A motorist who verbally abused and threatened a cyclist who had waved at him to slow down, before viciously assaulting him during a supposedly chance encounter the following day, has been handed a 15-month suspended prison sentence.
Philip Turvey was driving on Mellis Road, in the small Suffolk village of Mellis on 15 February 2024 when he attempted to overtake a cyclist, who gestured towards him, indicating that he should drop his speed, Ipswich Crown Court was told this week.
After passing the 67-year-old cyclist, Turvey – angered by the gesture – stopped his car 50 metres later, blocking the road. According to prosecutor Godfried Duah, the driver rolled down his window and asked the cyclist: ““What the f*** are you doing telling me to slow down? I’m doing the speed limit.”
58-year-old Turvey then got out of his car and shouted at the cyclist to “come on and fight me”, before swearing at the pensioner and telling him to “go back to Africa”.
The following day, Turvey was preparing to take his dog for a walk when he met the cyclist, allegedly by chance, having parked his car outside his home, the East Anglian Daily Times reports.
As the cyclist left his home, Turvey confronted the 67-year-old, demanding an apology, before shouting and swearing at him once more and grabbing him by the throat.
At that point, the victim threw his bike forward to create space between him and Turvey, making contact with the driver’s car in the process. Turvey grabbed the cyclist’s throat once again, telling him: “I’m going to kill you”.
The 58-year-old then punched the cyclist several times in the face, leaving him with bruising and swelling to his mouth. In a victim impact statement read to the court, the cyclist said he was fearing for his life during the vicious attack.
At Ipswich Crown Court this week, Turvey pleaded guilty to assault causing actual bodily harm. He was handed a 15-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, and ordered to undertake a 20-day rehabilitation activity and 60 hours unpaid work.
He was also banned from contacting the victim for two years and told to pay £250 in costs and £500 compensation to the cyclist.
“This was a road rage incident which shouldn’t have spilled over into the following day,” judge Nicola Talbot-Hadley told the motorist, who claimed the court that he was remorseful and wished he hadn’t behaved in such a manner. Turvey also said that he has now put his house up for sale and is looking to leave the area.
Unfortunately, similar road rage attacks on cyclists – including those who gestured at motorists to drive in a safer manner – are all too common in the UK.
Last year, a female cyclist was assaulted by a motorist in Bristol, who followed her before attacking her and kicking her bike after she gestured for the driver to give her space on the road.
The 20-year-old cyclist was riding on Bristol’s Shaldon Road on 10 April when she attempted to warn the driver of a black Land Rover Discovery that he was driving too closely to her.
The cyclist’s gesture, however, seemingly incensed the motorist – a man in his late 50s or early 60s – who then followed the 20-year-old before getting out of his car and assaulting her.
The man also kicked the cyclist’s bike and shouted obscenities at her during the alarming road rage attack. The motorist eventually drove off after three women came to the victim’s aid.
And in September, a 37-year-old man was arrested and charged with assault following an incident in Edinburgh, the video of which went viral on social media and showed the moment a cyclist was thrown to the ground by a driver who slammed the victim’s head against the road.
> Police make arrest after sickening footage of cyclist slammed to ground by driver goes viral
The video, which was viewed more than 26 million times on X/Twitter the weekend it was posted, shows a cyclist standing front of a vehicle as its passenger remonstrates with him in Edinburgh’s Old Town.
A male driver then got out of the vehicle, before walking up to the cyclist and grabbing both hands around his neck, slamming the rider off his bike and hitting his head against the road.
Afterwards, the passenger and driver returned to the vehicle, which had a learner plate in the front windscreen, while the cyclist was seen holding his head and lying motionless in the road.
77 thoughts on ““What the f*** are you doing telling me to slow down?” Road rage driver assaulted cyclist after pensioner waved at him to slow down, handed suspended sentence”
As the cyclist left his home,
As the cyclist left his home, Turvey confronted the 67-year-old, demanding an apology, before shouting and swearing at him once more and grabbing him by the throat.
The 58-year-old then punched the cyclist several times in the face,…
……has been handed a 15-month suspended prison sentence.
SUSPENDED!? Incredible. Just who does he know? The local chief constable? Goes to the same lodge as the judge?
I bet he’s glad it was only a cyclist, not someone important, like another driver. If it had been anyone else, they’d be banged up by now. Can you imagine what sentence you’d get for assaulting someone and threatening to kill them: unless it’s a cyclist. But people who go on peaceful protests about humans destroying the planet get five years.
Our laughably called “justice system” stinks, but after the news today that the planet is now 1.75 degrees C hotter, we’re all f****d anyway.
I’d presume the clearly has
I’d presume the clearly has anger issues driver was on a first offence and prisons are full.
But be thankful you don’t have to share the roads with people like that.
You make an interesting point
You make an interesting point here; a threat to kill is a serious offence in its own right. The challenge for prosecutors being to prove that the offender meant it at the time, or that the victim genuinely feared for their life in the moment.
Having someone follow you to your home, grab you, hit you, and then threaten to kill you, would in my mind make it a more than reasonable for the victim to believe their life was genuinely being threatened.
I’m interested to know why this wasn’t taken further. I’m also surprised the racial element was not taken into account.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
From the report, it sounds like he was charged based on the physical assault that took place the next day, whereas the racial comment was part of the road rage incident.
It’s remarkable.
It’s remarkable.
I’m generally in favour of non-prison based forms of punishment and rehabilitation, but there’s something about a suspended sentence that is unsatisfactory in cases like this. Yes, there’s the mandated rehablitation activity & community service, and while it’s not something I’d like to do, it doesn’t sound that tough for him to carry on with his life as if it hadn’t happened. People with those racist attitudes rarely exist in a vacuum, so the odds are that he’ll be telling his friends he was a victim of injustice etc.
I assume some aspects were hard to prove, and so could not be taken into account for sentencing, but can we not require at least some people on suspended sentences wear a tag for a period of time to at least limit their social life for a couple of months.
It’s also yet another reminder why running a camera can be useful. If there was evidence to back up the initial dangerous driving and racially aggrevated abuse, then a more severe sentence, impacting his licence, might have been more likely.
How about a driving ban to
How about a driving ban to accompany a suspended sentence? There is already a section that allows a ban for any offence.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/section/163
Of course that would be against their magna carta rights.
FionaJJ wrote:
Of course our courts a) enshrine “innocent until proven guilty” and b) judge each charge on its merits (broadly) in isolation, with “previous” only being accounted for in the penalty phase…
… and while this often produces results which are difficult to swallow I think those are good principles…
… BUT for specific types of offending I think we may have the balance a bit off. e.g. Offenses around driving and cars – never mind strictly “driving offenses” – seem to be a societal blind spot.
It’s the “otherwise law abiding” / “previously unblemished record” scenario where what that most likely shows is the a gaps in our detection and prosecution. It’s really rather unlikely this individual has not long been a danger to people on the roads via their aggressive attitude while driving, and also unlikely they won’t have been violent before in general. And sadly imilarly unlikely that this will be the end of it
Assault a cyclist, appear to
Assault a cyclist, appear to be remorseful in court, don’t go to prison. Good to know, thanks Ipswich Crown Court /s
I’m sure if I totally lost my
I’m sure if I totally lost my shit with an OAP driver, blocked them, threatened them and racially abused them, then “accidentally” found them the next day, pulled them from their car and beat them up I would get a suspended sentence…we seem to have moved on from what we all knew was the case already, that you can pretty much do what you like to somebody with a car, to you can pretty much do what you like as long as your car is tangentially involved in your psychotic behaviour and still stay out of jail.
By the way does anybody (chrisonabike?) know what happened to the driver in the Edinburgh assault mentioned above? I can only find out that he appeared in court shortly afterwards and was bailed to appear at a later date, has he not been tried yet?
It’s all quite quiet up on on
It’s all quite quiet up here on that scumbag, Rendel.
Rumours have it that the seman stain that was driving has the car on motability and that Police Scotland have made the scheme provider change this piece of shits car due to doxing risk… FoC of course.
Rumour also has it, that this waste of DNA is well known to the PS .. but is unlikely to face serious charges.
How much is true .. who knows.
But, everywhere is quiet.
Yup – trail (officially) gone
Yup – trail (officially) gone cold. It may just be because the courts work in their own sweet time. It may…
Thanks for the update both.
Thanks for the update both. As usual, one is forced to wonder whether the justice system would be quite so lackadaisical if footage existed of a cyclist smashing a driver unconscious by beating their head onto the tarmac….
I mean, fucking hell.
I mean, fucking hell. Everything about this screams angry scumbag that should be in prison for some time and should have his license taken away. He doesn’t seem to understand that staying under the speed limit doesn’t make you safe or mean you are abiding by the rules.
So far we have:
Racism, threats, road rage, assault. I’m sure he will have learned his lesson though with such a stiff punishment. Pathetic excuse for a human being and pathethic punishment.
So what have we learnt from
So what have we learnt from this? Tough new laws on cycling – that’s what we need…
The “war” on motorists continues unabated obvs
Frankly, I would like
Frankly, I would like suspended sentences to be modified to being one week in prison and the rest suspended.
I don’t want people spending their lives in prison, being further indoctrinated and trained by the range of mindless (and, worse, mindful) thugs that dominate the prison environment. I would rather that a suspended sentence required some active involvement in community-based anger management, retraining (road sense), and worthwhile community contribution than time and lives were wasted.
If prison is necessary to protect society at large, then so be it, but otherwise it is largely counter-productive, expensive, inefficient and poor at addressing recidivism.
Don’t get me wrong: when people cut me up, threaten me or assault me, I want to hang them up from the nearest gibbet by what’s left of their test tickles after I’ve repeatedly kicked them there. But that’s me, that’s revenge; it’s not society, and it’s not punishment or correction.
That said: that week in prison? That’s to let people know what it’s really like. Keep out of here, because we only put OCG and unstable people here; either is likely to put your head on a spike while you’re still trying to use it.
Meanwhile, I want proper ongoing training to be required to maintain a licence. You have to attend relevant courses, which you must complete satisfactorily to gain the credit, or your licence is suspended. These will include attitudes to other road users, anger management on the road. And satisfactory completion will include an attitude test. Course providers must demonstrate that they don’t just pass you when you walk in the room.
When I am world
dictatorpresident, these things shall come to pass, Day 1. And out will go owners with dogs on long/extendable leads. The gibbet is too good them!Not sure tickling is much of
Not sure tickling is much of a punishment!
The introduction of digital licences does seem to give a way to interface with the car system to prevent banned drivers from driving.
How can you tell if a girl is
How can you tell if a girl is ticklish?
Give her a couple of test tickles and see if she laughs.
Oh stop talking balls, Burt.
Oh stop talking balls, Burt.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Never! I’m reporting you to somebody in authority for trying to restrict my freedom of speech. It’s every true born Englishman’s proudest entitlement to be able to talk balls e.g. Farage, Boris, Tommy two names etc.
He told the victim to “go
He told the victim to “go back to Africa” then came back the next day and beat him up? How is this not racially-aggravated assault??!?!!!
Because cyclist
Because cyclist
ubercurmudgeon wrote:
Telling certain people * to “go back to africa” – even if they didn’t come from there – was government policy recently…
Also – perhaps this is just the justice system seeking consistency – if they’re not going to lock people up for hitting others with their cars, why should they lock them up for hitting them with their fists?
* Ones without a medical qualification or an invite to study at the University of South Neasden, that is. We probably don’t want folks who’ve overstayed their welcome though (e.g. lingering here after they came over to work post-WW2).
ubercurmudgeon wrote:
Very strange given that a while ago a white Welsh driver told some white cyclists to “go back to England” or something similar (I think they were actually from mainland Europe) and then drove his car into them and was done for a racist attack.
Good to know that should I
Good to know that should I want to attack someone, I can wait till he ride his bike and attack him and get away with 20-day rehabilitation activity, 60 hours unpaid work and a 3 digit fine.
cyclisto wrote:
Or just run them over with your car. You’ll probably walk free.
Sun was in your eyes,
Sun was in your eyes, momentary loss of concentration or the Scottish, I do not remember…
Regardless of discussions on
Regardless of discussions on other punishments, how on earth is there not a driving ban.
The goal of jailing someone is protecting the public, which can be achieved here by stopping them getting road rage driving…
qwerty360 wrote:
I would guess because the original road rage offence would be very hard to prove without video evidence (also I’ve been told several times by the police and CPS that if there are two offences they prefer just to charge the most serious one), and although the assault clearly followed on from the original incident it did actually occur when the perpetrator was a pedestrian and so much as I agree it would be desirable for him to serve a long driving ban it wouldn’t be justified under the law.
This is where the system is
This is where the system is broken. The driver has been asked to complete 20 days of rehabilitation activity. This suggests (that without rehabilitation) the court considers him a medium risk of reoffending. We don’t actually know what the rehabilitation is for but I’m assuming it’s anger management. Firtsly, he should not be allowed to drive until he has completed the course because of the identified risk and once he’s completed the course the decision on whether to license him to continue driving should rest with the DVLA. I’m not even convinced that we have a system that joined up enough that the DVLA even know about his mental instability.
Quote:
Presumably this result/judge
Presumably this result/judge can be referred for being unduly lenient.
mitsky wrote:
Nope. Under what law?
mitsky wrote:
Unfortunately not, as far as I can see (IANAL) this sentence falls within the sentencing guidance parameters for the offence so no grounds.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Even then you’d struggle. There is no unduely lenient sentencing scheme for crimes below manslaughter and you’d as the victim your have no right of appeal because you’re essentially just a witness.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Actually any person, victim or even just a member of the public with no connection to the offence, can ask the Attorney Genertal to review a case under the ULS scheme, and it’s not just for crimes of manslaughter and above, drug crimes, fraud and money laundering, some racially and religiously aggravated offences, sexual offences and threats to kill all come under the remit of the scheme. But yes, not for this type of assault, though if the racial element had been included it could have been.
That’s an appalling case and
That’s an appalling case and an extremely lenient sentence given it sounds very like a racially aggravated assault. I assume the attacker is an admirer of Tommy two names.
Quote:
Quite a few people I’ve known, haven’t seemed to realise that sometimes “the speed limit” IS too fast
Minimum Speed Limits, isn’t
Minimum Speed Limits, isn’t it?
The more I keep reading posts
The more I keep reading posts like this, the less I feel like getting back out on my bike even when the weather gets better. The roads are getting busier and busier and drivers seem to be more impatient and aggressive than ever.
We didn’t use to have our
We didn’t use to have our fears reinforced by reading about all the incidents occurring across the country. I’m not convinced drivers have got worse, but cyclists have got more aggressive about their rights and that can raise the temperature.
Cycling will never be safe but you can improve your chances by wearing hi vis and fitting mirrors to spot the approaching loony in advance. If you want to then go ahead and keep your wits about you.
Apps can make it easier to plan a route in advance.
How does that stop the idiots
How does that stop the idiots who overtake you on a blind bend where traffic the other way can be 50mph ?
NE2Wheels wrote:
“Dangerising cycling” – check!
“Drivers aren’t the issue” – check!
“Aggressive cyclists” – check!
“Use PPE” – check!
House?
Another bonus point for a counsel of despair “Cycling will never be safe”. Well … actually you can fall off your bike, ride into something … so yeah? On the other hand properly designed and built completely separate cycle infra is about as safe as you’re going to get on a bike without cycling on a padded surface. And removing most of the traffic while slowing the remaining vehicles right down (by / and removing motivation to speed / squeeze by cyclists) can make things as safe as walking [1] [2].
“asking for your rights (e.g. not to be blocked, assaulted etc.) from the majority = being aggressive / stirring things up”. Nice. Of course – this is in fact how many people see a situation where they feel their priveledges – as “the mainstream / majority” (as they see it…) are being questioned.
Nah, failed to get in the
Nah, failed to get in the compulsory helmet comment or the ‘middle of the road’ remark.
Yes house, you’re full of it.
Yes house, you’re full of it.
I’ve long been jealous of the infrastructure in Holland but they still have cycling accidents. No counsel of despair, I’m just of opinion that while we wait for Utopia it’s a good idea to maximise our chances of survival. Of course drivers are the issue, that’s why you need to do everything you can to avoid contact with them. Do you use mirrors to foresee who’s about to do a close pass or would that shrink your manhood?
I’m all for practical safety
I’m all for practical safety measures in a “hostile environment” *. But I don’t think stuff we can use like reflectives, mirrors, road positioning, lights, helmets etc. will make it safe. Your example of foreseeing a closer pass illustrates the point. That may give me warning but it’s still out of *my* control whether a driver hits me. (Unless I get off the road entirely and run away).
We need to be clear why, if we’re happy with the status quo and what to do if not.
It’s not just “Holland” BTW or waiting for utopia – change isn’t easy but it’s possible in a few years as you can see from Seville, Paris, Oulu, Oslo… (and the difference “good enough” makes in eg. Freidenburg, Copenhagen … even a couple of places in London perhaps!)
(Will the UK as a whole do so in our lifetimes? Guessing no).
The key difference with all the places actually doing something about road danger is that a lot of their “accidents” are more … accidental **. The UK’s ones often seem rather predictable. A combination of hoping that everyone will “do the right thing” and then mixing them together on infra designed for a single mode*** plus an increasing number of motor vehicles in the space. Don’t have numbers on this but I think it’s more “enough sometimes dozy, distracted or confused humans” rather than a few psycho killers doing the bulk of the damage.
Oh – and the fact that there’s a narrative that drivers are picked on where in fact becoming a driver is like joining a club, you get government help paying for your activity. And the club rules are rarely enforced, with minimal punishments. That doesn’t help.
* Actually – it’s not bad here in Edinburgh. For me as a lifetime cyclist. But most people don’t cycle for transport and certainly their kids don’t. The roads being unpleasant and inconvenient for cycling is part of why.
** Cyclist cycles into something, or falls over. And in those places there are a greater proportion of journeys cycled and a greater proportion of those are the young and old – who tend to have more crashes and for the latter the consequences can be more severe. Just like them falling over while walking.
*** This goes for car – cyclist AND “shared space” with pedestrians. Actually we do provide “safety” for people outside cars – just in exchange for convenience.
I totally agree there’s a
I totally agree there’s a limit to how much control we have individually over what happens to us and hoping drivers do the right thing isn’t an intelligent strategy. No safety measure is guaranteed to protect you, just as quitting smoking doesn’t guarantee you won’t get lung cancer. But there are occasions where a mirror can help. If you’re 30 metres from a traffic island and there’s a car thirty metres behind you hanging over the centre line then you should know what it’s going to do and it’s a good idea to back off on the pedals and let him get to the pinch point ahead of you. Even if it means touching the brake. I’ve been told before by cyclists that they prefer looking over their shoulder but the reality is that you can keep yourself better informed with mirrors. They cost next to nothing but the majority of cyclists are averse to using them which makes no sense to me.
I have run mirrors on most of
I have run mirrors on most of my bikes since I turned to the dark side (recumbents). I still have the flexibility to make do without but why would I, they’re great! I’ve an aerobar and they’re positioned stably and indeed are more convenient that car wing – sorry door – mirrors.
For uprights I think it’s less of an open goal. More people probably would benefit… But getting a good one with sufficient field of view and fitting it so it’s sufficiently convenient AND which then doesn’t get banged when parking or shake out of place… that’s definitely more work and for many less benefit I guess.
Depending on geometry fitting so it doesn’t involve you moving your head almost enough to see behind anyway (i can do “look down and under arm”) may vary. Yes “on either side” but then you’ll be bashing them on stuff and constantly putting back in place. Still worth it with a good enough mirror – but they’re not all good (even ones that aren’t super cheap).
(My recumbents live easy lives! My town hacks I try to be careful with but they get battered regardless because used every day).
chrisonabike wrote:
You’ve gone double dark – recumbent AND mirrors! But as you say, why would you do without mirrors once you’ve got them sorted out? Worth a bit of hassle and a few quid a year on replacement costs.
I don’t envy you the recumbent. I think they’re a great machine for the bold and if we had cycle paths everywhere then maybe I’d indulge but not for me as we’re currently setup.
Well, on one of my uprights I
Well, on one of my uprights I have a mirror mounted but it is really too small / fitting is not secure enough. I find I just don’t use it. On that bike it’s mostly errands around town or the odd potter. I’m either off roads completely *, on 20mph limit roads and/or where motor traffic has slowed itself down. Moving my head still feels the easiest option.
If I made the effort I could probably find a good mirror, a good mount, train myself … My first recumbent didn’t have one but people said “you MUST!” (although turns out I could actually look behind) so I made the effort. The second one had them fitted – it was just “adjust, tighten, job done!”
So if bikes *came* with them AND someone helped set them up perhaps they’d be more common?
Recumbents are great machines … for those who like them. Or for some folks who can’t get on comfortably with uprights. They’re brilliant for a few uses (sometimes quite literally unbeatable [1] especially when faired [2]). Mine just has an increasing comfort advantage over my uprights the further I go. Plus it puts a smile on my face (except uphill).
They’re normally less adaptable than the average upright though. Plus they are usually heavier, longer, don’t fit standard cycle facilities/spaces, more expensive etc. Mechanical horses for courses.
Brave doesn’t come into it really. For one I’ve far less far to fall! In less manoeverable / lower ones ** I would not seek out rush hour traffic – but I use mine for leisure so don’t anyway! Indeed the only “visibility problems” I’ve had have been drivers getting distracted by “what is that thing?” and trying to get closer for a look or to video!
* I’m really not keen on shared use, but the local paths are mostly lightly used and so usually convenient. Plus there is a tiny amount of “starting to look more like Copenhagen if not yet Dutch” infra creeping in.
** I’ve got something pretty “middle of the road” ATM – I certainly have done shopping with it but it’s not at its best as a town hack. For one – you really don’t want to get stuck in a high gear (e.g. if you have had to stop in a hurry)…
As a summary – hopefully we
As a summary – hopefully we can do both eg. small but more achievable things that are slightly helpful for the cyclists of today.
EDIT and ideally a bit more driver training (periodic retests?) and some more policing – but it seems that getting that to happen is even harder than getting in cycle infra (a few tweaks here, maybe even a mini- network there) or taking away a few parking spaces!
But also stuff for all the *motor vehicle users* of today – to make it easy for them not to drive sometimes. Because without providing really good alternatives to driving all those short journeys (AND also slightly discouraging them) there won’t ever be more than a few percent cycling. And we’ll forever be begging drivers to bother to drive a bit less carelessly, or hoping our PPE improve our chances.
(There are also details of some infra and rule designs which explicity try to put responsibility for safety back in the hands of those affected, but that’s a whole other topic).
NE2Wheels wrote:
I think the word you’re looking for is assertive, as advised in the updated highway code. Few drivers have read that though and the police seeem ignore it. May that’s part of the problem.
“The code is more what you’d
“The code is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.”
eg
eg
Assertive if you prefer. But
Assertive if you prefer. But nobody likes being criticised, and there’s always a risk that if you criticise someone assertively for their driving it might turn out that they’re a psychopath. I’m not defending psychos, just saying that being assertive is your right but it does bring risks with it.
Of course psychos also ride bicycles. Someone recently got punched in the face for criticizing a cyclist for not stopping at a pedestrian crossing at a floating bus stop.
NE2Wheels wrote:
Ah. I thought you were referring to riding style when you used the word aggressive. If you were referring to cyclists communicating with drivers aggressively then I agree. I never shout at drivers and I will only talk to them if they talk to me first. The only example so far was a driver who didn’t see me on a mini roundabout. He stopped to apologise blaming the A frame. I suggested he move his head but I reported him anyway and he got a driver awareness course. I think he’ll look more carefully next time.
Although cyclists do need to
Although cyclists do need to be assertive verbally about their right to use the road, take primary. As you know from the passes you have had, a lot of drivers do not know the HC. It’s important to stand your ground on factual situations.
I suggested he move his head
I suggested he move his head but I reported him anyway and he got a driver awareness course
Up here we dream of the police taking even such action as that!
wtjs wrote:
Up here we dream of the police taking even such action as that!— wtjs
This was a failure to give way at a roundabout so although it was relatively straightforward to anticipate and avoid there is traffic law to support a prosecution. It’s just the close passes I have a problem with now as Gloucestershire, wrongly in my opinion and the opinion of CUK, doesn’t believe it meets the threshold for prosecution. That means they can’t send a warning letter either, hence the adoption of an advisory letter.
Unfortunately close passes are the ones you can’t do much about as they are coming from behind you and that’s what makes them the most dangerous incidents in my opinion.
NE2Wheels wrote:
Lights, HiViz and route planning did nothing to protect me in this instance. Please take time to note that he physically struck me as he passed. Drivers have got worse over the years and increasingly so. They may still be n the minority. But they’re a very dangerous and vocal minority.
https://youtu.be/UtM71BQDyng
That was horrendous
That was horrendous
Wasn’t the most pleasant. I
Wasn’t the most pleasant. I use this as my go to when the knuckle draggers bump their gums about HiViz etc.
I note you reported the
I note you reported the driver. I haven’t read all the replies but you seem to imply that it would be words of advice. Is that what happened?
Aye. Reported and words had.
Aye. Reported and words had. Knew that’s what I was going to get from good ole Polis Scotland.
Thanks for the info. At least
Thanks for the info. At least in Gloucestershire they write the advice down.
At least in Gloucestershire
At least in Gloucestershire they write the advice down
But they still refuse to tell you what it was?
No they do tell me. This was
No they do tell me. This was for my latest close pass.
The letter references this particular incident, and reminds the driver of their obligation to obey Highway Code rules in relation to the close passing of cyclists on a road, which are particularly vulnerable road users.
It was the whole of 2023 that they didn’t tell me anything straight away but they did tell me after a year when I asked. Since Feb 2024 they tell me the outcome (NFA, advisory letter or will take action) within a few days but I have to wait a year to find out what action has been taken.
Feedback is brilliant in Gloucestershire at the moment, it’s the outcomes for close passes which are the problem. Having to ask for a review to get an advisory letter when it should be an NIP straight away is not really how it should be. I don’t know whether it’s the law or the training but something needs to change. I did try to get CUK involved but they aren’t replying to my emails at the moment.
Please take time to note that
Please take time to note that he physically struck me as he passed
But were you inconvenienced!
wtjs wrote:
Not at the time. When he stopped though, further up the road to fix his mirror and I caught up, he then tried to weasel his way out with the usual thought there was room and he’s a cyclist himself.
I was trying to encourage
I was trying to encourage someone to go ahead and get back on two wheels, and take the positive steps they can to control their own destiny, which includes the controversial step of knowing what is approaching from behind . But ultimately none of us can control what the loonies do, it’s a dangerous world. Sorry to hear that you were physically struck.
NE2Wheels wrote:
Oh. I also use bar mirrors which identified the loon pulling in behind the black car. A life saver before entering the crossing confirmed this and then bam. In general motorists are pretty decent. Some loose focus and when confronted are deeply apologetic. Others not so much. Until the judiciary across all 4 nations in the U.K. start handing out more punitive restrictions regarding licenses the better. I once had to listen to someone bang on about the one cyclist a year who receives an 18 month custodial sentence and refused to accept that there are many more motorists out there who receive 20 week community sentences or suspended sentences as well as a 1year ban for killing vulnerable road users.
The one deterrent to people taking up cycling is how hostile and negligent motorists are towards cyclists. It doesn’t matter how many measures we take to protect ourselves. Until the attitudes and behaviours of motorists change we will continue to see huge KSIs.
Good to meet another one of
Good to meet another one of the minority! And sorry your precautions didn’t keep you safe.
There’s an argument for compulsory advanced driver training after a few years of collecting bad habits but it will never happen. Apparently the Do Not Speed lessons used to involve on the road training but it’s been reduced to classroom only. That’s a shame, it’s obviously cheaper but far less educational.
Maybe stiffer penalties would help although as the majority of drivers think they’re above average I’m not sure any driver expects to hit a problem.
Good luck out there.
NE2Wheels wrote:
Exactly how is wearing hi vis, being able to see a “loony approaching in advance” and planning a route in advance supposed to stop us from being assaulted?
whosatthewheel wrote:
Exactly how is wearing hi vis, being able to see a “loony approaching in advance” and planning a route in advance supposed to stop us from being assaulted? — NE2Wheels
It isn’t. I was responding to someone who is considering getting back on a bicycle but is nervous about it.
Let me guess, no comment from
Let me guess, no comment from Matthew Briggs?
If cycling is ever going to
If cycling is ever going to become a realistic alternative to driving then this kind of thuggery needs to be tackled. The idiot should have been given an immediate jail sentence as a deterrent to others.
And had he not shouted ‘go
And had he not shouted ‘go back to Africa’, the Police would have dismissed this.
bikeman01 wrote:
That’s nonsense. He wasn’t charged with anything to do with the original interaction (should have been but difficult without video evidence) but only with the physical assault the next day.