A driver who murdered an e-bike rider by deliberately ramming him off his bike “to teach him a lesson for doing wheelies” has been jailed for life and will serve a minimum of 22 years.
Abdirahman Ibrahim, 21, hit e-bike rider Liam Jones, 22, twice just after midnight on 1 August 2023, the second time catapulting him into a concrete bollard and causing fatal chest and abdominal injuries.
The driver, in a Seat Leon, was on Coventry Road near the Bulling shopping centre when he came across Mr Jones riding an electric bike with a friend. Mr Jones’ bike was described as an electric off-road bike by the Guardian and an e-motorbike by the BBC. road.cc has asked West Midlands Police for clarification on the type of electric bikes Mr Jones and his friend were riding, the CCTV images below showing the pair being followed by Ibrahim.
Officers believe the driver was angered by Mr Jones’ “showboating”, namely pulling a wheelie in front of him, and turned around at a roundabout to follow the e-bike riders. It is believed Ibrahim “wanted to teach him a lesson” and the enraged driver chased the pair as they tried to get away, changing route and riding the wrong way down a one-way street in a bid to escape their pursuer.
While the other cyclist escaped, Ibrahim drove at Mr Jones twice, the second time ramming him into a concrete bollard and inflicting catastrophic injuries that he later died from at the scene.
Ibrahim then drove over the bike again before fleeing the scene. He stopped in Sparkbrook and his brother, Abdullahi Ibrahim, who had been a passenger in the vehicle during the incident, called for a taxi just before 1am.
CCTV footage showed the pair stopping at a shop on Coventry Road on the way home.
Abdullahi Ibrahim pleaded guilty to assisting an offender and has also been jailed for two years and ten months.
At the driver’s trial in February, Birmingham Crown Court heard that on the evening of August 1, 2023, Ibrahim hunted Mr Jones down in his Seat Leon after he was “wound up” by Mr Jones and a friend who were doing wheelies along a road.
Ibrahim, of Yardley, Birmingham, denied murder but was found guilty following a retrial and was today jailed for life, with a minimum term of 22 years.
Detective Inspector Nick Barnes, from West Midlands Police’s homicide unit, said: “Abdirahman Ibrahim was intent on causing harm to Liam. He could have turned off at any point but he followed the riders and wanted to be in control. This was not a case of racing gone wrong as had been claimed by Ibrahim, but of him menacingly pursuing Liam and his friend.
“We believe he was angered by Liam’s showboating and wanted to teach him a lesson. He knew what he had done and did nothing to help, instead driving off. Tragically, Liam lost his life and Ibrahim will now spend many years of his own young life in prison. Ibrahim’s brother may have felt a sense of loyalty, but by trying to help his sibling he is now also a convicted criminal.
“We know Liam’s death caused a lot of concern within the community and our detectives have worked tirelessly – reviewing hours upon hours of CCTV footage and phone records – to ensure we achieved these convictions. While nothing will ever bring Liam back, we hope knowing those involved have been caught and are being punished will provide some solace to his family and friends.”





















46 thoughts on “Road rage driver jailed for life after killing e-bike rider “to teach him a lesson for doing wheelies””
Horrendous crime and sentence
Horrendous crime and sentence well deserved, and sorry to point this out when someone has died, but this was an electric motorbike, not a bicycle. Even the BBC got this right. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjd37km83p9o
Wow, wonders will never cease
Wow, wonders will never cease, the BBC correctly identifies an e-motorbike rather than an e-bike!
Though you could argue that if they’d (correctly) called it an illegal motorbike, they’d be called out for victim blaming? Bit like the judge focusing on the fact that the rider wasn’t wearing a helmet.
Jakrayan wrote:
Not sure this is correct terminology. The (electric) motorbike itself isn’t illegal. It can be sold entirely legally, but it can only be used on private land. It is the use of the motorbike on public roads which is illegal. A correct example might be: “illegal use of an unregistered electric motorbike”.
Fair point! However, as it
Fair point! However, as it was illegal to use said electric motorbike in that place – public highway – it it (presumably) had no type approval or MOT, let alone vehicle tax or insurance, I’d still say it’s illegal! Splitting hairs, I know 😉
To be fair to road.cc, it
To be fair to road.cc, it seems the source of the report might be West Midlands Police, who also refer to them as bikes snd e-bikes. Seems fairly clear they were not EAPCs though.
Does this signal a change of BBC editorial policy though?
I don’t think it’s a change
I don’t think it’s a change by the BBC. One article I read said it had been updated to refer to electric motorcycles. So a response to a complaint rather than a new policy.
Sure, but previously their
Sure, but previously their response to complaints about their use of “ebike” (e.g. their response re: that Adrian Chiles Panorama episode) has been that they see no issue with using ebike to refer to a wide range of vehicles – so this is some progress.
Wouldn’t have happened with a
Wouldn’t have happened with a strong immigration policy…
Seriously? What ’cause before
Seriously? What ’cause before we had immigration “everyone was so nice to each other”. That’s right.
Fuck off back to your goblin hole and next time you come out try harder to think, even just a little bit.
Another internet crusader
Thanks for that. Nothing
Thanks for that. Nothing would’ve happened other than Celts and Romans fighting each other.
And what have the Romans ever
And what have the Romans ever done for us?
Jakrayan wrote:
Roads. And cyclepaths. No, wait a minute……..
Splitter.
Just open YT and browse for
Just open YT and browse for “UK Road Rage” videos to see almost exclusively native white drivers, in the majority of cases plainly attempting to kill other drivers for as little as beeping the horn.
Jamminatrix wrote:
Who let the racist in?
Tragic, and it’s difficult to
Tragic, and it’s difficult to understand the thinking of the driver, to murder a person who had done them no harm.
So a driver who deliberately attacks and kills someone gets the same sentence as a cyclist who recklessly, but not deliberately, kills someone?
The maximum sentence for the
The maximum sentence for the proposed law relating to causing death by dangerous cycling is the same as that for causing death by dangerous driving, ie life. Not sure where you get the ‘reckless’ part from, do you have any examples?
For what it’s worth, in this case he was convicted of murder as it was clearly a deliberate act using his car as a weapon, and absolutely the correct charge in my opinion. Very different to someone cycling at an unsafe speed who kills someone that steps out in front of them, for example.
Undoubtedly a heinous act,
Undoubtedly a heinous act, but I don’t see what it’s got to do with cycling
Read it as 22 months at first
Read it as 22 months at first out of habit.
I wonder why they went with murder instead of dangerous or careless driving this time..
I guess with Reform at the gates he’s lucky they didn’t go with a terrorism charge.
Given their populist pledges
Given their populist pledges on cycle paths etc. he’s probably have got it down to manslaughter.
In other reports, the judge
In other reports, the judge seems to have focussed on the fact that the victim wasn’t wearing a helmet. Why?? Does he seriously believe that would have made a significant difference to the survivability prospects of someone being deliberately rammed by someone driving a 1.5 tonne vehicle at speed and being propelled into a concrete post? It read that he believed the rider was more vulnerable as a result; would he have been fair game if he was helmeted?
Admittedly this report was in the Times, not exactly known for it’s pro-cycling attitude. Apart from its token, lip-service ‘campaign’ for safer streets.
My son came off his bike at
My son came off his bike at the local skatepark at weekend grazed his knee, elbow and thought he’d broken his thumb so took him to urgent care unit for check up, X-ray etc…At every stage he was seen one of the first questions asked was if he was wearing a helmet (he was)…no head injury in sight, so why the need to ask the question..?
Being charitable, presumably
Being charitable, presumably it’s good triage practice to ascertain if there might also be a head injury (which wouldn’t necessarily be visible)? Though I agree that “was he wearing a helmet” wouldn’t necessarily answer that.
Yeah, i’d have thought the
Yeah, i’d have thought the more reasonable question to ask would have been ‘have you hit your head in anyway?’ And then if the answer to that was yes then ask about helmets..there’s something ingrained in society which associates helmets being the first line of defence against any injury on a bike.
NotNigel wrote:
Because the original research about helmets, the worst of bad science (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets, 1989) showed that cycle helmets prevented injuries to parts of the body not covered by the helmet. https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html
That study has been destroyed on peer review, its findings have never been replicated, and the authors had to do another paper claiming that the failure of helmets to save lives was because they weren’t being worn properly. That paper was the second worst of bad science.
The first study is the most quoted about cycle helmets, even though it is blatantly wrong. The laws brought in because of those papers, Australia and New Zealand mainly, are still in existence because politicians can’t admit that they were gullible fools who believed atrociously bad science.
eburtthebike wrote:
It may have done, but I can’t see that claim on the linked page – from that summary, the study seems to major on helmet efficacy in preventing head injuries?
quiff wrote:
Someone did a re-analysis of the TRT figures, which showed that helmets protected limbs, but I’m sorry, I can’t remember who, and a quick search hasn’t found it. If I find it, I’ll post a link.
eburtthebike wrote:
Other research shows that the opposite may be the case: that motorists drive less carefully around helmet wearing cyclists which one might expect would lead to more limb injuries.
NotNigel wrote:
Falling off a bike in a play area is exactly the scenario where a helmet would help to protect a childs head from injury. I’m sure healthcare workers have seen plenty of examples of injuries to children where a helmet would have helped and I can fully understand that they would want to encourage helmet wearing in these situations.
Reminds me of this cartoon.
Reminds me of this cartoon.
100%
100%
I don’t know how true it is but I remember reading about a case where the victim wasn’t wearing a helmet but suffered a leg injury.
When asked why, the cyclist’s lawyer suggested the judge/defence wear a helmet before being hit in the leg with a cricket bat to see how much difference the helmet would make…
Had the same thing on a bike
Had the same thing on a bike ride, with another cyclist asking why the lady with the scratch on her leg wasn’t wearing a helmet!
The behaviour of the motorist
The behaviour of the motorist is a very clear example of vigilantism – the act of preventing, investigating, and punishing perceived offenses and crimes without legal authority – yet it hasn’t been called out as such. Contrast this with the frequent false accusations in the mass media that camera cyclists are somehow vigilantes.
While I welcome the stronger
While I welcome the stronger sentence than usual, in this case because it was clear that the driver intended to hurt the victim…
I can’t help but imagine that the sentence would have been less if the driver was white.
mitsky wrote:
pathetic.
No, I think it’s “probably
No, I think it’s “probably not as much of an effect as you’d think on sentence length in general – but when we actually look there’s a significant effect on e.g. the likelihood of police attention or not, or in general on a custodial sentence or not (having corrected for other effects) – and this may be cumulative as it seems subsequent sentencing is influenced by previous”.
https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/64/5/1189/7612940#479141675
More basic statistics (noted “No causative links can be drawn from these summary statistics.”)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ethnicity-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2022/statistics-on-ethnicity-and-the-criminal-justice-system-2022-html
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/courts-sentencing-and-tribunals/sentences-and-custody/latest/
Kids on electric motorbikes
Kids on electric motorbikes get a lot of flack, and when they’re being dangerous around others its understandable, but in these urban areas, I’d rather see these kids having fun on e-motorbikes, than running around stabbing people, which is what most seem to be interested in these days, sadly. More effort from local councils to create places for kids to use these machines would be such an positive influence on situations like this.
alexuk wrote:
Unfortunately in many areas, including mine, those two things are not mutually exclusive; after Deliveroo riders, the second most frequent users of illegal electric motorbikes are the local gangs who use them for muggings, drug transportation et cetera.
alexuk wrote:
What would be a better overall benefit would be spaces for kids (and thus everyone) to get around on bicycles, not motorbikes. To give them independent mobility and thus increase their own agency in their lives.
Sure – that doesn’t fix the “what is there to do” in deprived areas. As one intervention I do think adding e.g. a motorbike track can be a good thing. But fixing “nothing to do here and no money to do it with” is beyond the scope of e.g. a single motobike track anyway.
They would still have to
They would still have to somehow get to those dedicated places i.e. ride on the public roads / footpaths.
Flak.
Flak.
How do you know they haven’t
How do you know they haven’t got Killing Me Softly on repeat?
For All We Know they have.
For All We Know they have.
Everyone who knows – knows
Everyone who knows – knows people on these bikes are mostly not gonna be upto no good, usually they have bananas on and that in itself looks manacing…then add on some illegal activity and it’s a outright ‘negative
Im hoping that you don’t
Im hoping that you don’t believe they should be killed because of these things though…
leedorney wrote:
People think they’ll cause them to fall over?