Cyclist punched motorist in road rage attack

[Origamist]

Throwing a bike at a car windscreen????!!! Far out! Did it go through or bounce off? Must have been a chav on a BSO as I can't see any proper cyclist launching their pride and joy at any vehicle. Only way this would happen is if the car driver ran them down throwing the bike up into the air.

Like this CA:

I like the reg plate.

 

[Cab]

I completely agree that the cyclist started it

Why? That isn't claimed in the article, not in the text, its just something that the journalists wants us to infer. Read this statement, from that article, from the Police:

A police spokeswoman said: "We were called following reports that the cyclist cut out in front of the car which forced the driver to brake suddenly. The driver got out of the car and there was an altercation during which the driver was punched in the face by the cyclist.

So the driver got out and 'there was an altercation'. We have no evidence at all to support the claim that the cyclist started this. If anything, the subsequent action of the motorist (following the cyclist who had ridden off) implies that the aggressor was the motorist. See the rest of the police comment here:

"The cyclist rode off and the driver headed to where he believed the cyclist lived. There was a second altercation ten minutes later after the driver spotted the cyclist with another cyclist in Market Street.

It is a common misconception that someone who 'threw the first punch' started the fight; obviously there are ways of acting aggressively, of starting a fight, other than that. But here we don't have any evidence that the cyclist did either, all we know was that there was an 'altercation' during which the motorist was punched.

If you believe you can infer anything else to be correct from this article then you're falling for a very nasty, very cynical anti-cyclist slant on a news story.

 

[Crankarm]

Irrespective of the violence that ensued, I can't get my head around the statement that the cyclist cut in front of the car and then contact between the driver and cyclist seems to have seriously escalated to a full on scrap.

In my experience cars move a lot more quickly than bicycles and tend to be hard and lethal if you are hit by one so cycling deliberately in front of one is errr....... unlikely in the normal course of cycling. And then the car driver must have got out to have been hit as the report implies? Not saying that the cyclist hitting the driver was not wrong but if it wasn't self defence then driver must have been out of their car giving the cyclist reason to hit him whether the driver acted agressively so self defence on the part of the cyclist or the driver provoked him which might not justify violence the cyclist meated out to the driver. If the former the driver going back for more seems bizarre. Did he not think to call the police 999 instead, especially when we are told the bike was thrown at his car winscreen? Perhaps he did. I dunno it's tricky, but the facts as presented are definitely incomplete.

IME cyclists even chavs on BSOs do not go around indiscriminately attacking drivers. For some one to throw a bike at a windscreen without good reason they would have to be certifiable. If the cyclist is found to be at fault following a full and thorough investigation establishing all the facts without any prejudice then throw the bike, sorry book, at the cyclist.

 

[Cab]

I was just thinking yesterday that there hadn't been a good anti-cyclist rant n the Cambridge Evening News for a while, and that it was only a matter of time before they'd have to cook something up to keep the readership frothing at the mouths.

 

[Crankarm]

Was the cyclist wearing a helmet or did he have lights?

 

[gavintc]

Christ, we are being a little touchy in here. Can we not just consider that a cyclist might be an instigator of violence. Not all cyclists are nice people. Riding a bike does not guarantee that you are a fine upstanding member of the public. Prats drive cars, prats ride bikes.

 

[4F]

Strong wheels, probably worth getting them trued to be on the safe side.

 

[Cab]

Christ, we are being a little touchy in here. Can we not just consider that a cyclist might be an instigator of violence. Not all cyclists are nice people. Riding a bike does not guarantee that you are a fine upstanding member of the public. Prats drive cars, prats ride bikes.

He might have started it, he might not have done. We have no evidence to say that he did, yet the article strongly infers that this is the case. In the absence of evidence, its just another example of anti-cyclist bias in a newspaper renowned for that.

 

[semislickstick]

Christ, we are being a little touchy in here. Can we not just consider that a cyclist might be an instigator of violence. Not all cyclists are nice people. Riding a bike does not guarantee that you are a fine upstanding member of the public. Prats drive cars, prats ride bikes.

It was a Subaru driver after all. (sorry)
I know they aren't ALL driven by aggressive wannabe racers, they just happen to be the ones that stick out from memory and personal experience....just like one bad cyclist = all cyclists are bad.

 

[gavintc]

And as RT has pointed out, this mindset of bad driver, good cyclist prevents some from accpting that the alternative just might be good driver, bad cyclist.

 

[Crankarm]

Should just make it clear that it is alleged that the cyclist punched the driver and did the other stuff claimed in the report. There is an element of doubt. It has not been established as fact, yet.

 

[Crankarm]

It was a Subaru driver after all. (sorry)
I know they aren't ALL driven by aggressive wannabe racers, they just happen to be the ones that stick out from memory and personal experience....just like one bad cyclist = all cyclists are bad.

Was wondering when some one would pick up on this. Where's BM when he's need? He is the Scoobie catcher as the mongoose is to black Mambas .

 

[MartinC]

The only thing noteworthy with this story is the journalism. It's presented in a very biased way which is what most cyclists will instinctively react to. We certainly don't know who did what. There are some strange aspects though - the motorist is reported as knowing where the cyclist lived for example. Is it possible that there's some previous with this?

 

[ChrisKH]

Should just make it clear that it is alleged that the cyclist punched the driver and did the other stuff claimed in the report. There is an element of doubt. It has not been established as fact, yet.

Exactly. As is the 'fact' that the cyclist cut out in front of the driver. Perhaps he was taking primary and the driver took exception. I'm not taking sides.

Alright I am.

 

[stowie]

The only thing noteworthy with this story is the journalism. It's presented in a very biased way which is what most cyclists will instinctively react to. We certainly don't know who did what. There are some strange aspects though - the motorist is reported as knowing where the cyclist lived for example. Is it possible that there's some previous with this?

This also caught my eye with the story. it quotes

"The cyclist rode off and the driver headed to where he believed the cyclist lived. There was a second altercation ten minutes later after the driver spotted the cyclist with another cyclist in Market Street.

How would the driveer know where the cyclist lives if this is a random road rage incident? Do cambridge cyclists have their address pinned onto their backs? There seems much more to it than the report states. If I was just assaulted and knew where the assailant lived, I would go to the police, not to their residence.

Mind you, assaulting anyone is wrong and the cyclist's actions cannot be defended, unless out of self-defence (which seems unlikely even if the story is to be only half believed).

Judging from the comments below story, cambridge appears to be awash with lawless psycopaths on bicycles - a kind of two wheeled viking invasion.