A female cyclist was left “petrified” and “visibly shaking” after a man confronted her while she was riding on a cycle lane. The man, who appears to have attended a nearby concert, grabbed the woman’s bike and told her to ‘get off and walk’. After a steward at the event intervened to fend off the attacker, another man “aggressively” jumped into the bike lane in front of the cyclist.
Climate activist Clare James was cycling through Cardiff city centre on Thursday night as concertgoers were leaving singer Lewis Capaldi’s gig in Cardiff Castle, WalesOnline reports.
To allow the crowds to exit the venue safely, Castle Street had been closed to traffic, though the cycle lane remained open.
> Lone female cyclists are “being targeted”, says former Scottish champion
49-year-old James, who works for campaign group Climate Cymru, was riding through the crowds “at a snail’s pace”, when a man grabbed her bike by the handlebars.
“I said: ‘What are you doing?’ and he said: ‘Get off your bike now and walk’,” she told WalesOnline.
The man, believed to be in his 20s, then told her that she shouldn’t be cycling on the road, to which James replied that she was cycling in an open bike lane.
“But he was really aggressive and within a very short space of time I was really feeling very intimidated,” James said.
The cyclist also noted that the attacker ignored other people riding bikes in the lane, who she says were mostly male delivery riders.
She continued: “People started to come over and people were saying: ‘Let her go’. I think because they could see that I was in quite a bad state they were saying: ‘Are you okay?’”
> Female cyclist held down and bike stolen during frightening attack
After failing to attract the attention of nearby police officers, eventually a steward working at the concert intervened and removed the man from the scene, allowing Clare to leave.
However, as she continued on the cycle lane, “shaking” after the encounter, another man – who was walking along the footpath – spotted her and “aggressively” and “determinedly” jumped in front of Clare. Fortunately, the traffic lights soon changed, which enabled the 49-year-old to flee.
Following the two back-to-back incidents, Clare says she was targeted because she “stood out as a woman on a bike”.
She said: “It was so obvious [the first man] was just going to pick on me because I was an easy target… there’s no way he would have done that if I wasn’t a woman.”
“There were two men, as far as I’m concerned last night, that really just wanted to be intimidating. They plucked me off, because I was on a bike and because I’m a woman.”
While Clare’s husband suggested closing streets to cyclists after concerts as a potential solution to the problem of harassment, she believes that “men’s attitudes towards women” were the root cause of the incidents, and that active travel to and from events should still be encouraged.
“I said [to my husband]: ‘No, no – maybe men shouldn’t be like that’. That’s the issue. It doesn’t matter whether you close the cycle lane, whether there’s drinking involved, whether there are crowds,” she added.
While Clare says that she feels “reasonably safe” while cycling in Cardiff, and that the shocking incidents won’t prevent her from riding her bike, she says that Thursday’s night ordeal has caused her to reflect on her safety as a female cyclist.
“But I have to say that it’s definitely made me far more aware that I’m not as safe on my bike as I think from people who are on foot, from pedestrians,” she concluded.
There have been a number of attacks on lone female cyclists in recent months, though unlike Thursday’s incidents these have mostly involved targeted robberies by violent moped gangs.
In April we reported that a woman was held down and had her bike stolen by two men in Surrey. The cyclist was sat on Beddlestead Lane, near Warlingham in Surrey, when she was approached by two men on a scooter.
Surrey Police say the incident, which happened between 1.40pm and 2.15pm, saw the victim held to the ground while the offenders made off with her bike down Clarks Lane.
In response, cycling clubs across south London had warned members to only ride in groups, and more recently former Scottish champion Jennifer George — who finished eleventh in last month’s British time trial championships — repeated the warning having been attacked herself on two separate occasions since April.
























75 thoughts on “‘Get off your bike and walk’: Female cyclist “petrified” after man grabs bike and refuses to let go”
This kind of thing really
This kind of thing really annoys me, I’d love to flatten those blokes
Who does he think he is?? Mr
Who does he think he is?? Mr Plod the policeman?
Wouldnt it be funny if the female cyclist turned out to be a plain clothed or off duty police woman? What an egg in your face moment that would be!
Quote:
Who does he think he is; Jesus?
Sriracha wrote:
If this bully had said “get off your bike now and follow me” that would have been even more worrying!
Don’t follow me to Brum
Don’t follow me to Brum though – it’s a dump 🙂
I might be reading too much
I might be reading too much into your comments and username but I am starting to suspect you just might have a tiny dislike of birmingham. ?
This sounds like an awful
This sounds like an awful experience for this woman, I hope it doesn’t put her off cycling in Cardiff, we need all the numbers we can get!
Unfortunately pedestrians walking on parts of this cycle lane and then remonstrating aggressively with you for daring to cycle on it is not unusual.
The worst bit is a shared use section right alongside the castle, it’s not clear exactly where this incident happened but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it was that section.
At the moment the cycle path is still ‘temporary’ and there’s a fair bit of inbuilt conflict as a consequence. Hopefully that can be eliminated once it’s made permanent.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’m not sure this section is technically shared use, it just doesn’t have wands because of the pedestrian crossing and access into the castle grounds. In practice though it does seem to have become a taxi / delivery drop off zone as a result. Old streetview, but think it still looks like this: https://goo.gl/maps/dALuikmXQAzVUQoU7
Please ignore the troll.
Please ignore the troll.
Responding to them gives them the attention they crave.
Tbf by keeping them occupied
Tbf by keeping them occupied we are providing a public service by making them waste their time on us rather than actually taking to people who would listen.
“After failing to attract the
“After failing to attract the attention of nearby police officers, eventually a steward working at the concert intervened and removed the man from the scene, allowing Clare to leave.”
Nothing to see here, don’t get involved, too much paperwork.
Meanwhile, I hope Fidelity are getting their moneys worth.
Why is it relevant that she
Why is it relevant that she is a climate activist or where she works? Surely this makes it worse for her with online trolls etc. Why mention it twice?
Because the original
Because the original newspaper article mentions it? Although I suppose you have shown it is a self fulfilling prophecy that the online trolls would pick up on that.
Huh? Are you saying I’m an
Huh? Are you saying I’m an online troll?
Anyway, the article was seemingly compiled by someone, don’t they have some ability to leave that needless info out? She’s been harassed, doesn’t need more.
Personally I don’t see a
Personally I don’t see a problem with the same info from the newspaper being put here.
And I’m just pointing out that if, as you state, only online trolls will have any issue that she works at a climate agency, and you are the only person to pick that up as an issue online here, then are you outing yourself as an online troll?
Pffft…I’m merely suggesting
Pffft…I’m merely suggesting that the poor woman might not appreciate having her place of work etc. rehashed and being on the internet.
You really are tiresome with your Judean People’s Front rants, unable to see out of that one eye.
Roulereo wrote:
I’m sure your concern comes from a good place, and I agree that her occupation, age etc are irrelevant to the story, but she posted about it herself on Twitter, where her bio makes clear she is a climate activist.
For the full effect you seem
For the full effect you seem to want you missed “little” as in “poor little woman”. Obviously she welcomes your concern for her protection though.
EDIT – quiff said it more nicely; given some of your previous form I don’t believe your concern is coming from a good place. Or rather – it’s ideological. I’d be delighted if you would prove me wrong though.
Roulereo wrote:
Because by the time they wrote the second mention they’d forgotten that they’d written the first one. (And the subheader.)
Roulereo wrote:
They have to bring it up in every conversation, much like vegans. It’s such a part of their identity that it has consumed their entire personality. In my experience these people tend to be toxic to be around.
Or the newspaper decided to
Or the newspaper decided to post it for their own reasons. They didn’t use quotation marks so it is not like she said it in the interview. A small profile is normally asked for in these things. It is why there was always a mention of age, or where people lived in articles.
Although I do like you think climate control activists are toxic to be around days after we had such extreme temperatures in Europe.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Act in an extreme way and you’ll get an extreme reaction. When your protest becomes disruptive, violent or destructive it should be curbed. At that point you’re pretty much just rioting.
Jenova20 wrote:
If everyone thought like you then women still wouldn’t have the vote and slavery would be a lot more common.
But – just taking the case of
But – just taking the case of women’s suffrage – was a particular factor decisive, were all needed? Was it the terrorism, lobbying / awareness raising or (war) economics?
chrisonatrike wrote:
We’d need to muck around with alternate timelines to find out that for certain and I’m not going to do that again!
Protests, disruption and riots are a clear sign that the leaders/politicians are listening to their corporate masters instead of the people.
hawkinspeter wrote:
So this sh!tshow we’re in is your fault, is it???
brooksby wrote:
It all went wrong in 1971: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
hawkinspeter wrote:
You make a very good point but sadly slavery is more common now than ever.
Love the LGBTQ picture.
NOtotheEU wrote:
Surely it would be far worse if the Civil Rights Movement was ‘curbed’ by people like Jenova20?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’m not arguing one way or the other. I just felt like pointing out the increase in slavery as I’m guessing most people think it has pretty much been eradicated.
NOtotheEU wrote:
Fair enough
Although I would argue that
Although I would argue that the “modern” definition of slavery also happened in the past, along with the “normal” belief of slavery. After all forced marriages, working for very low pay in abysmal conditions and child soldiers all happened in the past. They were just called serfs or work houses, arranged marriages, or squires. I saw some footage recently doing the rounds with a three year old chimney sweep and that was in 1930.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I’ve read a few sources saying that there are more slaves now than at any time in history. What you say makes perfect sense so perhaps the total is more but the percentage of the ever growing world population remains roughly the same. Either way it’s an incredibly sad indictment on how some humans treat others.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
And how well have the people building the world cup stadia in Qatar been treated, again? Indentured servitude is pretty darned close to ‘classic’ slavery IMO.
While indentured servitude is
While indentured servitude is definitely a form of slavery, and very evil, it’s still quite far from ‘classic’ chattel slavery. Remember that as a chattel slave your children (if you were ordered to have them) would have belonged to your master.
This is also the case with
This is also the case with indentured servitude; the debt passes on from generation to generation.
NOtotheEU wrote:
I think – might well be wrong – that Hawkinspeter lives in Bristol. If I’m right on that, Im sure he knows about ice cream: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-45720510
Bmblbzzz wrote:
I do indeed live in Bristol, but I wasn’t aware of Lopresti, though that is south of the river in Bedminster.
More info here: https://thebristolcable.org/2019/10/revealed-an-anti-slavery-court-order-was-made-against-local-boss-lopresti-heres-evidence-it-may-be-being-breached/
hawkinspeter wrote:
Do go fuck yourself for that. What a disgusting comment to make.
Jenova20 wrote:
Isn’t it just the result of denying protests?
I don’t mean to accuse you of being sexist or racist, but when a society has an entrenched power base that ignores the rights and voices of whole classes of people, then disruptive protest is about the only thing that works.
Can you think of any cause
Can you think of any cause that “won” where you can show that disruptive protest appears to have been the key? Unfortunately the ones I can think of all had several different types of pressure at once – making a single “cause” hard to point at. So disruptive protest (or an “armed” / “violent” wing or at least credible threats from same), political movements, “ground-up” action – and possibly “other change in circumstances” too.
Thinking of Northern Ireland, changes in status for black people in the US, women’s suffrage in the UK, gay rights, reversal of apartheid laws in South Africa…
I’m just working out what
I’m just working out what form of direct action the Bike Liberation Militia of the Evil Cycling Lobby should take. Currently I’m going with “go for a ride”.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I’m a fan of that. The more that motorists see cyclists happily pootling along whilst they are stuck in traffic, the better. In a lot of ways, cycling on public roads in the UK is a protest, but it’s annoyingly anti-disruptive and every motorist that decides to cycle makes the traffic flow better.
chrisonatrike wrote:
It’s tricky to know how to define non-disruptive protests as surely any protest has to disrupt everyday behaviour or else it will simply be ignored.
Ghandi’s salt march is a good example where non-violent disruption was pivotal in changing British colonialism.
It’s a good example! It
It’s a good example! It certainly sticks in the mind, inspired people at the time, shocked some of the British and likely changed opinions (worldwide) over the longer term. However it did not achieve either its immediate goals nor rapidly change the situation with the British. Overall the change (independence) appears to have taken a long time and come about through a mix of lots of factors (there were certainly economic changes and even terrorist campaigns for example).
So maybe it’s “necessary but not sufficient”?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Found this short read by Kevin A. Young that makes the case for sustained, disruptive protests: https://www.yesmagazine.org/opinion/2020/07/08/history-protests-social-change
Also found this open letter: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/in-defence-of-the-non-violent-disruptive-protest-an-open-letter/5104551.article
So non violent but disruptive
So non violent but disruptive protests are ok directly outside abortion clinics?
Rich_cb wrote:
I’m not sure that I agree with people protesting so that they gain control over other people’s bodies and reduce healthcare outcomes. I think there’s something pernicious about trying to enforce misguided ideas onto people that are in a vulnerable place. It strikes me as a pinnacle of victim blaming.
I think there’s also a nasty political under-current with the U.S.’s current obsession with abortion. One of the political aims of criminalising abortion is to reduce the number of women who are able to vote (and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds) as they do not allow criminals to vote.
Protesting to equalise people’s rights is totally different to protesting so that you can oppress others. I’d say that protests outside abortion clinics may well be within their rights, it also smacks of bullying.
The problem is that as soon
The problem is that as soon as you start defining what is an acceptable form of non violent protest you are automatically restricting the right to protest.
Personally, as long as your protest doesn’t damage property or endanger people I’m happy for it to go ahead.
Rich_cb wrote:
It’s not the form of the non violent protest, but what they are protesting for.
Would you allow said protests
Would you allow said protests to go ahead unencumbered by restrictions?
Rich_cb wrote:
People should have a right to protest and there’s often various lines drawn over the level of disruption and whether or not certain behaviour is acceptable or not, so there obviously should be some restrictions e.g. setting fire to abortion clinics should be considered arson. However, if a significant number of people are committing arson and are prepared to stand up for their position and willingly go to jail for their anti-abortion beliefs, then I’d consider that it’s a topic that deserves more communication.
What worries me more though, is when an over-represented group of people (rich, white, christians) are using their right of protest to deny the voices of the under-represented.
A similar question could be posed about the January 6th protests and whether they should face justice for their beliefs. And again, I am not sympathetic to them as they were looking to deny the rights of many voters. To be fair, though, that was not really an organised protest, but a failed coup.
Clearly arson would fall
Clearly arson would fall outside the realms of non violent protest as would January 6th.
We do have restrictions on the rights of people to protest outside abortion clinics and there are frequent calls for these to be strengthened.
Meanwhile we have protests in which property is deliberately damaged, Colston Statue and various XR related shenanigans spring to mind and these are deemed to not be criminal offences.
Rich_cb wrote:
Damaging the Colston Statue was deemed to be a criminal offence (criminal damage) and there most certainly was a court trial. However, the jury were specifically asked if they believed a conviction for criminal damage was a “proportionate interference” with the defendants’ rights to freedom of expression, thought and conscience. You may also note that the defendants did not try to hide what they did in an attempt to escape justice.
You’ll also note that there was plenty of debate about the statue, but despite being an insulting testament to the proceeds of slavery, the Merchant Venturers managed to disrupt all the attempts to get the statue removed (i.e. follow the will of the people).
Again, there’s a huge difference between protest giving a voice to the unheard or conversely, protest being used to oppress a minority.
As for XR related shenanigans, they most certainly have been deemed criminal offences: https://extinctionrebellion.uk/category/trials/
The people who carried out
The people who carried out the damage to the statue were found ‘not guilty’ of criminal damage.
Given that they freely admitted their role it stands to reason that the court found that the damage did not constitute a criminal offence.
Similarly Extinction Rebellion protesters were found not guilty of criminal damage (smashing windows at a bank) despite admitting the offence and providing “no defence in law”.
Once ‘the right sort’ of violent protest becomes tolerated we leave ourselves open to a Jan 6th type event when the ‘wrong sort’ of protestors decide that they will also resort to violence.
On a less apocalyptic scale we also embolden those who vandalise LTNs.
Rich_cb wrote:
I think you’re arguing in bad faith there.
The Colston Statue and XR protesters have systematically had their voices not heard for decades, so there was only really one way for them to proceed.
LTN “protestors” meanwhile have had plenty of opportunities for their overly loud voices to be heard and even then, they don’t stand up for what they believe in and be prepared to face the consequences of their actions. Similarly, the Jan 6th protestors have been trying almost any tactic to elude justice.
There’s also an important difference – The Colston Statue was private property damaged for the public benefit whereas anti-LTN protestors are damaging public property for typically their own private benefit.
I think you’re the one
I think you’re the one arguing in bad faith.
There is absolutely no distinction between somebody who damages a statue that they don’t like but that has remained standing due to local politics and someone who damages a planter or bollard that exists for similar reasons.
Once violence is tolerated our entire democracy is at risk. January 6th should be a wake up call to that.
Unfortunately people continue to justify violence that they agree with and ignore the inevitable consequences of violent protest becoming acceptable.
If it’s ok for XR to smash up an office block because they ‘havent had their voice heard for decades’ then why can’t anti abortion protestors smash up an abortion clinic? Abortion has been legal since 1968 so it’s been plenty of decades since they were ‘listened to’.
‘There’s only really one way for them to proceed’ after all…
Rich_cb wrote:
This is getting tiresome.
The Colston statue wasn’t just a case of “don’t like it”, but a clear endorsement of slavery. Availability of abortion has unequivocably improved people’s health and welfare which is why the archaic laws were overturned. It’s not just a case of “we haven’t had our way for a few years”, but a case of “we’ve always been oppressed”.
This isn’t going anywhere, so I doubt I’ll continue responding to this discussion (other discussions welcome, though).
A ‘clear endorsement of
A ‘clear endorsement of Slavery’ is one interpretation. Other people had different interpretations.
Likewise an LTN planter may represent a safe cycling route to one person and an increased amount of pollution to another.
Once we allow violence to be used by one set of people who feel alienated by the political process we open the door for a lot of other alienated groups to decide that violence is the only way forward.
XR can’t even claim to be alienated, the UK has probably done more politically to achieve net zero than any other major economy. The result is one of the biggest reductions in CO2 of any major economy. The idea that the political process isn’t working and XR have no choice but violence is laughable.
Gosh – this seems to be an
Gosh – this seems to be an outbreak of relativism – wasn’t expecting that!
If an LTN planter (or indeed statue) represented a cheesecake for me, and I ate it, would you say that was fair protest, criminal damage or would you call for urgent medical attention (for them to take me away)?
Would you be in favour of the Chinese government’s approach to protest? After all, I’m sure the protesters were breaking the law! They could have damaged those tank tracks (or other state property e.g. the protesters themselves) …
Leaving aside extremes I don’t think anyone’s here’s “allowing violence”. As pointed out the Colston protesters had their day in court and I believe (not been following closely) the XR folks have / will. As presumably would people vandalising planters – again not aware that anyone’s been nicked for that yet.
As you know most humans have the tendency to minimise the (currently) illegal / socially unacceptable actions of those whose aims they broadly support. This can be quite distasteful but I would be wary of “you didn’t condemn it – so you’re inciting it” or even “…so you as good as did it yourself”.
Our figures on the CO2 by the way – broadly the same trend as Germay over the last 3 decades (World bank data). Maybe this is largely us outsourcing our heavy / polluting industries and smoky heaters? (Emit elsewhere.) Just look at Ukraine catching up though! I’ve thrown Armenia and Rwanda in for scale – note both are going in the wrong direction.
From your graph we’ve seen a
From your graph we’ve seen a 40% reduction over that timescale whereas Germany have seen approximately 33%.
A lot of the initial drop was from outsourcing our industry but over the last 10-15 years it’s been predominantly driven by domestic improvements.
My point about protest was that violent protest cannot be normalised. If we start allowing violent protest against certain groups and for certain causes we set our society on a very dangerous path.
Non violent protest should be cherished and protected but violent protest should not and can not be tolerated.
chrisonatrike wrote:
If you consider the Selma march in 1965 a disruptive protest then that could be one. The Civil Rights Act had already been passed in 1964 but little had changed in the Southern states. This was the first time a demonstration where the Police used extreme violence to deter a peaceful march had been nationally televised. It galvanised not only civil rights protesters but also politicians and a large part of the population who previously had not been confronted so directly with the reality of being black in 1960’s America.
Another contender could be action by the trade union Solidarity in Poland. They bought down the Communist government and hastened the collapse of the entire Soviet Union.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Isn’t it just the result of denying protests?
I don’t mean to accuse you of being sexist or racist, but when a society has an entrenched power base that ignores the rights and voices of whole classes of people, then disruptive protest is about the only thing that works.
[/quote]
Depends what you mean by ‘works’. The main function of disruptive protest is to allow people who feel powerless to air their objection, frustration or distress about an issue when nothing seems to be happening about it. The main effect, however, is to form antagonisms, entrench an ‘us and them’ mentality, and stiffen the resolve of governements not to submit to the protestors. Many would see that as ‘weak’ government. (And I speak as a former participant in many disruptive protests).
Bikeylikey wrote:
Taking the Suffragette movement as an example, would women have got a vote if they just asked politely? Probably the key to getting results is to hold a sustained disruptive campaign (and possibly violent though that tends to spring from the protests being stopped with police violence) and then after people have gotten used to it, they can then graciously announce that they are stopping the disruption/violence to engage in talks. That way, the govt. can save face and declare that they are only negotiating due to the cessation of disruptive tactics although they (govt) would never have thought of negotiating without the disruptive protests.
Completely agree, except fpr
Completely agree, except fpr the deplorable use of ‘gotten’
In parliament Square there is
In parliament Square there is a statue to convicted and jailed terrorist Nelson Mandela…
hawkinspeter wrote:
If everyone thought like them voting rights would still be linked to owning property and the House of Lords would still be the dominant house.
Radical change has always come through disruptive protest.
hawkinspeter wrote:
There’s better ways to get what you want. The suffragettes in the UK were a terrorist movement. They mailed bombs and killed people. If you have to rely on violence for your cause then you can’t reason or debate with logic and compassion.
Jenova20 wrote:
…and when reasoning with logic and compassion leads to getting ridiculed and ignored, what avenues are left?
I can’t think of any significant changes to human rights that have come from politely asking people in power to relinquish some of that power.
Jenova20 wrote:
Act in an extreme way and you’ll get an extreme reaction. When your protest becomes disruptive, violent or destructive it should be curbed. At that point you’re pretty much just rioting.— AlsoSomniloquism
if protest isn’t disruptive, it isn’t gonna be effective. History shows this to be true.
“Pretty much just” is doing an awful lot of work there.
Jenova20 wrote:
Is there any form of public protest that could not be classed as “disruptive” to some degree? Even if two people meet to protest, say, outside the Russian embassy, they could be said to be disrupting the passage of people on the pavement. The logical conclusion of “curbing” any protest on the grounds that it was “disruptive” is that nobody would be allowed to protest except within the confines of their own home. Something I’m sure our current Home Secretary would be overjoyed to enforce if she thought she could get away with it.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I thought that was the very point of the recent changes? You can only protest if you OK it ahead of time with the police, and even then if a single person disagrees with you at the day then they can say you’re being disruptive and the whole shebang gets closed down.
(Except if the protesters are taxi drivers, who I’m sure can continue to do whatever they want…)
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
What on earth is a “climate control activist”???
Bmblbzzz wrote:
It’s the one you compare other activists against to determine if they’re being effective.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
It’s like a climate activist but cooler…