- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Police tape (CC licensed by freefotouk on Flickr)Witness appeal as cyclist pushes another rider off bike
Police in Dorset have launched an appeal for witnesses after a cyclist overtaking two other riders reportedly pushed one of them with his shoulder, sending him crashing to the ground.
The incident, which police are describing as an assault, happened at around 11.30 am on Dover Road in Stour Row near Shaftesbury on Sunday 21 February.
The victim, a man aged 49, sustained a back injury and police say that while the rider who had crashed into him did stop to offer his contact details, he was told to move on.
Police Constable Simon Rogers, of North Dorset police, said: “I am appealing for the cyclist to come forward so I can find out what exactly happened.
“I would also like to hear from anyone who has information about the cyclist involved.”
Anyone who saw the incident or has information is asked to contact Dorset Police on 101 quoting incident number 21:165 or the charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- BBB 8 min 10 sec ago
Here is a formula working out the cost of cycling on an individual level....
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 27 min ago
No idea if Cancellara was using a motor or not, I hope not as I greatly enjoyed him as a rider, but the tech was certainly available, I can...
- wtjs 3 hours 5 min ago
Fair enough:...
- SecretSam 4 hours 16 min ago
Usual ugly Pinarello, bumps and curves where they aren't needed. And, according to Mapdec, not well built.
- Rome73 6 hours 23 min ago
That's not strictly true - Reform will legalise immigrant baiting, trans bashing and tar and feathering of anyone woke. Loads of fun for all the...
- Rendel Harris 6 hours 10 min ago
What's a "legitimate cyclist" please? Someone who doesn't conform to your arbitrary norms? At the age of 56 I admit that you have 13 years more...
- mattw 20 hours 59 min ago
This risks turning me into a hanger and flogger....
- Spangly Shiny 1 day 2 hours ago
I had the pleasure of owning two of the featured builders here, in my history. When I joined the Army in 1971, I took with me my curly Hetchins:...
Add new comment
21 comments
So from the article and subsequent discussion:
A cyclist is overtaken by another cyclist, is clipped, shoulder-to-shoulder, falls off their bike, and an assault charge is on the table.
A cyclist is overtaken by a driver at a significantly greater speed, is clipped, bumper-to-leg, falls off their bike, sustaining injuries, and the Road Traffic Act is on the table.
Is this usual? And the distinction is that it isn't body-to-body contact, it's 2-ton metal lump-to-body contact?
If so, I think this is why the police and CPS get it in the neck from posters on here, stumps.
Interesting distinction. Had a head on accident with another cyclist on a shared use path last summer. Couldn't tell you whether it was our bikes or bodies that first made contact. Seems that if it was bikes that would be a lesser offence than if we'd hit shoulder to shoulder - one is an offence against a person, the other is against property yet the outcome is the same - cuts, bruises, and bent bikes...
You appear to be a bit confused. It's not in dispute that they can investigate it as an assault. What's in dispute is that the automatic assumption appears to be that is the case rather than any of the road traffic offences (not accidents) that might be available here. As I've said I'd imagine there's more than they are saying, perhaps an altercation before, but it's a case which reads rather unusually given that the "offending rider" stopped to discuss it.
Now, I've read that other bit, I'm not sure what you're answering there, we're going back to an earlier point, can you assault someone with a vehicle? And that's quite important. If I were to be hit by a car and claim I'd been assaulted would the police follow my recommendation or just prefer it to be a road traffic "accident."
Its an assault, the opening two lines are:
Police in Dorset have launched an appeal for witnesses after a cyclist overtaking two other riders reportedly pushed one of them with his shoulder, sending him crashing to the ground. -
So he's used force to cause an injury to another. He hasn't ridden his bike into the other one, he's used his shoulder and its no different to him cycling along and using his hand to push him.
Read my last post - IF THE RIDER STATES HE HAS BEEN ASSAULTED............
Here's something else for you to read.
The law defines a reportable road traffic collision as an accident involving a mechanically-propelled vehicle on a road or other public area which causes:
Injury or damage to anybody - other than the driver of that vehicle,
Injury or damage to an animal- other than one being carried on that vehicle (an animal is classed as a horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog).
Damage to a vehicle - other than the vehicle which caused the accident.
Damage to property constructed on, affixed to, growing in, or otherwise forming part of the land where the road is.
So a pedal cycle is NOT a mechanically propelled vehicle so this is not a road traffic accident.
I'm not mixed up. At this moment in time nothing in what the police have said states anything other than a collision occurred. What seems to be the case is that there's more than they are saying. But in saying so little you do question why it's automatic that this is being investigated as an assault rather than a road traffic offence. That's what the other posters are getting at.
It's also a little disheartening to see that he's described as the "offending rider" without having been able to give his side of the story.
Now, back to that vehicle thing again. Are you sure you can't assault someone with a vehicle?
The assault occurred when he made contact with his body with the IP's body, its got nothing to do with the bikes.
In simple terms under the road traffic act to be a motor vehicle it has to be "mechanically propelled" so that would include electric bikes but not a push bike.
There are sections where a pedal cycle is included in the road traffic act.
If people are actually interested there are numerous search results explaining it more fully.
Yet there are cycling offences which one might prefer to an assault investigation.
And road traffic offences which one might prefer to an assault investigation.
There's no evidence here of an intent to do any specific thing. It would be odd if, once you assaulted someone, you then stopped for a chat.
I think what irks people is that this has been indentified as an assault rather than an investigation into the circumstances of an incident. Whereas motoring offences, road rage apart, don't tend to be reported as such.
In the UK, road rage can result in criminal penalties for assault or more serious offences against the person. The Public Order Act 1986 can also apply to road rage. Sections 4A and 5 of the 1986 Act prohibit public acts likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Section 4 also prohibits threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause a victim to believe that violence will be used against himself or another
Under the counting rules (National Crime Recording Standard) supplied by the Govt if the lad who came off his bike said he had been assaulted then it gets crimed as an assault and we have to speak to the other party concerned. There is nothing to say it will go any further but we have to crime it.
However i can imagine the incident - rider gets knocked off and loses his temper telling other rider to fcuk off, which he does do despite his protestations of innocence.
As for the car assault post its not an assault as it comes under the road traffic act there is a big difference.
What is the big difference between using a car as a weapon compared to other weapons?
Yep a big difference, the legal system dishes out proper punishments for assault (when you don't choose a vehicle as a weapon).
Why wouldn't a collision between 2 vehicles on a road come under the road traffic act if they are both bicycles?
so why does a collision between two bikes not come under the road traffic act?
Interesting. What's the legal prohibition for not charging a driver for an assault rather than one of the "motoring" offences.
Or, did you mean to say that the CPS might prefer to chare a motoring offence to another form of offence?
Do you mean that a car cannot fall within the defition of weapon?
Amazing that police are describing this as an assault but refuse to countenance the idea of assault in the case of a motorist.
When I was run off the road they would not accept, at all, that one could use a vehicle to assault someone.
So...he overtook (badly)...stopped to presumably apologise and (definately) offer his contact details (as he presumably admitted fault)....was told to move on and now police are treating this as assault?!?!?
what the fucking fuck?
I'm guessing they are looking to sue him.
So, he stopped and was told to move on. Move on by who?
Move along you. Nothing to see here.
Probably by the same blokes he got off their bikes... They might have felt a little stupid, as in, 'What do do now? Accuse him? Have all of us wait for the police?'...