Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclist doing wheelie knocked fellow cyclist into road

Cyclist responsible didn’t stop to help

Devon and Cornwall Police are appealing for information after a cyclist narrowly avoided being hit by a car when she was knocked into the road by a teenager doing a wheelie.

Devon Live reports that the collision between the two cyclists occurred on a shared-use path near to Aller Brake Road in Newton Abbot.

A police spokesman said: “At 5.45pm on Thursday, October 26, a young woman was riding her bike when she was struck by another cyclist who was performing a wheelie. The collision knocked the aggrieved into the road, where she was narrowly missed by a passing vehicle. The offending cyclist did not stop to assist her.

“The suspect is described as a white male, 5ft 8ins, aged 14-16 years, with mousey coloured hair which was shaved at the side. He was reported to be wearing a black hoodie and black trainers.”

Information can be passed to the South Devon Crime Hub via 101 [at] dc.police.uk or by calling 101 quoting crime reference number CR/092891/17.

You can also contact Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111 or at www.crimestoppers-uk.org

Last week we reported on a collision between two cyclists on a shared-use path in Portsmouth that resulted in one being hit by a car and killed.

An inquest heard that due to an obscured view and a narrow path, neither cyclist would have seen the other immediately prior to the collision. The victim’s family said a safety barrier would have saved his life.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

29 comments

Avatar
caaad10 | 6 years ago
1 like

I love doing wheelies, I'm 48 and it wasn't me. Accidents can happen, even with both wheels on the ground, so stay safe kids.

Avatar
Grahamd replied to caaad10 | 6 years ago
1 like

caaad10 wrote:

I love doing wheelies, I'm 48 and it wasn't me. Accidents can happen, even with both wheels on the ground, so stay safe kids.

Well done, I am 48 and have never done a wheelie, have tried countless times but just can’t do them. 

Avatar
Deeferdonk replied to Grahamd | 6 years ago
1 like

Grahamd wrote:

caaad10 wrote:

I love doing wheelies, I'm 48 and it wasn't me. Accidents can happen, even with both wheels on the ground, so stay safe kids.

Well done, I am 48 and have never done a wheelie, have tried countless times but just can’t do them. 

I'm 38 and can't do wheelies. i'm always really impressed (and a bit jealous)when i see some young lad hold a wheelie for a couple of 100 metres.

 

Avatar
caaad10 replied to Deeferdonk | 6 years ago
1 like

Deeferdonk wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

caaad10 wrote:

I love doing wheelies, I'm 48 and it wasn't me. Accidents can happen, even with both wheels on the ground, so stay safe kids.

Well done, I am 48 and have never done a wheelie, have tried countless times but just can’t do them. 

I'm 38 and can't do wheelies. i'm always really impressed (and a bit jealous)when i see some young lad hold a wheelie for a couple of 100 metres.

 

 

I can only manage around 50 metres these days, I can't really get it up like I once could but I still like to have a go when the urge strikes.

Avatar
WillRod | 6 years ago
1 like

Kids on bikes are often the most dangerous.

I came across two just now on a country road pulling wheelies but wearing dark clothing and no lights. Having said that, the tractor round the next bend didn’t have his lights on either.

Avatar
step83 | 6 years ago
4 likes

" wearing a black hoodie and black trainers"

 

But no trousers...

Avatar
drosco | 6 years ago
5 likes

Pikey on a bikey.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
6 likes

Chav does chav thing and acts chavishly in the aftermath.

Avatar
dodpeters | 6 years ago
4 likes

This is why Dutch cyclepaths usually have some grass between them and the road, it can really remove the danger from an otherwise minor mishap. Is the path in this story really wide enough for two way traffic? We all want to have a go at a kid on a bike, but is substandard infrastructure not really the problem?

Avatar
Deeferdonk | 6 years ago
9 likes

Cyclist (saɪklɪst)

Word forms: plural cyclists

countable noun

A cyclist is someone who rides a bicycle, or is riding a bicycle.

Avatar
Morgoth985 replied to Deeferdonk | 6 years ago
3 likes

Deeferdonk wrote:

Cyclist (saɪklɪst)

Word forms: plural cyclists

countable noun

A cyclist is someone who rides a bicycle, or is riding a bicycle.

Congratulations on winning the "deliberately obtuse" award of the day.

Avatar
Deeferdonk replied to Morgoth985 | 6 years ago
7 likes
Morgoth985 wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

Cyclist (saɪklɪst)

Word forms: plural cyclists

countable noun

A cyclist is someone who rides a bicycle, or is riding a bicycle.

Congratulations on winning the "deliberately obtuse" award of the day.

Sorry, but this always strikes me as really odd when things like happen and people claim the offender is not a "cyclist" but just a *insert your choice of offensive term for a poor person here* on a bike. Am i missing something and is cyclist some kind of elevated term rather than just a reference to a form of transport?
Anyway none of this really matters I suppose, best wishes to the person involved in the incident, and safe cycling to everyone else wether you are a cyclist or not.

Avatar
Morgoth985 replied to Deeferdonk | 6 years ago
2 likes

Deeferdonk wrote:
Morgoth985 wrote:

 

Sorry, but this always strikes me as really odd when things like happen and people claim the offender is not a "cyclist" but just a *insert your choice of offensive term for a poor person here* on a bike. Am i missing something and is cyclist some kind of elevated term rather than just a reference to a form of transport? Anyway none of this really matters I suppose, best wishes to the person involved in the incident, and safe cycling to everyone else wether you are a cyclist or not.

Can't agree.  There's no choice of offensive term for a poor person here.  I'm saying there's no "fellowship" between a misbehaving teenager who just happens to be on a bicycle at the time of the incident in question and his presumably innocent victim.  So in this context I would certainly distinguish between "cyclist" and "yob on bike".  They are not the same at all.  The blurring between the two in the mind of the non-cycling public is part of the problem that cyclists -  or "responsible cyclists" if you prefer- face.

Avatar
Deeferdonk replied to Morgoth985 | 6 years ago
3 likes
Morgoth985 wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:
Morgoth985 wrote:

 

Sorry, but this always strikes me as really odd when things like happen and people claim the offender is not a "cyclist" but just a *insert your choice of offensive term for a poor person here* on a bike. Am i missing something and is cyclist some kind of elevated term rather than just a reference to a form of transport? Anyway none of this really matters I suppose, best wishes to the person involved in the incident, and safe cycling to everyone else wether you are a cyclist or not.

Can't agree.  There's no choice of offensive term for a poor person here.  I'm saying there's no "fellowship" between a misbehaving teenager who just happens to be on a bicycle at the time of the incident in question and his presumably innocent victim.  So in this context I would certainly distinguish between "cyclist" and "yob on bike".  They are not the same at all.  The blurring between the two in the mind of the non-cycling public is part of the problem that cyclists -  or "responsible cyclists" if you prefer- face.

Chav and pikey have been used by posters in this thread, both commonly used as derogatory terms for poor people or members of the travelling community. You are correct that there is no fellowship between the two cyclists, just because they are on the same mode of transport. You can call him what you like, though I suppose, but i would call him an irresponsible cyclist.

Avatar
Morgoth985 replied to Deeferdonk | 6 years ago
2 likes

Deeferdonk wrote:

 You can call him what you like, though I suppose, but i would call him an irresponsible cyclist.

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Morgoth985 | 6 years ago
4 likes

Morgoth985 wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 You can call him what you like, though I suppose, but i would call him an irresponsible cyclist.

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

You mean in the same way that you have just lumped "motorists" together?

Avatar
Morgoth985 replied to ClubSmed | 6 years ago
2 likes

ClubSmed wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 You can call him what you like, though I suppose, but i would call him an irresponsible cyclist.

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

You mean in the same way that you have just lumped "motorists" together?

 

Nice try, but no cigar.  Have another read through and you'll see I said "average non-cycling motorist".  Clearly a subset of "motorists".  Clearly excluding those motorists, myself included, who also cycle.  Clearly not lumping "motorists" together.

I don't think any of this changes the main point.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Morgoth985 | 6 years ago
0 likes

Morgoth985 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 You can call him what you like, though I suppose, but i would call him an irresponsible cyclist.

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

You mean in the same way that you have just lumped "motorists" together?

 

Nice try, but no cigar.  Have another read through and you'll see I said "average non-cycling motorist".  Clearly a subset of "motorists".  Clearly excluding those motorists, myself included, who also cycle.  Clearly not lumping "motorists" together.

I don't think any of this changes the main point.

I did see your clarification of drivers, but as you have also said that cyclists could not be lumped all together I came to the conclusion that it negated that qualifier and just left motorist. smiley

Avatar
Morgoth985 replied to ClubSmed | 6 years ago
0 likes

ClubSmed wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

You mean in the same way that you have just lumped "motorists" together?

 

Nice try, but no cigar.  Have another read through and you'll see I said "average non-cycling motorist".  Clearly a subset of "motorists".  Clearly excluding those motorists, myself included, who also cycle.  Clearly not lumping "motorists" together.

I don't think any of this changes the main point.

I did see your clarification of drivers, but as you have also said that cyclists could not be lumped all together I came to the conclusion that it negated that qualifier and just left motorist.  [smiley]

Eh?  So I make clear to you that I'm not lumping a group together, in the context of bemoaning a group being lumped together, and based on that you conclude that I'm lumping a group together.  Right . . .

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Morgoth985 | 6 years ago
0 likes

Morgoth985 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

You mean in the same way that you have just lumped "motorists" together?

 

Nice try, but no cigar.  Have another read through and you'll see I said "average non-cycling motorist".  Clearly a subset of "motorists".  Clearly excluding those motorists, myself included, who also cycle.  Clearly not lumping "motorists" together.

I don't think any of this changes the main point.

I did see your clarification of drivers, but as you have also said that cyclists could not be lumped all together I came to the conclusion that it negated that qualifier and just left motorist.  [smiley]

Eh?  So I make clear to you that I'm not lumping a group together, in the context of bemoaning a group being lumped together, and based on that you conclude that I'm lumping a group together.  Right . . .

You infer that cyclists cannot be lumped together as they have no social commonality, so by logical reasoning you can assume the same of Motorists. If the individual elements have no social commonality, why would a mix of the two suddenly have some? Members of this forum are constantly clashing over how cyclists should behave on the road, and I know for a fact that them also being a driver does not dictate which side of the fence they are going to be on an argument.

So no, you did not clarify! splitting a group that does not have a social commonality down with a social commonality identifier would work (environmentally conscious cyclists, cycling parents, etc.) but I cannot see how you can split down a group that has not social commonality with another group that has no social commonality (Cycling Motorist, fair haired cyclist, Blue eyed cyclist).

Avatar
davel replied to Morgoth985 | 6 years ago
5 likes

Morgoth985 wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 You can call him what you like, though I suppose, but i would call him an irresponsible cyclist.

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

I think the problem is that you're expecting to share some sort of affinity with cyclists for them to belong to what you consider 'cyclists' to be.

But that lad, he was travelling on a bike. He is, by definition, a cyclist.

I probably don't identify with him, anymore than I identify with tubby bellends who wear national team kits to 'race' sportives and go KOM-hunting with favourable tailwinds on their 5-mile commutes. But neither you nor I created the word 'cyclist'.

Avatar
Morgoth985 replied to davel | 6 years ago
0 likes

davel wrote:

 

I think the problem is that you're expecting to share some sort of affinity with cyclists for them to belong to what you consider 'cyclists' to be.

But that lad, he was travelling on a bike. He is, by definition, a cyclist.

I probably don't identify with him, anymore than I identify with tubby bellends who wear national team kits to 'race' sportives and go KOM-hunting with favourable tailwinds on their 5-mile commutes. But neither you nor I created the word 'cyclist'.

Re dictionary definition - of course I agree.  Couldn't possibly do otherwise.  It's the peception created by the headline that I object to.  "Cyclist doing wheelie knocked fellow cyclist into road".  That headline does indeed make a suggestion of an affinity, or that I would identify with him.  And I don't want there to be that suggestion, because it gives the rest of us a bad name.  Call it spin if you must, but I still think my suggested alternative way back at the start of this would have been a much better headline.

Avatar
davel replied to Morgoth985 | 6 years ago
3 likes

Morgoth985 wrote:

it gives the rest of us a bad name

I think this is the crux of it - where you and I part logic.

I have no more time for collective responsibility among cyclists than I do for 'drivers' when I get behind the wheel or 'pedestrians' when I walk to the pub.

Walking back from the pub I generally give pedestrians a bad name, if there were such a thing.

Avatar
Morgoth985 replied to davel | 6 years ago
3 likes

davel wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

it gives the rest of us a bad name

I think this is the crux of it - where you and I part logic.

I have no more time for collective responsibility among cyclists than I do for 'drivers' when I get behind the wheel or 'pedestrians' when I walk to the pub.

Walking back from the pub I generally give pedestrians a bad name, if there were such a thing.

OK.  And amen to that.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet replied to Deeferdonk | 6 years ago
1 like

Deeferdonk wrote:

Chav and pikey have been used by posters in this thread, both commonly used as derogatory terms for poor people or members of the travelling community.[/quote]

Get out of here with chav and pikey being the same thing. Chav has no 'community' connotations, it's universal, chavs are from one end of the country to the other.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines chav as an informal British derogatory, meaning "a young lower-class person who displays brash and loutish behaviour and wears real or imitation designer clothes".

 

Avatar
Deeferdonk replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
2 likes

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

Chav and pikey have been used by posters in this thread, both commonly used as derogatory terms for poor people or members of the travelling community.

Get out of here with chav and pikey being the same thing. Chav has no 'community' connotations, it's universal, chavs are from one end of the country to the other.

[/quote]

I didn't say they were the same thing i said they were both commonly used as derogatory terms for poor people or members of the travelling community.

Plus chavs isn't a universal term although widely used. In some parts of the country the term for demonising working class youth may be "scally" or "ned" or other regional variation

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
0 likes

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

Chav and pikey have been used by posters in this thread, both commonly used as derogatory terms for poor people or members of the travelling community.

Get out of here with chav and pikey being the same thing. Chav has no 'community' connotations, it's universal, chavs are from one end of the country to the other.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines chav as an informal British derogatory, meaning "a young lower-class person who displays brash and loutish behaviour and wears real or imitation designer clothes".

A Chav has no community?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Community as "The condition of sharing or having certain attitudes and interests in common."

The definition of a Chav that you posted identifies several attitudes and interests in common....

 

(also a member of a travelling community would be found up and down the country too rather than in a single geography would they not?)

 

 

Avatar
EddyBerckx | 6 years ago
7 likes

Not a cyclist. Kid on a bike.

Not a cyclist. Kid on a bike.

Not a cyclist. Kid on a bike.

Not a cyclist. Kid on a bike.

Not a cyclist. Kid on a bike.

Not a cyclist. Kid on a bike.

Not a cyclist. Kid on a bike.

Not a cyclist. Kid on a bike.

Not a cyclist. Kid on a bike.

Not a cyclist. Kid on a bike.

Not a cyclist. Kid on a bike.

Not a cyclist. Kid on a bike.

...etc...

Avatar
Morgoth985 | 6 years ago
8 likes

"Fellow" cyclist?  It sounds like "Idiot yob on bike knocks cyclist into the road" would be a better headline.

Latest Comments