
Casey Adams said: “How does our system not have the ability to force the registered owner to identify the driver and the driver to name the suspect?” while Dr Kara claimed: “This is why more and more cyclists run cameras.”
Another Twitter account by the name of Ride Primary TVL, which aims to educate police on the law on behaviour around cyclists, wrote: “Why are you shocked? You spent years refusing to prosecute drivers for their offences against cyclists, making the offenders feel they can get away with anything. You caused this, own it!”
Several others also questioned why the police waited for six months to release the footage. The account Ride Primary TVL also said: “Hang on, f****** March, and now you feign interest. What exactly were you waiting for?”
One person wrote: “You have the plate numbers. Ask the driver, and hold them in contempt and interfering with police investigation if they stay quiet,” while another asked: “You waited until September to ask for help identifying someone from an assault that happened in March? You let this behaviour go unpunished for 6 months?”
road.cc has contacted Nottinghamshire Police for comment.
We have reported on several similar incidents like this in the past. In April this year, Kent Police launched an appeal and released a photo of a man they wish to speak to in relation to a “serious assault on a cyclist” last summer — almost a year later. The case appeared to be that of Katie Good, a female Ironman athlete and immigration lawyer who suffered a broken collarbone when she was deliberately shoved from her bike by a laughing car passenger.
In January 2023, a man was fined £200 by Kilmarnock Sheriff Court for leaning out of an overtaking vehicle and hitting a cyclist with a tub of hair gel, after becoming frustrated that the cyclists were not “moving fast enough”.
Another recent case from across the Channel was brought to light when two men in France, whose “only motive was idiocy”, were handed a two-year suspended prison sentence after a spree of incidents which saw cyclists pushed into ditches, apparently for “fun”.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
49 thoughts on ““This is why we run cameras”: Cyclists share horrifying stories of assault after rider pushed off bike by man in passing van, as police label act as “despicable random attack””
Yet another Random Act of
Yet another Random Act of Violence Against a Cyclist?
Yes. But it’s not ‘random’,
Yes. But it’s not ‘random’, is it? We all know that it’s the predictable consequence of whipping up hatred thanks to humanising and anti-cyclist rhetoric by certain politicians and the media. Just last week we were described as mosquitos in the House of Lords. We should be sending the link to this video to such commentators to show them the consequences of their words.
There has been reasonable criticism of the police in other comments, and I won’t disagree, but I will say that I am pleased they made the point of saying the victim was cycling to work when the assault happened. Not that it should matter, but so much of the anti-cycling rhetoric relies on perpetuating the myth that we are only on the road to get in the way of real traffic and/or to do time trials. It is also very clear from this video that there was plenty of space for a safe over-take, and no doubt whatsoever that the driver saw the cyclist.
It is a real surprise that
It is a real surprise that they have not arrested anyone for this. I would be surprised if they had not already identified the passenger. Proving it might be another matter. The driver is equally guilty for aiding and abetting a crime.
Doesn’t help that the number
Doesn’t help that the number plate seems to have been deliberately blurred out. Or is that just an unfortunate smudge on the lens?
It could have been on cloned
It could have been on cloned plates, hence the blurring of the number plate. That’s all I can think as to why they would blur it.
Unless there is some
Unless there is some evidentiary reason then I can only presume it is to protect the poor vulnerable van owner from the all too common violent acts of street justice meated out by those nasty cyclists.
meted, the word is meted.
meted, the word is meted.
Thank you. Every day is a
Thank you. Every day is a school day.
I thought it was a conscious
I thought it was a conscious coupling or coinage; though of course it’s a hard meeting with a *motor vehicle* which not infrequently sees the recipient meated…
Spangly Shiny wrote:
I think the apposite word here might be ‘meathead’.
Many will disagree, but I
Many will disagree, but I consider some crimes understandable. A man unable to find a decent paying work, has a family and eventually steals, is not that great criminal to me.
This kind of vandalism that someone destroyes property or injure people, with no benefit for him/her, is totally incomprehensible to me. These people should be put to prison with hard labour, if they have so much energy and nowhere to let it out.
I don’t think prison is the
I don’t think prison is the answer. Compulsory community service every weekend for years. Night-time litter picking on an unlit country road, wearing dark clothing, for example.
Just on the “hard labour”
Just on the “hard labour” idea – the problem with that idea is that a) it’s not been shown to be a great deterrent (obvs. having *no* consequences is zero deterrent!) and b) if you plan to ever let them out again then you’ve potentially created a very strong person with a well-thought-out grudge against the “system”, with a “prison education” and new links to other criminals… (EDIT and with low legit employment prospects).
Prison “solutions” have issues – banging people up is politically popular but apparently no-one wants to live near one, or pay for the building, or the running costs (usually very expensive).
Almost every society has to deal with some kind of “young people (almost all men) energetically testing limits and not giving a stuff about others”. I do think that the combination of bored youth with grievances but who still can easily access cars (because the expectation is that almost all adults will) *plus* the power of motor vehicles is clearly problematic. For one issue see many of the entries in the Car Crashes into Building thread…
Do you mean the “Driver
Do you mean the “Driver crashes into building” thread?
http://rc-rg.com
“wow, that car did that all by itself?”
https://www.facebook.com/groups/3331869633536303/
mitsky wrote:
You have spotted the deliberate mistake but I’m sure as David9694 would say “Welcome to the ‘*Car* crashes into building thread” (for exactly those stories reported as if the vehicle was autonomous).
mitsky wrote:
No.
https://road.cc/content/forum/car-crashes-building-please-post-your-local-news-stories-276441
If you’ve created a very
If you’ve created a very strong person you’ve been feeding them too much and allowing them too much rest between shifts.
Well “hard labour” was quoted
Well “hard labour” was quoted, not “extermination through labour”.
One has to contemplate the
One has to contemplate the the old Viking sentence of being outlawed. This was used way back, when there were no prisons. The convicted person was declared an outlaw and was therefore fair game to anyone with the ways and means to mete out summary justice. A vigilante’s charter, if you will, but all sanctioned by the justice system.
It would put the fear of carp (intentional misspelling) into some of these yahoos that blight our lives.
Perhaps – or merely divert
Perhaps – or merely divert them to the sport of outlaw-hunting? Followed by “the cyclist unfortunately closely resembled a notorious local outlaw…” ?
Still, I can go look out my Niðing pole (vegetarian, no horses to hand) if you feel we’ve reached the point where there’s so much random violence the only cure for it is a wider distribution of violence…
If prison (which people could
If prison (which people could argue should primarily be used to keep the public safe from dangerous criminals) is not enough of a deterrent for this… then maybe some other form of punishment?
I advocate for loss of taste buds and libido (or whatever the opposite of viagra is).
Depending on the severity of the first crime it could be temporary.
Any repeat, make it permanent.
Its bromide isn’t it ?
Its bromide isn’t it ?
That’s not a ‘nasty
That’s not a ‘nasty unprovoked assault’, that is attempted murder. I hope road.cc and the victim don’t let this one pass, because it seems the police are treating this with less respect and urgency than someone name calling on social media such is the allowed contempt and prejudice towards people who ride a bike.
the police are treating this
the police are treating this with less respect and urgency than someone name calling on social media such is the allowed contempt and prejudice towards people who ride a bike
Of course! Doesn’t that go without saying? Isn’t ‘the police’ the worst single institutional enemy we have?
What is needed is a bike with
What is needed is a bike with a harpoon and an anchor/arrester hook, plus a control system that fires the harpoon, applies the bike’s brakes and deploys the anchor. Then you can sit back and savour the look on the goon’s face as he flies out of the car window and lands on the road.
On a Pequod frame?
On a Pequod frame? Presumably deployed at the Moby Dick Junction?
chrisonabike wrote:
Outside Starbucks?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Was expecting more
Was expecting more appreciation for this comment; a different choice of “classics” now?
chrisonabike wrote:
Look, just call me Ishmael, OK?
brooksby wrote:
To borrow the joke from “The Vale of Laughter” by Peter de Vries: “Call me, Ishmael, but only in emergencies; for any other matters including reports of non-fatal RTCs, close passes, use of phones at the wheel or speeding the quickest way to report is via the chat bot at your local police website. Please note that the Police do not deal with driving on the pavement / cycle path, parking issues or matters relating to vehicle tax or licencing (especially in Lancashire)”.
Please note that the Police
Please note that the Police do not deal with driving on the pavement / cycle path, parking issues or matters relating to vehicle tax or licencing (especially in Lancashire)”
or with red light offences (especially in Lancashire)- no response or action about this one, where the offending BMW M4 driver wasn’t even in the frame when the lights turned red and I could hear him accelerate hard so he was likely exceeding the 50 limit when he crashed the lights
https://upride.cc/incident/a15tjv_bmwm4_redlightpass/
The police have the
The police have the registration number of the vehicle. They could say to the registered keeper, “Tell us who the passenger was or we’ll arrest you for aiding and abetting attempted murder.”
It’s not complicated.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Refusing to identify the driver of a vehicle, or the passenger in a vehicle you were driving, when they have committed an offence should, in my opinion, be regarded as obstruction of justice and sanctioned with immediate forfeiture of vehicle followed by, if the refusal continues, a spell in chokey until the offender changes their mind and decides to provide the information.
OldRidgeback wrote:
I’ve amended one word, hope that’s OK.
I’d be very, very happy to see the car crushed and the video posted on social media, even if nothing else was done. People who do shit like that simply shouldn’t be allowed to drive.
It’s actually easier than
It’s actually easier than that. The passenger would not have been able to do what they did without the active support and participation of the driver.
This is a prima facie case for a joint enterprise prosecution – where the driver can be held to be equally culpable for the offence, even if his collaborator is never identified.
Velo-drone wrote:
They don’t look Black enough for the CPS to bring a joint enterprise prosecution.
Just tell the Police that the
Just tell the Police that the occupants of the van are “far right” that should sort things out
dreamlx10 wrote:
Goodness me the rightwing snowflakes have really been triggered by the fact that people have been arrested and charged for threatening – and in some cases actually attempting – to burn down hostels with human beings trapped inside and other equally unpleasant things, haven’t they?
Wait – isn’t that just the
Wait – isn’t doing that having that just the same impact as blocking the roads *? Or are you just misconstruing legitimate protest in which some property got damaged? Free speech? They are taking our
right to make a living through violence and shit-stirring while having nice holidays abroadcountry from us!* In theory could mean life or death for someone? Better come for me, I’ve blocked the roads by a) just cycling b) cycling slowly in a large group of other cyclists, holding up traffic (“critical mass”) c) lying down in the road (“die in”). Mind you I get out of the way of emergency vehicles and don’t throw things at the police.
Except in the cases where
Except in the cases where they’ve been caught vandalising, fire-starting, and threatening life and limb, I was under the impression that “far right” protests tend to get a much easier ride than “far left” or “pro palestinian / anti genocide” or “black lives matter – adjacent” ones do…
Yaxley-Lennon has written a
Yaxley-Lennon has written a book! Admittedly the absence of anything approaching a polysyllable makes it somewhat dull reading, but he’s sure it’s going to the top of the best seller charts.
What’s the weight? How far
What’s the weight? How far can you throw it? Does it burn well?
Asking for a policeman…
Clearly the passenger was far
Clearly the passenger was far left. So far left he was in danger of falling out of the passenger window if he moved any further left..
dreamlx10 wrote:
You’d get a much better response if you claimed that the occupants were chanting “Just Stop Oil” and were planning on discussing slowing down some traffic.
Yah, funny how joint
Yah, funny how joint enterprise prosecutions for aggravated assault are fine for black kids hanging on street corners, but out of the question for middle aged white men driving vans.
This is all far to common and
This is all far to common and has serious impacts on people’s willingness to cycle. My wife wanted to start cycling and literally on her first outing, she was pushed into a ditch by a group of lads in a car. No surprise, the bike was sold and she’s never rode again.
The driver is every bit as
The driver is every bit as guilty as the passenger surely? They literlly positioned and slowed the van to enable the passenger to do this?
Why aren’t they in prison?
“Why are you shocked? You
“Why are you shocked? You spent years refusing to prosecute drivers for their offences against cyclists, making the offenders feel they can get away with anything. You caused this, own it!”
Spot on; when I used to commute up there I had a passenger lean out a window and throw liquid all over me. On review it was a kid and it was ribena spat out of his mouth (so only disgusting, not toxic). When I asked the cops to have a word (give a warning) I got palmed off with excuses why they couldn’t. Makes me wonder if thes scrotes knowing such things are unpunished have progressed years later to this (phsically pushing a person off their bike)!