Police in Gloucestershire are investigating an alleged assault which they say saw two cyclists follow a driver home after an argument, one of the riders then grabbing the man by the throat.
Gloucestershire Police have released an image of a man who officers want to speak with in connection with the incident which happened in the Cotswolds last month.
There is very little information provided about the events leading up to the “disagreement”. The force has only stated that a man driving in Moreton-in-Marsh just before 11.30am on Tuesday 1 July “spoke to two cyclists” and that “following an argument” the riders followed him home.
One of the cyclists is alleged to have grabbed the driver by the throat once he got out his car, leaving the man with grazes to his arm and marks to his throat. A neighbour arrived on the scene and the cyclists left, police saying the driver was left “shaken up by the incident”.
The first cyclist riding a white bike was described as a 6ft white man of an athletic build. He was wearing a white cycling helmet, blue jersey, black shorts, glasses, and black and white shoes.
The second man was also described as an athletically built 6ft white man, riding a red, yellow and green bike and wearing black cycling kit.
“Following a disagreement between them, the cyclists followed the man home where one of the men grabbed the victim by the throat after he had gotten out of his car,” a Gloucestershire Police spokesperson said. “The two cyclists left after a neighbour came to the victim’s aid.
“Officers have conducted a number of enquiries and are now appealing to the public for help in identifying a man in connection with the attack.
“Anyone who recognises the man in the image or has any information about the incident is asked to contact Gloucestershire Police through the website, quoting incident 183 of 1 July: https://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/contact/af/contact-us/us/a-crime-that-has-already-been-reported/”
63 thoughts on “Driver followed home by cyclists and grabbed by the throat following argument, police investigating Cotswolds assault say”
Bet that ride isnt on Strava,
Bet that ride isnt on Strava, so it never happened..
Does sound dubious – two
Does sound dubious – two cyclists, both of ‘athletic build’…?
Yes. Unless it was
Yes. Unless it was triathletes – 2 stick figures of willowy build or podgy mamil (like me).
Well, I certainly don’t
Well, I certainly don’t condone this kind of thing. Not clever. And this is actual vigilantism, unlike merely handing in video footage.
But given the anti-cyclist prejudice in society and the police, where you can’t even swear when attacked by a driver without being in trouble withe police, I can see why some cyclists may have lost faith entirely in police and the justice system. Not that following and attacking a driver is the right thing to do.
From Google AI:
From Google AI:
Vigilantism, or taking the law into one’s own hands, arises from a complex interplay of factors, often rooted in a perceived failure or inadequacy of formal justice systems. A lack of trust in authorities, feelings of vulnerability, and a desire for retribution or perceived justice are key drivers.
I reckon that’s a pretty good summary of why folks are taking matters into their own hands – a lack of enforcement as in UK roads policing. The problem is all round, not with any one group of road users. The vulnerable ones generally get the short end of the stick of course…
Gloucestershire? Maybe it was
Gloucestershire? Maybe it was a close pass dispute.
“A close pass isn’t an offence and a lot of cyclists don’t realise that”
https://road.cc/content/news/close-pass-isnt-offence-says-police-officer-310433
It is a shame that
It is a shame that
“I am Spartacus.”
“I am Spartacus.”
“No, I am Spartacus.” Etc
Not condoning any allegedly
Not condoning any allegedly bad behaviour by the cyclists, but I’m wondering why…
“There is very little information provided about the events…”
I don’t want the cynic in me to be right that the police are protecting the driver…
But…
Interesting that the police
Interesting that the police are taking any action whatsoever. Normally their response to an alleged crime especially regarding road traffic offences is “Oh yes it is a big problem. Terribly sorry though there’s nothing much we can really do.”
I missed the picture of the
I missed the picture of the “suspect” initially and was assuming this was the common police framing of some additional offenses committed by people on motorcycles being ridden illegally as “cycling”!
Now I wonder if in this case the cyclists in question are already known to police and this was more about a non-road-incident “previous beef” with the driver?
Yes. First thoughts that
Yes. First thoughts that occurred were why did the driver go to his home address if trying to escape the cyclists, easier just to drive away from them rather than lead them to your domicile? Why did the driver exit the car if they felt threatened when they could have just stayed in it and called the police or indeed driven away? Grabbing someone by the throat is something one would usually do as a defence action as they advanced on you rather than an attack. If I had to take a guess I’d say both motorist and cyclist(s) were aggressive arseholes who fronted up to each other, motorist came off worse so started crying assault, police believed his side. Just a guess, mind.
Whilst it is possible both
Whilst it is possible both parties were aggressive a’holes, in my experience I have never encountered an aggressive cyclist. Not once in decades of driving.
Encountering aggressive drivers on the other hand is a fairly regular occurrence on both the bike and when in the car. So I know what I’d put my money on.
Supposition. I agree there is
Supposition. I agree there is a lot more to this than we’re being told but it’s impossible to say what led to the incident with the informaation available.
You only see aggressive
You only see aggressive cyclists after their lives have been threatened
Don’t think it does anyone
Don’t think it does anyone any good to speculate like that, and I expected better of you. It devalues your other comments also.
I do wonder what would
I do wonder what would provoke a reaction like that.
And how the cyclists managed to follow the driver home unless he was within viewing distance.
A lot of unaswered questions here.
‘I do wonder what would
‘I do wonder what would provoke a reaction like that.’
Usually just calling out bad driving is enough to get that reaction when it’s the other way round.
There seems to be a lot more
There seems to be a lot more to this than we know and it may not even be cycling related.
Unless this was all captured
Unless this was all captured very clearly on camera, with accurate timestamps, I’m sure there is nothing the police can do.
And of course, the video
And of course, the video needs calibrating to show that the cyclist’s hand was really within 1.5 metres of the victim’s throat.
And it should have a minute
And it should have a minute before and after the incident. It should show the cyclist’s hand moving towards the victims throat and making contact. Still pictures are not acceptable…
Or in the words of the Met…
– Cases will not be accepted where footage has been lifted directly from social media
– We request that footage is not put on social media until your case is concluded
– Only footage in its original format will be accepted. We will not accept footage edited in any way and this includes captions, slow motion and 360 footage not in its original format
– All footage will be shared with the offending driver/rider in its original format so please do not submit footage containing anything you are not willing to be shared. This includes things such as your home/work address, facial images of yourself/family or your vehicle registration mark (VRM) We do not have the facility to edit these things from your footage
– Unless there are extenuating circumstances please only submit a maximum of 2 pieces of footage no longer than 3 minutes in length to support your statement. We do not require supporting photographs as these will not be considered when making a case disposal decision
– For all allegations of moving traffic offences we require real-time footage which captures the offence in question. Still images alone will not be accepted
– We will not seek or request footage from 3rd parties on your behalf. Disposal decisions will purely be based on the evidence submitted
– If the VRM of the offending vehicle is not clearly visible in the original footage cases will not be proceeded with
– Only one vehicle will be accepted per report submission
– If the date/time stamp on the footage is incorrect and does not reflect the date/time of the incident reported, the case will not be proceeded with
– All supporting statements must be completed in full and contain full personal details and the VRM of the offending vehicle
– Due to the decriminalisation of a large number of traffic offences we are unable to deal with any parking allegations except those relating to white zigzag lines. We are also unable to deal with any offences relating to driving/riding in bus/cycle lanes and the majority of offences relating to contravention of road traffic signs. This includes, but is not limited to, “keep left”, “no motor vehicle”, “one-way street” and “no left/right turn” signs
– We are unable to deal with allegations relating to vehicle document offences such as driving without a licence, insurance or tax
– Do not seek to actively confront, reprimand or engage with drivers/riders in any way. If your conduct is deemed to be aggressive, unacceptable or does not conform to the Met Police values, cases will not be proceeded with
– Our decision in these cases is final and we will not engage in further communication
Pub bike wrote:
Does this mean I can report the daily free parking on the white zig-zags on this street? https://maps.app.goo.gl/t3Y7wrVEAvpFJuj3A
Today, for example, same as every other day, the double yellows either side are completely free of cars, but the white zig-zags are completely full of cars and vans enjoying free parking every day. The City Police HQ is just around the corner, I’ve seen a police van parking next to them but nothing is ever done. Why would they be ignoring it?
Today, for example, same as
Today, for example, same as every other day, the double yellows either side are completely free of cars
Not in Lancashire, the land of MOT-and-VED-free motoring and free (as in wherever you like) parking, they’re not- you will also note that Volvos are not required to display front plates
a1white wrote:
Another “not in my manor” from Edinburgh! Even though Scotland has made provision for taking action and Edinburgh council have adopted this, don’t expect to see drivers paying much attention to double yellows outside of the centre / directly in front of police stations!
but my whole point is,
but my whole point is, enforcing double yellows are the jurisdiction of the local council but zig-zags on a zebra crossing are a level above and are enforcable by the police. Why are City Police ignoring it? People on the street I posted obviously know the council have traffic wardens that enforce the double yellows but no one bothers about parking on a zebra crossing (which should be instant 3 points on your licence and towable offence)
a1white wrote:
Presumably “not real crime” / “priorities – no resources” / “we have been told it’s like parking on the pavement and we have to witness the vehicle actually being driven there before it’s worth it legally”?
Well, indeed … and I know that London is like Edinburgh in actually enacting measures to allow taking e.g. vehicular obstruction more seriously.
As any cyclist on our roads
As any cyclist on our roads will know only too well, the prevalence of drivers completely ignoring you and your rights is huge, and although I’ve often felt like dragging someone out of their car and violently abusing them, I never did. So I’m torn between applauding these two for finally visiting some retribution on a driver and condemning them for violence.
I look forward to this being all over the msm, just like all the incidents of drivers attacking cyclist aren’t.
Hang on. What might have
Hang on. What might have happened is the alleged victim might have suddenly, without warning or clear reason to do so, swerved and made a sudden movement, moving several metres so that his throat unpredictably ended up in the other person’s hands. They couldn’t do anything to avoid their hands making contact with the other person’s throat. It’s one person’s word against another. A single witness suicide swerve.
Exactly. “The driver appeared
Exactly. “The driver appeared out of nowhere & ran into my hands m’lud……and the sun was in my eyes. Besides, really sorry, exemplary character (besides the two hundred previous offences) and I’m sorry not sorry”.
“Excellent, you’re free to go”.
You forgot “besides, not
You forgot “besides, not being able to ride my bike would cause me and my ferrets excessive hardship”.
Ah yes – US: “chewbacca
Ah yes – US: “chewbacca defense”, UK: “ferret mitigation”.
BTW Is anyone else looking at the suspects picture and wondering where that notorious aggressive cyclist Jeremy Corbyn has been recently (when not leafing through emails saying “call it Party McPartyface”)?
M’lud? With cast-iron, copper
M’lud? With cast-iron, copper-bottomed, utterly irrefutable evidence of absolutely no wrongdoing, given that the driver absolutely appeared out of nowhere, this isn’t a court matter. Clearly the officer would be able to discmiss the case at the roadside.
M’lud? With cast-iron, copper
M’lud? With cast-iron, copper-bottomed, utterly irrefutable evidence of absolutely no wrongdoing…
…and no evidence that the alleged ‘victim’ has been inconvenienced in any way, as he has clearly not been KSI’d. NFA or, in Lancashire, no response at are obviously the correct outcomes here.
If the victim was wearing
If the victim was wearing hiviz and helmet, this might have been prevented
“… riding a red, yellow and
“… riding a red, yellow and green bike”.
Throw away the key.
Racer-far-i? (Actually this
Racer-far-i? (Actually this looks more like a commuter).
US State Bicycle Co. offer
US State Bicycle Co. offer this, licensed by the Marley family, complete with facsimile of Bob’s signature and hemp frame bag with Lion of Judah symbol. Not terribly likely to be ridden by the person in the photograph but…
‘Im no irie…
‘Im no irie…
(As for the bike – is it rolling Bob? – though that was Dylan not Marley. I am loving the “strictly fixed” look you’ve found there! Although I think the bag / top tube is more saying “fake moped” than e.g. “parabike”)
It is lovely isn’t it, and
It is lovely isn’t it, and not bad value at £382, I’d be pretty tempted to have one for errand-running…fortunately the shipping from America plus the fact that it’s not UK road legal prevent another marriage-straining bad decision! They’ve got lots of Bob Marley cycling gear though, and it’s under five months to Christmas…
I’m more “Edinburgh’s genteel
I’m more “Edinburgh’s genteel kid-friendly Critical Mass” than “Drum and Bass on a bike” nowadays, but I think that would be the perfect mount. Well, the Sinclair C5s that come along sometimes look cooler to the kid in me, although I understand the ride is pretty rubbish (especially with the low ground clearance / small wheels on the cratered roads of this place).
Erm…..
Erm…..
Hate to say it but….
If it’s not on Strava, did it even happen???
No doubt the drafting gains of following the (no doubt wholly innocent driver) would have resulted in some sort of KOM which of course should be reported directly to Strava as an unfairly gained KOM!
Let’s not lose perspective of the real (alleged) crime?
Fundamental question here:
Fundamental question here: “Why did the motorist get out of his car?” It has doors with locks. He could have sat safely inside and called the police if he thought he was in some danger. The only reason to get out of the car in a situation such as this is to provoke a confrontation. Makes one wonder why police are even wasting their time on “a driver shaken up by the incident.” I’m left shaken up almost every day by the bad behavior of motorists when I’m on the bike. Police don’t seem to give a sh*t about that.
cmedred wrote:
It’s a well know fact that cyclists are adept at hiding behind the A-pillar and just generally ‘coming out of nowhere’. Driver never stood a chance 🤔.
Either that, or the driver’s eyesight is so bad they just didn’t see ’em coming – which might explain the earlier incident!
It was obviously just another
It was obviously just another “SMIDSY choking me!”
Would not getting out of the
Would not getting out of the car negate any self defence claim from the driver?
They were in a position of safety – a car with locks, doors and windows, and crucially – a means to escape.
And yet … they chose to get out of the car, and place themselves in potential harm.
That’s not self defence.
It’s the driver that’s
It’s the driver that’s claiming they were attacked – what would they be claiming self-defence for?
mdavidford wrote:
The driver would be asked by a decent defence lawyer in court why he decided to get out of the car and into the confrontation; I think OFG is just pointing out that when he was in the safest place imaginable, a locked steel box that can be driven away, the driver is going to find it hard to claim that in exiting the car he was doing anything other than looking for a confrontation, unless he’s going to claim that he thought they would set fire to the car or similar.
Right – that might possibly
Right – that might possibly undermine their case against the cyclist – but that’s not the same as a claim of self-defence – for that to be necessary, they would need to be the one on the end of the charges.
Oldfatgit wrote:
The driver will no doubt claim – and the police will no doubt believe – that the cyclists said they just wanted to talk to him, or he got out of the car first then they zoomed up, didn’t know they were following him, or similar. Whether true or not, the tone of the police appeal seems to indicate they’ve already decided who’s guilty here.
No excuse whatsoever for this
No excuse whatsoever for this. They followed him home and attacked him. We can’t complain about violent or aggressive drivers and condone this behaviour.
This. As frustrated and
This. As frustrated and outraged as we may collectively be about the level of police inaction on dangerous driving and aggressive acts against cyclists, condoning violent acts by cyclists is never going to win hearts and minds or strengthen our case.
LeadenSkies wrote:
We’re never going to “win hearts and minds”. The knuckle draggers who obsessively hate cyclists will never be won over. We know that their hatred of cyclists is not based on any rational criteria.
As a wise man once said “I can’t reason you out of a position that you didn’t reason yourself into”.
60somethingcyclist wrote:
Perhaps when the authorities actually DO something about the numerous acts of violence against cyclists by drivers, I might have some sympathy with your position.
60somethingcyclist wrote:
FTFY. The cyclists may have a very different story, let’s see how it pans out.
60somethingcyclist wrote:
I am not a member of ‘cyclists’, I cycle. I do not attend a cyclist AGM and vow to adhere to a cyclist membership. Anyone who acts agressively towards someone stronger and fitter or armed with a weapon (e.g. a car) would need to be prepared for the likelihood of that someone reacting back and hurting them more. So many drivers feel emboldened because they have the car as a weapon, and sometimes forget that if they get out of the car they are no longer the stronger one. Cyclists in media are often portrayed as weak, gangly, nerds (e.g. Motherland series) and encourages drivers to be aggressive bullies towards cyclists because the cyclist is is going to be weaker than them. I don’t condone what these cyclists did and they should be prosecuted to the same extent that drivers who have grabbed cyclists throats etc. (i.e. probably get off with a warning because ‘the victim did something to annoy them’).
I’d love to agree with you,
I’d love to agree with you, but…
I personally can’t help think that police funding is not based on standard crime rates, but on the number of vigilante actions people take. As long as we feel the police are their to ensure safety and justice, we’ll leave the justicing (made that word up), to them. If not, then we’ll take it upon ourselves to ensure safety and justice is done. More vigilanty activity undertaken = more police funding.
Mindful of the above, and mindful of the objective failure by our current police / justice system / government to ensure the safety of cyclists and other vulnerable road users, I would argue any, and all vigilanty actions taken by cyclists against those threatening their well being should only be encouraged.
This is why I teach my young
This is why I teach my young kids to wear a gorget when they’re driving.
The driver says he ” spoke to
The driver says he ” spoke to the cyclists ”
I for 1 don’t believe he got this reaction for ” speaking ” .How many headlines or comments have we seen threatening to run over or assault the cyclist when the story is reversed .
Ill wait for the real story to what the driver done ,anyone saying you can never condone violence ,well im afraid if the driver has tried to run them off the road /threatened their lives with his car then yes he deserves whater comes to him
Ill wait for the real story
Given the time-lag from
Given the time-lag from allegedincident to the witness appeal and saidwitness appeal essentially being a Wanted poster, I suspect we won’t hear any more. A shame – the police are usually a lot better at bothsides-ing things like this.
I bet an expensive 12s chain that something the driver said and/or did a couple of streets away kicked-off this episode. He then used his speed and left the scene, which in society’s mind seems to mean the episode should be closed and anything that happens a few minutes later passes through a filter and is treated as cold-blooded revenge.
At the risk of thread drift if anyone is wondering why cyclists are so pissy about their treatment by the police and justice systems, compare and contrast
They can’t even make dangerous driving stick when a cyclist is killed by a distracted driver:
https://road.cc/content/news/van-driver-not-guilty-death-dangerous-driving-315303
but manslaughter charges are brought against in a case like this
Trial for man accused of killing pensioner following e-bike crash in City Way, Rochester, set for 2028 amid court (paywall)
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/mum-might-not-be-here-to-see-justice-done-for-dad-s-death-327996/
Cyclist from Rochester appears in court accused of killing a pensioner after hitting him on his e-bike in City Way
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/cyclist-charged-with-manslaughter-after-pensioner-dies-follo-326205/
And a sample of how on it goes…
Not specifically related to
Not specifically related to this ‘alleged strangling attempt’ but it surprises me that there are not more derogatory and sarcastic comments about various police forces’ made-up rules demanding x minutes video before and after a reported incident. Close pass videos only need 30 seconds at the most yet many people seem to accept this demand to provide evidence against yourself without question. In keeping with this police bias against cyclists we can be SURE that in a case where a cyclist alleged the same about a driver, the police would say ‘without video, there’s nothing we can do- case closed’
So my guess is aggressive
So my guess is aggressive twat trying to run rider off the road within sight of destination (how else would riders manage to follow them).
Sure, the riders shouldn’t have attacked them and probably should be prosecuted for it (strangulation goes beyond self defence). But would also argue that either the driver should also be being prosecuted, or provocation should be taken into account (per sentencing guidelines).
I remember a case where rider was charged with various offences
Multiple involved drivers claimed they had done nothing wrong, overtaking on a particular road (then stopping to complain about the cyclist blocking traffic iirc creating opportunity for incident between driver and cyclist) – A road that was one way single lane – literally impossible for the cars in question to have safely overtaken (about 1m too narrow…)
qwerty360 wrote:
I entirely agree, if the strangulation story is true. However as I noted below grabbing someone by the throat is often a self-defence action when they’re attacking you, so I’d like to hear the cyclists’ side of the story too, at the moment all we have is what the driver alleges.