A van driver who punched a cyclist in the face and damaged his bike after becoming incensed because the man and his wife weren’t riding their bikes in the nearby cycle lane has been sentenced to unpaid work.
The incident took place at Bridlington, Yorkshire, at 9:05am on 29 June, when the 57-year-old cyclist and his wife were riding along Kingsgate. Adrian Burrows, 40, of Chapel Garth, Skipsea, was driving the van when he confronted the pair for not using a nearby cycle path, shouting: “There’s a f***ing bike path over there.”
When the cyclist asked, “What is it to do with you, mate?”, Burrows responded with, “F*** off, you southern c***”, then pulled his van in front of the couple and slammed on the brakes. The cyclist had to swerve into the road to avoid a collision with the van.
Jennifer Gatland, prosecuting, said that Burrows opened the door and jumped out of the van, and proceeded to punch the cyclist on the left side of his face.
The cyclist managed to stay upright and clipped into his pedal, but Burrows then picked up the man’s bike and threw it to the ground, scratching the frame and snapping the gear mechanism. The handlebars were also damaged.
The cyclist suffered swelling, bruising to his knee and legs, and sore ribs. He also endured a three-centimetre laceration to his ear, which had to be glued together at the Bridlington urgent treatment centre, Hull Live reports.
His wife, who witnessed the incident, shouted at Burrows and asked: “What’s wrong with you? Are you on drugs?”
The cyclist briefly took the van keys, told his wife to call the police and said that he was going straight to the police. However, he returned them out of fear that Burrows might assault him again.
He told the court: “During the last 10 months, I have felt anxious and nervous every time I go out on the bike. I am always on edge every time a vehicle passes me.
“I never thought being a southerner was so much of a problem with some people. I struggle to comprehend the level of hatred for cyclists.”
Hull Crown Court heard that Burrows, a self-employed bathroom fitter and father of two, had no previous convictions for violence, however, he did have a previous conviction for possessing cannabis in 2012.
His solicitor, Oliver Shipley, said Burrows had had an ordinary day, and was using his work van when the situation became “emotionally charged” over a disagreement with the cyclist over the laws of the road for cyclists and the positions on the road used by them.
“What can’t be justified or minimised is his behaviour following discussions with the cyclist about what happened,” Mr Shipley said. “He makes no effort to minimise or excuse his behaviour. He knows that, to defuse that situation, there are other means available to him other than an act that was well in excess of self-defence.”
“It was committed in the course of the working day. This was short-lived. The defendant accepts that this would have been particularly unpleasant for the complainant and his partner, having set out on their bikes not expecting the day to include this type of event. He has learned his lesson.”
Recorder Ayesha Smart told Burrows: “This can only be described as an incident of road rage where you became perturbed by the cyclist and his wife.
“What you should have done is stay in your van and go home rather than get out and engage in violence. His bike was damaged by virtue of you throwing that into the road.”
Burrows admitted to assaulting the cyclist, occasioning actual bodily harm and causing criminal damage. He was sentenced to 150 hours of unpaid work and ordered to pay £133 as compensation to cover the repairs to fix the bicycle.






















42 thoughts on ““Road rage” van driver who punched cyclist for not riding in the “f****** bike path” handed community sentence”
He was sentenced to 150 hours
He was sentenced to 150 hours of unpaid work and ordered to pay £133 as compensation to cover the repairs to fix the bicycle.
Whilst that is more than a slap on the wrist (150 hours unpaid when you’re self-employed is no joke) it hardly seems like justice for an unprovoked assault causing injury. I’m not sure what sentence would have been appropriate though: public flogging, couple of hours in the stocks?
I don’t know about the UK,
I don’t know about the UK, but in Denmark assault is usually at least a month in the slammer, AFAIK.
the way it reads it doesnt
the way it reads it doesnt half feel like they minimised the unprovoked bit, the solicitor saying the driver could have chosen a different way to defuse the situation, that situation his client completely and unnecessarily started.
I’m due to give evidence in a
I’m due to give evidence in a few weeks in a similar case where the driver got so upset that reacted by swearing after he aimed his car at me through a narrow pinch point that he turned around, caught up with me and assaulted me and caused criminal damage. Hoping he gets more than a slap on the wrist.
“He is sorry for having acted
“He is sorry for having acted in this way. This was not committed under the influence of alcohol.”
Mitigation in the form of not drinking and driving.
Was he smoking cannabis again though ?
Hirsute wrote:
Sounds like someone coming down from a session; anxiety, irascibility and aggression are quite common hangover effects from both weed and alcohol, particularly in heavy users. A lot of aggressive morning driving in London is, I’m convinced, down to people who are not neccessarily over the limit at the time but on a comedown. Pilots used to have the saying “Twelve hours bottle to throttle” (though it’s nowadays acknowledged of course that you can still be severely impaired for far longer); there should be public awareness campaigns to point out the danger of driving the day after a session, whether it be drugs or booze.
I do wonder if the court was
I do wonder if the court was aware of the fact that it’s perfectly legal to cycle on the road if there is a “cycle facility” in existence? Or perhaps they just felt that getting violently enraged about this is par for the course and not even worthy of comment?
Or is it that they simply inured to seeing cases where men (it almost always is…) lose their minds for no good reason and then assault others?
Yeah they seem to have had
Yeah they seem to have had the defendant apologise for his violent behaviour without making him admit that he was completely in the wrong in the first place.
IME, whether or not cyclists
IME, whether or not cyclists are *legally* required to use a cycle path is a level of detail that’s rarely of concern to people like this; I don’t think it matters who tells them.
The van driver would have
The van driver would have enjoyed a spell in prison. Plenty of people to fight with if they annoy you.
“What you should have done is
“What you should have done is stay in your van and go home rather than get out and engage in violence.”
No, what he should have done is wait until a safe place to pass and overtaken them. The incident started with intimidating behaviour driving alongside two cyclists and yelling at them.
It seems to me that behaving
It seems to me that behaving like that while *not* under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not the mitigating factor that the court thinks it is. IMO doesn’t that make it *worse*??
It’s not clear what the court
It’s not clear what the court did with the defending lawyer’s observations that the van driver wasn’t under the influence at the time (nor whether this was established by a contemporaneous drink and drug test), but generally speaking this would not be a mitigating factor. It would, by contrast, almost certainly be an aggravating factor (I.e. making the culpabulity for the offence worse) if he were.
Agree entirely that the fact he committed this unhinged attack while apparently sober is sobering indeed. Should have the book thrown at him.
Sadly this is all too common. I was riding north of Sydney NSW recently. There was apparently a shared path some distance adjacent to the road. A car swerved towards me on a bend, even though he could have used the entire other side of the road (not a blind bend and nothing oncoming). He then veered into a side street and I followed. He got out of his car, marched towards me and yelled “would you like me to teach you a lesson in how to use a bike lane”. When I pointed out that it appeared to be a shared pavement not a bile path and that regardless he can’t use his car to threaten someone, and that there was no traffic and he could have passed with up to 3m clearance, he continued his threats. When I said I’d make a police report he was then greatly concerned whether I had a bike cam. I didn’t but made the report to the police 5 mins later at a conveniently located manned police station. Waste of time of course. Tried to persuade me not to file a report. I insisted that they speak to the driver. Have had no follow up.
“A car swerved towards me on
“A car swerved towards me on a bend, even though he could have used the entire other side of the road…”
Was the car self-driving/autonomous?
And does the car identify as male? (“he”)
Or should it be:
“A DRIVER swerved towards me on a bend, even though he could have used the entire other side of the road…”
I don’t see any evidene that
I don’t see any evidene that that claim was true.
It seems to have been a rhetorical question.
Defendant’s lawyer wrote:
Sick of hearing this sort of rubbish from defending lawyers, that implies that some sort of action against the cyclists would have been reasonable self defence. There was not a situation to be defused and he should not have taken any means to “defuse it”; he should simply have obeyed road law. Not that I’m going to, but if I punched a driver in the face who was using the road in a perfectly legal manner, causing injuries that required emergency room treatment, simply because I was annoyed that they were in my way, would I get away with community service and a risible compensation order? Would I hell. Why no points on his licence for using his van as a weapon? Disgraceful.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Sick of hearing this sort of rubbish from defending lawyers, that implies that some sort of action against the cyclists would have been reasonable self defence. There was not a situation to be defused and he should not have taken any means to “defuse it”; he should simply have obeyed road law. Not that I’m going to, but if I punched a driver in the face who was using the road in a perfectly legal manner, causing injuries that required emergency room treatment, simply because I was annoyed that they were in my way, would I get away with community service and a risible compensation order? Would I hell. Why no points on his licence for using his van as a weapon? Disgraceful.
— Defendant's lawyerAll true, but at least they didn’t use “diffuse”.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Sick of hearing this sort of rubbish from defending lawyers, that implies that some sort of action against the cyclists would have been reasonable self defence. There was not a situation to be defused and he should not have taken any means to “defuse it”; he should simply have obeyed road law. Not that I’m going to, but if I punched a driver in the face who was using the road in a perfectly legal manner, causing injuries that required emergency room treatment, simply because I was annoyed that they were in my way, would I get away with community service and a risible compensation order? Would I hell. Why no points on his licence for using his van as a weapon? Disgraceful.— Defendant's lawyer
Well, the defendant’s lawyer should be allowed to put forth whatever arguments they think are justified. The real problem is when the prosecution just accepts them and doesn’t point out the many issues with those kinds of arguments.
Of course, the judicial system always seems to be very forgiving of drivers. I would like to see any instance of trying to use a vehicle as a weapon (or for intimidation) to be rewarded with a one year driving ban as a matter of course on top of any other punishment.
This is what puts people off
This is what puts people off cycling. Moronic white van men like this. This should have been a suspended sentence at the very least.
Does it put them off walking
Does it put them off walking and driving though? We still have to deal with them when carrying out those activities – and apparently such people don’t just lose the plot over cyclists.
(Agree that folks like this are poster (man-)children for “get orf moi road” though).
This is what puts people off
This is what puts people off volunteering at charities: being left alone with violent offenders who’ve just been told their violence wasn’t a serious crime.
biking59boomer wrote:
The couour of the van was never metioned at any point in the report. So all I can infer is, that this is just pure vitriol on you part.
As a law abiding driver of a white van I take exception to your epithet, “Moronic white van man.” A very cheap shot at all the non-moronic drivers of white vans out there.
Sarah Kennedy (RIP) has a lot of hate-speech to answer for.
As a law abiding driver of a
As a law abiding driver of a white van I take exception…
https://upride.cc/incident/kv69zns_sprinter_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/ny19gye_partner_dwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/sc19usu_brosterbuilders_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/dl51jml_vwtransporter_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/cu19exj_hannanblindsexpert_closepass/
etc. etc. Maybe you do, but there are a lot of them about
Sorry, but your observation
Sorry, but your observation is not germaine to my argument. The colour of the van was not mentioned in the original article. I maintain it is an unfair generalisation, to castigate white van drivers for the actions of the driver of an unspecified (coloured) van.
That’s very nearly as bad as, “All cyclists jump red lights, I’ve seen it with my own eyes.”
Be very careful that you do not start down the road (pun intended) of white van bingo: I’m sure you are well aware of the connotations of the term!
Just how many of your videos did you have to go through before cherry picking the ones you presented as evidence. From your , no doubt extensive library, you managed to isolate 5 instances over 12 months. Hardly convincing evidence for the vilification of everyone who happens to drive a white van. Not good enough, not by a street and a mile, I’m afraid; I expected a lot better of you, in particular..
From your , no doubt
From your , no doubt extensive library, you managed to isolate 5 instances over 12 months. Hardly convincing evidence for the vilification of everyone who happens to drive a white van
Your comment is not germane to anything. It takes me 5 minutes to crank out a list like that because, as I said, there are so many ‘white van men’ about- such a comment does not constitute ‘vilification of everyone who happens to drive a white van. Show me your videos of ‘non-white van men’- here’s one to show you how it’s done
https://upride.cc/incident/ca11abd_blackpoolboilers_closepass/
Whereas, the vilification of
Whereas, the vilification of the entire class of Audi drivers is right, just and proper- they’re all always about to, or just have done so, commit some road traffic offence
https://upride.cc/incident/cd10wer_audiq7_closerpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/hk64pzt_audiq5_dwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/st23fhf_audi_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/yh66utp_audia1_handheldmobile/
https://upride.cc/incident/pe52nfd_auditt_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/t90jdt_audiwithcaravan_rljatspeed/
Whilst not condoning what the
Whilst not condoning what the attack, as someone who rides thousands of kilometres every and on three continents I have a very simple code.
Stay away from vehicles, look out for animals, children and pedestrians.
Many cyclists in the UK appear to think that they have 1st priority on the road. They give excuses for why they don’t use cycleways. If the cycleway is in bad condition report it but ride on it taking due care at an appropriate speed.
Try to not annoy drivers and getting them frustrated and your life at close pass because they have driven behind you with nowhere to give you proper clearance. When I hear a vehicle I look for a place like a driveway or gap in a hedge to pull me and my bike off the road.
As for saying it is safer to ride two abreast – it simply does not wash.
Pjm49 wrote:
If you always do so (as opposed to for example keeping your eye out for these as “emergency” bailouts if the following driver is incompetent or has anger management issues) how on earth do you manage to find the time to cycle thousands of kilometers? Unless you’re cycling somewhere there are very few motor vehicles (in which case cyclist – driver interactions ought to be no bother)?
In what sense? How many times have you been run over cycling two-abreast vs. singled-out? Do you mean that you find in practice the sight of cyclists side-by-side (just like people travel in their cars) sends more drivers into a rage than just, say, the sight of cyclists in a line?
“Try to not annoy drivers and
“Try to not annoy drivers and getting them frustrate”
By not existing? By not using the roads ?
Did you really intend this level of victim blaming ?
He’s just a troll,
He’s just a troll, fabricating stories about his ‘thousands of km’ and pushing anti -cyclist ideas. These new people, or possibly they’re retreads, seem to keep cropping up on here
Possibly, but I like to give
Possibly, but I like to give people hte benefit of the douobt when I first encounter them. Could do with the post count returning, that would make it easier to assess the poster.
Maybe, OTOH I think the
Maybe, OTOH I think the Nigels had a collection of accounts going, with some ones with a record of few innocuous comments initially. Or ones that were set up, left to age and then swapped in for the current main one.
Unlikely things are unlikely, reacting is optional etc.
Pjm49 wrote:
Post a photo of you bike
Post a photo of you bike Pjm49. Pjm49 is indeed a troll and needs banning. Cycle lanes are mandatory-not-for-cars not mandatory-cyclists-must-use.
His defence solicitor is a
‘A disagreement over the laws of the road and the position cyclists should be in’ and ‘was well in excess of self defence’ as if his argument was correct and he was acting in self defence. Solicitor also a wanker then.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Exactly what I said below, it implies that by legitimately using the road the cyclists were in some way aggressing the driver and entitling him to act in self defence, he just took it too far. Incredible.
Record Smart needs retraining
Recorder Smart needs retraining. This is a small prison sentence which the CPS have removed as an option.
NPlus1Bikelights wrote:
There was no prison sentence, just an unpaid work order and (risible) compensation damages.
If you check on the local
If you check on the local papers website, Hull Daily Mail, you will see that the motor centric editor has quickly moved the story off the homepage whilst keeping older stories there.
Typical anti-cyclist Reach reaction
I notice the driver was found
I notice the driver was found guilty of assault, causing actual bodily harm and criminal damage, but no motoring offences. It’s high time there was an addition charge that could be brought against the driver in cases like this, something along the lines of ‘being psychologically impaired whilst in control of a motor vehicle’ or similar. I won’t be hard to prove, overtaking, slamming on the brakes, jumping out of your vehicle and confronting someone is going to be difficult to defend. The court could then ban them until they’ve both signed off as fit to drive again by a behavior analyst AND they’ve taken an extended test.
Courts have the power to ban
Courts have the power to ban people from driving for any offence. It doesn’t need to be a motoring offence to give them that power.
Given that the original
Given that the original source of his anger was as a result of not having a clue about the Highway Code I think he should at least be banned until he resits the test. Of course given the wait times currently that likely to be a substantial ban.