# Cyclist killed in road rage incident



## Crankarm (22 Apr 2009)

This was posted on the Cyclechat forum. The link to the Coventry Telegraph was a bit slow and it seems to have been missed so have reposted below. Absolutely horrific.

*Cyclist killed by driver for damaging wing mirror, court told*



Apr 21 2009

By Duncan Gibbons



A CYCLIST was knocked down and killed in a suspected revenge attack after he damaged a motorist's wing mirror, a court has heard.
The car driver, Sean Fitzgerald, aged 35, of Bennetts Road North, Keresley, Coventry, is charged with murder.
He is alleged to have deliberately mounted the pavement and driven at warehouseman Paul Webb on Thursday afternoon.
The 42-year-old victim suffered multiple injuries and died at the scene in Bennetts Road South, Keresley, as he cycled home from work at the Co-op distribution centre at PrologisPark.
Coventry magistrates court was told Fitzgerald reacted after his nearside mirror was knocked off by a cyclist moments earlier, but it is not clear if the victim was the man responsible.

Emma Garnett, prosecuting, said: “He was angry that his wing mirror was knocked off.
“This defendant followed the cyclist for 300 yards from the first point of contact and mounted the kerb while he [Mr Webb] was on the pavement.”
She said the cyclist suffered a fatal combination of broken ribs, a shattered pelvis and internal bleeding in the crash, which left debris scattered up to 15 metres away.
The court heard Fitzgerald handed himself in to police the following day where he was arrested and charged.
Andrew Mithie, defending, said: “This gentleman was driving from Bennetts Road North into the city centre along Bennetts Road South when there was contact by a cyclist with his nearside wing mirror.
“He was upset about the damage and started to remonstrate with the cyclist who made off.
“This gentleman accepts that some distance away there was contact and it seems that it probably was the same individual, but he’s not sure if it was or not.”
Dad of two Fitzgerald was denied bail and was remanded in custody for a hearing at Coventry Crown Court on Monday April 27.
Police are still seeking witnesses to the accident.
Detective Inspector Wendy Bailey from CID at Little Park Street police station said: “The victim was wearing a red jacket and the car he collided with was silver in colour.
"It is believed the car involved was behind a refuse collection lorry.
"We would appeal for anyone who saw the pedal cyclist or the silver car behind the refuse lorry to come forward.”
Anyone who witnessed the collision or anyone with information is urged to call Little Park Street police station on 0845 113 5000.


----------



## dave r (22 Apr 2009)

Happened round the corner from me on a road I use a lot


----------



## eddiemee (22 Apr 2009)

Jesus, that's scary as hell. It's appalling enough that the driver committed murder, even worse that the poor guy he hit may not even have been his intended target. One hopes that if he's found guilty he will get a proper sentence.

RIP Mr Webb.


----------



## dudi (22 Apr 2009)

for god's sake, not a nother one!

what is it with these people? why are they so angry all the time? 
What ever happened to rational thought?
****tards.


----------



## Randochap (22 Apr 2009)

HolySh!t!

Motorized murder! The infernal combustion engine imparts super powers to cowards.


----------



## Keith Oates (22 Apr 2009)

It's hard to believe that this was caused because of a damaged wing mirror, I hope the murder charge sticks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## very-near (22 Apr 2009)

Randochap said:


> HolySh!t!
> 
> Motorized murder! The infernal combustion engine imparts super powers to cowards.



Murder infers the driver took the vehicle onto the road with intent to take a life. The most he could be charged with is manslaughter as he will argue that his actions were purely a reaction to the cyclist taking his mirror off IMO.

I guess if you are going to argue to the toss with someone in control of a tonne and a half of motorised metal, make sure that you have a get out route, or you are in charge of a larger lump of motorised metal.

Taking a wing mirror off someones car will cost them £150-£250+ to replace nowadays. Whilst I can't understand why the driver managed to lose it in such a big way, I can understand why he was upset when the rider made off afterwards.

Without the detail of what led up to the cyclist taking the mirror off, we have no idea of where the aggression originated from.

Another life lost on the roads for such a stupid reason - such a waste


----------



## asterix (22 Apr 2009)

very-near said:


> Murder infers the driver took the vehicle onto the road with intent to take a life. The most he could be charged with is manslaughter as he will argue that his actions were purely a reaction to the cyclist taking his mirror off IMO.
> 
> I guess if you are going to argue to the toss with someone in control of a tonne and a half of motorised metal, make sure that you have a get out route, or you are in charge of a larger lump of motorised metal.
> 
> ...




So, a fairly minor offence then, with extenuating circumstances? 

LLB your foolishness knows no bounds..


----------



## John the Monkey (22 Apr 2009)

very-near said:


> Murder infers the driver took the vehicle onto the road with intent to take a life. The most he could be charged with is manslaughter as he will argue that his actions were purely a reaction to the cyclist taking his mirror off IMO.
> 
> I guess if you are going to argue to the toss with someone in control of a tonne and a half of motorised metal, make sure that you have a get out route, or you are in charge of a larger lump of motorised metal.
> 
> ...



Words fail me.


----------



## magnatom (22 Apr 2009)

RIP Mr Webb. Let us hope for once justice is served.


----------



## very-near (22 Apr 2009)

asterix said:


> So, a fairly minor offence then, with extenuating circumstances?
> 
> LLB your foolishness knows no bounds..



No it is not 'a fairly minor offence'. Taking the guys mirror off was 'a fairly minor offence', and the drivers reaction was unforgivable. I am not defending his extreme reaction to this and hope his sentence reflects what he has done - taken another life in a fit of temper, but murder is premeditated/planned, and that is not the actions of a road rage incident explained in this way.


----------



## the reluctant cyclist (22 Apr 2009)

I would be surprised if the Police would charge him with murder if they thought that only a charge of manslaughter would stick.

As for the premeditated bit - surely the fact that he gave chase and mounted the pavement was "intent to kill"?


----------



## magnatom (22 Apr 2009)

Linf, just stop it. We do not have all of the evidence. From the reporting it is not clear what happened. 

For all we know the driver might have passed the cyclist too close and caused the wing mirror to be knocked off when hitting the cyclist. The cyclist may have then tried to get away from the driver, seeing how angry he was, and the car may have chased him and mowed him down.

Would you agree that this is a possible scenario? Of course it may have been a militant cyclist who didn't like the look of the car and decided to hit the wing mirror off for fun. Or the reporting might be entirely wrong and the wing mirror may only have been folded back (amazingly papers get it wrong!!!).

So I suggest we leave this argument until the facts are know. Kapish?


----------



## nilling (22 Apr 2009)

So much red mist - the driver is not sure whether the cyclist he mowed down was the one who knocked his wing mirror off! A truly horrific incident


----------



## HLaB (22 Apr 2009)

Bloomin Hell (Or Stronger Words to that effect) 
A couple of years ago in the middle of winter/ heavy rain/ poor visibility I clipped a wing mirror of a car stuck in traffic  I instantly went back to fix it was greeted with a nice smile from a pretty young woman (the driver). The reaction of the driver in the OP was unbelievable.


----------



## magnatom (22 Apr 2009)

User3143 said:


> Why have you asked Linf to stop thinking about what happened and then proceeded to give your own version?



No. This is not my version. I am showing that there is significant uncertainly in what happened from the reporting, therefore, blaming the cyclist, suggesting if it should be murder or manslaughter etc is impossible as we don't have enough facts. I'm just suggesting that we should wait until we have enough facts which we certainly don't have now.


----------



## magnatom (22 Apr 2009)

User3143 said:


> So you are blaming the newspaper report now and not Linfs take on things?




Lee, your obviously in full troll mode now.

Let me explain once and once only. I have been in the papers a number of times (work and helmet camera related). On each occasion significant mistakes have been made in the reporting. Therefore, I appreciate that newspaper reporting is not about accuracy, but about having an exciting story that will encourage people to buy more papers. Therefore, at the early stage in an investigation you have to be especially careful in believing what you read. I'm sure Linf knows this full well, however he decided to take the papers and his own version of events as fact. They are not. Therefore, speculation at this stage is just, speculation. Lets wait for the facts and, as I said earlier, lets hope that justice can be done, whatever, as a result of the FACTS, that may be.


----------



## very-near (22 Apr 2009)

very-near said:


> Murder infers the driver took the vehicle onto the road with intent to take a life. The most he could be charged with is manslaughter as he will argue that his actions were purely a reaction to the cyclist taking his mirror off IMO.
> 
> I guess if you are going to argue to the toss with someone in control of a tonne and a half of motorised metal, make sure that you have a get out route, or you are in charge of a larger lump of motorised metal.
> 
> ...





very-near said:


> No it is not 'a fairly minor offence'. Taking the guys mirror off was 'a fairly minor offence', and the drivers reaction was unforgivable. *I am not defending his extreme reaction to this and hope his sentence reflects what he has done - taken another life in a fit of temper, but murder is premeditated/planned, and that is not the actions of a road rage incident explained in this way*.





magnatom said:


> Linf, just stop it. We do not have all of the evidence. From the reporting it is not clear what happened.
> 
> For all we know the driver might have passed the cyclist too close and caused the wing mirror to be knocked off when hitting the cyclist. The cyclist may have then tried to get away from the driver, seeing how angry he was, and the car may have chased him and mowed him down.
> 
> ...



This is what I said ^. With respect Tom, read again what I posted, and then slap me down if you think I was defending the drivers extreme reaction to damage to his car. 

Cyclists and motorcyclists have been known to take mirrors off cars before now in a fit of temper when they have got into arguments whilst filtering (i've come close to it myself on more than one occasion when a driver has deliberately squeezed me out). It has been posted on here and m/cycling forums I use before now, so it is not unreasonable to consider this as a possible scenario in the altercation leading up to the driver going off on one. 

Show me anywhere I have condoned the actions of the driver leading to the cyclists death, or called for a lesser sentence than could stick ?

The bottom line is that the cyclist wasn't a regular member here and the report was posted up on the boards for discussion.


----------



## magnatom (22 Apr 2009)

User3143 said:


> I just don't understand why you would have a go at Linf about speculating when you done it in the same post - ah well.




I speculated to point out the futility of speculating! Oh well...


----------



## magnatom (22 Apr 2009)

Linf. All I am saying is that we don't have the facts, so this thread (IMO) should be kept within the bounds of what we know, which at the moment is very little.

I never suggested that you were condoning anything (I think you've mixed me up with someone else), I'm just saying that speculation can be damaging and is in my opinion a bit disrespectful toward the dead cyclist (I'm sure you don't mean it as such, but it can come across that way). 

I'm all for debates on the over-reaction that occur in road rage. It is a very interesting subject and certainly worthy of debate in a cycling forum where we can from time to time be the victims (and aggressors). I'm just suggesting that a new thread might be appropriate or we should wait until we know exactly what happened. 

Feel free to disagree, but I just wanted to express my opinion which comes from some experience of the press.


----------



## magnatom (22 Apr 2009)

Oh and I shouldn't have written Kapish at the end. On reading it back it looks a bit condescending which wasn't intended (it was intended to be slightly light hearted).


----------



## John the Monkey (22 Apr 2009)

magnatom said:


> Oh and I shouldn't have written Kapish at the end.


Indeed you shouldn't.

Isn't the correct spelling "capisce?"


----------



## very-near (22 Apr 2009)

magnatom said:


> Linf. All I am saying is that we don't have the facts, so this thread (IMO) should be kept within the bounds of what we know, which at the moment is very little.
> 
> I never suggested that you were condoning anything (I think you've mixed me up with someone else), I'm just saying that speculation can be damaging and is in my opinion a bit disrespectful toward the dead cyclist (I'm sure you don't mean it as such, but it can come across that way).
> 
> ...



On press distortion, I would 100% agree. They rarely get the facts right, and I've had a bit of contact locally with various issues over the years.


----------



## magnatom (22 Apr 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> Indeed you shouldn't.
> 
> Isn't the correct spelling "capisce?"



Nah, it's in the urban dictionary, so I must be right...


----------



## mr_cellophane (22 Apr 2009)

This line annoyed me



> Police are still seeking witnesses to the *accident*




Which definition was that reporter using



> Definitions of *accident* on the Web:
> 
> an unfortunate mishap; especially one causing damage or injury
> anything that happens suddenly or by chance without an apparent cause; "winning the lottery was a happy accident"; "the pregnancy was a stroke of bad luck"; "it was due to an accident or fortuity"


----------



## Crankarm (22 Apr 2009)

The hearing which is mentioned in this report is a preliminary hearing or can be a Plea and Case Management Hearing or essentially what used to be known as committal proceedings. The court will deal with the defendant's arrangements for representation or legal aid if applicable and then his application for bail which has been refused as the defendant has been charged with murder. The court may also be mindful that the defendant may breach bail conditions or abscond given the seriousness of the charge. Murder being the most serious indictable offence bail is seldom granted. At this hearing the prosecution counsel may make an early brief disclosure of evidence or summary of events to support the Crown's case against the defendant but more in relation to the charge and the consideration of bail. If the appearance is at a full plea and case management hearing which doesn't appear to be the case the defendant would be required to plead guilty or not guilty and a trial date would be set. However given the seriousness of the charge the magistrates court will only be able to deal with any representation order and bail and then send the case to Crown Court for trial.

Truly shocking. Just goes to show how careful one has to be cycling on the roads .


----------



## Riding in Circles (22 Apr 2009)

I don't know all the facts here but if you accidently knock someones wing mirror you should apologise and offer to pay if damage is done, if you pick a fight with a car you will lose, if you get angry with a car driver and he gets angry with you, a cyclist, then he has a bigger stick than you so you will lose, so it is best to not get into confrontation regardless of who is right or wrong as you, the cyclist are the most vulnerable in the given situation. Saying that, the driver needs to face a murder charge.


----------



## Crankarm (22 Apr 2009)

Catrike UK said:


> I don't know all the facts here but if you accidently knock someones wing mirror you should apologise and offer to pay if damage is done, if you pick a fight with a car you will lose, if you get angry with a car driver and he gets angry with you, a cyclist, then he has a bigger stick than you so you will lose, so it is best to not get into confrontation regardless of who is right or wrong as you, the cyclist are the most vulnerable in the given situation. Saying that, the driver needs to face a murder charge.



Looks like he is facing a murder charge as the article suggests. He wouldn't have been remanded in custody if he wasn't. Mind you he did also hand himself in albeit the next morning, but he also did leave the scene..... Providing the police and CPS gather sufficient evidence to convince a jury and don't mess the case up then he will be convicted of murder. I'm sure the defence will be provocation. Hopefully this won't amount to much and be rejected otherwise the charge could drop to manslaughter and hopefully not just causing death by dangerous driving or the less severe assaults of s.47 or s.20 Offence Against the Person Act. Would surely have to be at least the s.18 - with intent to cause wounding or grievous bodily harm if not murder. All depends on the strength of the evidence. Fingers crossed.


----------



## Tynan (22 Apr 2009)

intent for a charge of murder is satisfied by intent to inflict serious injury

so on paper murder fits

as it's a mandatory life sentence the courts tend to lower it to manslughter if there's any sort of reason to


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (23 Apr 2009)

Catrike UK said:


> ... if you pick a fight with a car you will lose, if you get angry with a car driver and he gets angry with you, a cyclist, then he has a bigger stick than you so you will lose, so it is best to not get into confrontation regardless of who is right or wrong ....



Have to disagree there mate - I’ve had several altercations with cars (and vans & buses for that matter) while on the bike – in every case they’ve come of worse for picking a fight with me – you might be more venerable, but you’re also fitter & more manoeuvrable


----------



## John the Monkey (23 Apr 2009)

CPS are (anecdotally, I don't work in this area) notoriously risk averse - I would think that if they're going to court with murder, they think they have a reasonable chance of a guilty verdict.


----------



## Arch (23 Apr 2009)

mr_cellophane said:


> This line annoyed me



Also:

"The victim was wearing a red jacket and the car *he collided with *was silver in colour."

Which rather implies that the action of colliding was the fault of the cyclist, not the action of a car mounting the pavement to deliberately hit him...


----------



## John the Monkey (23 Apr 2009)

Arch said:


> Also:
> 
> "The victim was wearing a red jacket and the car *he collided with *was silver in colour."
> 
> Which rather implies that the action of colliding was the fault of the cyclist, not the action of a car mounting the pavement to deliberately hit him...



It's not the action of a car at all, in point of fact, it's the action of the murderous driver in control of it.

Tom Vanderbilt has written a few pieces on the use of the passive voice in reporting of "accident" and the tendency to assign agency to the vehicle involved, e.g. http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/03/28/the-passive-voice-is-killing-me/


----------



## J4CKO (23 Apr 2009)

What a sad little angry cock, I would be upset if someone knocked my mirror off but killing them wouldnt be my main course of action, catching up with them and askign them to pay for the damage would be more effective and avoid a murder charge.


My uncle knocked a mirror off whilst out riding, deliberately, having been nearly been knocked off by an unrepentant and aggressive BMW driver on the motorway, he went past, slowed down and twatted the mirror which parted company nicely, key difference was having a four cyclinger 140 bhp engine to make good his escape, on a bike you have little chance of getting away from even the weediest car so not woth trying, plus there is always the chance you get recognised or the prick just takes revenge on the nearest hapless cyclist, so if you do damage a car and its your fault, apologise and pay for it, £150 for a mittor is better than death by angry driver. We cannot expect tolerance if we damage cars but neither do we expect a brutal death if we do, this guy needs to go to prison, for a long long time and it made clear to the driving public how callous and unnecessary this was and the fact his kids wont see him for the loss of a wing mirror, probably ten lives or more ruined by one fit of pique.


----------



## Arch (23 Apr 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> It's not the action of a car at all, in point of fact, it's the action of the murderous driver in control of it.
> 
> Tom Vanderbilt has written a few pieces on the use of the passive voice in reporting of "accident" and the tendency to assign agency to the vehicle involved, e.g. http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/03/28/the-passive-voice-is-killing-me/



True, that was sloppy wording on my part.


----------



## TimP (23 Apr 2009)

OK, I'm relatively new here, but is this the way these threads usually go?

If so you might want to consider not even starting them as most people on this thread are looking in very poor form and the thread makes for a very poor advert for the quality of posting here.


----------



## goo_mason (23 Apr 2009)

TimP said:


> OK, I'm relatively new here, but is this the way these threads usually go?
> 
> If so you might want to consider not even starting them as most people on this thread are looking in very poor form and the thread makes for a very poor advert for the quality of posting here.



I don't quite see what you're complaining about, Tim. Can you be a bit more specific ?


----------



## Arch (23 Apr 2009)

TimP said:


> OK, I'm relatively new here, but is this the way these threads usually go?
> 
> If so you might want to consider not even starting them as most people on this thread are looking in very poor form and the thread makes for a very poor advert for the quality of posting here.



It's always hard for a relatively new person to work out the dynamics - I've read most of this as "the usual suspects" having their say...

Trouble is, opinion is rarely as simple as it might be, and that gets reflected in threads which maybe stray off-topic.

I don't think anyone has condoned the actions of the driver.

For me, it's another reason to berate the RLJ crowd. IF (and we don't know for sure) this cyclist turned out to be not the same one that hit the mirror, it shows how indiscriminate people can be in dishing out retribution. I don't fancy being mown down because someone in a yellow coat and jeans pisses off someone like that.


----------



## very-near (23 Apr 2009)

TimP said:


> OK, I'm relatively new here, but is this the way these threads usually go?
> 
> If so you might want to consider not even starting them as most people on this thread are looking in very poor form and the thread makes for a very poor advert for the quality of posting here.




The problem you are probably seeing is that virtually all the subjects have already been done to death on here already. Views have been set and defences are entrenched. 

It is not easy to sway views as personalities and egos get in the way of reason after a few years at 'the front'

Wait for the whistle before going over the top lads - where is my hard hat


----------



## Crankarm (23 Apr 2009)

TimP said:


> OK, I'm relatively new here, but is this the way these threads usually go?
> 
> If so you might want to consider not even starting them as most people on this thread are looking in very poor form and the thread makes for a very poor advert for the quality of posting here.



Hang on........you cannot be serious! What exactly is bad form here? Some one has lost their life and the alleged perpetrator is facing a charge of murder and you are worried about bad form! Take out the cycling aspect and the car aspect and you have two people who have come into contact one of whom has major issues with anger management and aggression who has allegedly killed some one who has tried to get away. This person could be some one who regularly intimidates or bullies people when he can't get his own way. In this case he went way too far. Do you recall the recent case of the supermarket shopper who was punched in the head by a psychopath Verisamy and fell to the floor and died all because Verisamy's GF had told him that another shopper had allegedly pushed in front of her in a queue so he thought he would sort him out.

As a previous poster has requested please explain yourself. You wouldn't be connected or related to the defendant by any chance?


----------



## Arch (23 Apr 2009)

I got the feeling Tim was simply referring to the punch and judy style of the postings, not the story, or any criticism of the driver....


----------



## tdr1nka (23 Apr 2009)

very-near said:


> Murder infers the driver took the vehicle onto the road with intent to take a life. The most he could be charged with is manslaughter as he will argue that his actions were purely a reaction to the cyclist taking his mirror off IMO.




What appears to be missing here is the fact that the driver was arrested on a charge of Murder.

Maybe that's why they are using the word?


----------



## swee'pea99 (23 Apr 2009)

Arch said:


> For me, it's another reason to berate the RLJ crowd. IF (and we don't know for sure) this cyclist turned out to be not the same one that hit the mirror, it shows how indiscriminate people can be in dishing out retribution. I don't fancy being mown down because someone in a yellow coat and jeans pisses off someone like that.


Well, who would? It's a slippery slope tho', to imply as you seem to be doing that RLJing justifies or excuses 'retribution'.


----------



## very-near (23 Apr 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> What appears to be missing here is the fact that the driver was arrested on a charge of Murder.
> 
> Maybe that's why they are using the word?



It will come out in court - nasty piece of work anyway


----------



## MacB (23 Apr 2009)

TimP said:


> OK, I'm relatively new here, but is this the way these threads usually go?
> 
> If so you might want to consider not even starting them as most people on this thread are looking in very poor form and the thread makes for a very poor advert for the quality of posting here.



You can't have frequented much in the way of forums then, this is positively gentile and highbrow compared to many.


----------



## TimP (23 Apr 2009)

Oh I have and the fact that generally there appears to be a reasonably quality of posting here means I'm willing to loiter and contribute. Yes this forum is "gentile and highbrow" against many.

Doesn't mean that this thread falls below the normal standards of the place and isn't a good representation. Other places are worse isn't much of a justification.


----------



## HF2300 (23 Apr 2009)

swee said:


> Well, who would? It's a slippery slope tho', to imply as you seem to be doing that RLJing justifies or excuses 'retribution'.




I can't see how you could read Arch's post like that at all, particularly given the part you didn't quote: '_I don't think anyone has condoned the actions of the driver.'_

This is a general point, not aimed at you in particular, swee'pea, but one of the worse tendencies of posters here seems to involve wilful misinterpretation of other people's comments.


----------



## col (23 Apr 2009)

HF2300 said:


> I can't see how you could read Arch's post like that at all, particularly given the part you didn't quote: '_I don't think anyone has condoned the actions of the driver.'_
> 
> This is a general point, not aimed at you in particular, swee'pea, but one of the worse tendencies of posters here seems to involve wilful misinterpretation of other people's comments.




This is done on purpose by some very frequently.


----------



## Bollo (23 Apr 2009)

col said:


> This is done on purpose by some very frequently.


Col, I struggle to interpret many of your posts, never mind misinterpret them!


----------



## Bollo (23 Apr 2009)

Others have made the point already, but it's very interesting that the CPS are treating this as murder and not manslaughter, death by dangerous driving or some other half-baked motoring offence. I thought that murder charges required very clear evidence of planned premeditation, something that it's usually very difficult to plant on even some quite frightening road-rage incidents.


----------



## handsome joe (23 Apr 2009)

I was involved in an incident similar to this a while ago. I didn't knock the guys mirror off but hit it slightly leaving it out of alignment. I did wave to the driver in apology but was then chased at high speed, only inches away from his car, having abuse shouted at me through his window. 

I am a very careful cyclist (believe me i am not bragging) but i remember coming onto this forum and being told that this guys reaction was logical and understandable given the nature of the incident. I don't know if this forums full of self-haters or expert cyclist who haven't made a mistake in their lives but come on. 

Running someone over because your wing mirror has been damaged is not a rational reaction. Anyone who tries to justify this places too much attachment to inanimate objects. 

Yes i am p***** off when I have damaged my bike on a pot hole, but i don't feel like murdering the contractors who failed to do their job. Similarly if someone’s car is shunted and damaged by another car they don't feel like murdering that person. They get out the car and assess the damage....whether the other car driver is at the scene or not.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (23 Apr 2009)

J4CKO said:


> ...My uncle knocked a mirror off whilst out riding, deliberately, having been nearly been knocked off by an unrepentant and aggressive BMW driver *on the motorway*, he went past, slowed down and twatted the mirror which parted company nicely, ....



out of interest - why/how was your uncle "out riding" his bike on the motorway? Or was he on a motorbike???


----------



## very-near (23 Apr 2009)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> out of interest - why/how was your uncle "out riding" his bike on the motorway? Or was he on a motorbike???



Would riding either a cycle or m/cycle make the rider any less vulnerable to a determined driver in close proximity ?


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (23 Apr 2009)

handsome joe said:


> I was involved in an incident similar to this a while ago. I didn't knock the guys mirror off but hit it slightly leaving it out of alignment. I did wave to the driver in apology but was then chased at high speed, only inches away from his car, having abuse shouted at me through his window.


If it was an accident why cycle off????

It’s quite simple: 
Knock a wing mirror by accident – stop, apologise, exchange details etc,
If you do it on purpose have an “out” – it’s not that difficult; either

double back - you can turn around a hell of a lot quicker than a car can
stay level with the side of the vehicle
go up an alleyway / dead end to vehicles
remove the keys
twat the fat driver etc etc

If I had a choice of being in my car and having to deal with an aggressive cyclist or bein on my bike and dealing with an aggressive driver, I’d choose the bike 99 times out of 100


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (23 Apr 2009)

very-near said:


> Would riding either a cycle or m/cycle make the rider any less vulnerable to a determined driver in close proximity ?


I was just interested as to how/why a cyclist was cycling on a _*motorway *_in the first place – that’s all…


----------



## very-near (23 Apr 2009)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> I was just interested as to how/why a cyclist was cycling on a _*motorway *_in the first place – that’s all…




Cycling Land speed record attempt being foiled by slow motorway drivers ?


----------



## col (23 Apr 2009)

Bollo said:


> Col, I struggle to interpret many of your posts, never mind misinterpret them!




Its right about this and not the main thing but when it works and doesnt its fine, but I take your point before the last point after too


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (23 Apr 2009)

very-near said:


> Cycling Land speed record attempt being foiled by slow motorway drivers ?



Ah… I see… It’s all starting to make sense now… bloody BMW drivers


----------



## Cubist (23 Apr 2009)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> out of interest - why/how was your uncle "out riding" his bike on the motorway? Or was he on a motorbike???



TC, later in the same post he says that his uncle had a four cylinder 140bhp engine to aid his getaway. Suspect that was the clue.....


----------



## very-near (23 Apr 2009)

Cubist said:


> TC, later in the same post he says that his uncle had a four cylinder 140bhp engine to aid his getaway. Suspect that was the clue.....



Is that what they call a 'riders aid' 

It is true that a big engine can put a big distance between you and a car in a very short period of time if you choose to use it. It takes a lot of restraint to keep the speed in check when it is so easily obtained. I find keeping the rpm below 4,000 in any gear helps this, but the bike I'm using has a fair bit more than 140bhp on tap if required.

In terms of respect from car drivers, I get a massive amount more on the m/cycle than the cycle. Many Car drivers move over to let me through when filtering in lines of traffic. I've never had this whilst cycling


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (23 Apr 2009)

Cubist said:


> TC, later in the same post he says that his uncle had a four cylinder 140bhp engine to aid his getaway. Suspect that was the clue.....



 too much budweiser  too much budweiser  too much budweiser


----------



## Bollo (24 Apr 2009)

col said:


> Its right about this and not the main thing but when it works and doesnt its fine, but I take your point before the last point after too


Exactly!


----------



## Arch (24 Apr 2009)

[quote name='swee'pea99']Well, who would? It's a slippery slope tho', to imply as you seem to be doing that RLJing justifies or excuses 'retribution'.[/QUOTE]

Last night, on DIYSOS on BBC1, Nick Knowles, who I normally quite like, went off on one about cyclists. Obviously meant to be a bit of a standard comedy rant, but the two things he picked up on were RLJ and pavement riding. At the end, one of the gang of blokes who do the work said they were going to cycle home, and put on a helmet. Knowles said "you do that, and I'll run you over on the way"

So there you are. He seemed to think it was ok to joke about runing someone over, just on the basis of observing RLJing etc. Obviously, that was all meant as a joke (in rather poor taste, and I'm thinking of complaining, with a link to the story in the OP), but there are plenty of very angry, unhinged people out there who might get a bee in their bonnet over something, and lash out at the nearest person who happens to fit their general picture.

I don't think I in anyway suggested that RLJing deserved retribution (except from the power of the law). But I do know that lots of things don't deserve retribution (looking at someone a bit funny? telling them to stop vandalising a place?), but that doesn't stop angry people handing it out anyway.


----------



## Bollo (24 Apr 2009)

Arch said:


> Last night, on DIYSOS on BBC1, Nick Knowles, who I normally quite like, went off on one about cyclists. Obviously meant to be a bit of a standard comedy rant, but the two things he picked up on were RLJ and pavement riding. At the end, one of the gang of blokes who do the work said they were going to cycle home, and put on a helmet. Knowles said "you do that, and I'll run you over on the way"
> 
> So there you are. He seemed to think it was ok to joke about runing someone over, just on the basis of observing RLJing etc. Obviously, that was all meant as a joke (in rather poor taste, and I'm thinking of complaining, with a link to the story in the OP), but there are plenty of very angry, unhinged people out there who might get a bee in their bonnet over something, and lash out at the nearest person who happens to fit their general picture.
> 
> I don't think I in anyway suggested that RLJing deserved retribution (except from the power of the law). But I do know that lots of things don't deserve retribution (looking at someone a bit funny? telling them to stop vandalising a place?), but that doesn't stop angry people handing it out anyway.



Yeah, I picked up on that on myself and was none too happy (I wasn't exactly ecstatic about having DIY SOS on in the first place.)

Trouble with that is that any kind of response or complaint prompts accusations of being uptight or part of the 'PC Brigade' (OT, but I'm going to do violence to the next person who uses that term seriously . THERE IS NO F***ING BRIGADE!)

I think bonj has done this to death about what people find offensive, but what grips my sh1t is how casual, lazy and unimaginative it all is. I can think of some jokes or articles that I've found offensive, but I've also had to acknowledge that they're clever and, well, pretty funny. The effort has been made.

Anyway, Nick Knowles looks like he needs a good bath.


----------



## Arch (25 Apr 2009)

Bollo said:


> Trouble with that is that any kind of response or complaint prompts accusations of being uptight or part of the 'PC Brigade'



Well, I complained anyway, via the BBC website...

"I would like to complain about the rant by Nick Knowles on DIYSOS about his apparent hatred of cyclists. While I am quite aware that there are bad cyclists out there who break the rules, those of us who don't do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush. I was particularly worried by the remark at the end, when one of the team said they were going to cycle home, and Mr Knowles make a remark along the lines of "you do that, and I'll run you over". 

Perhaps Mr Knowles would like to read the story in the following link about a man killed by a driver who mounted the pavement in order to hit him, and then explain how his remark is in any way funny, or justifiable.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...2746-23432533/

There are already a lot of very angry people out there in motor vehicles who think cyclists are 'fair game', without inflammatory remarks like those made by Mr Knowles. In any case, the policing of the roads is a matter for the police, not private individuals with an axe to grind. I'm sure he meant it all as a joke, but he might do well to consider that those of us who obey the rules do not wish to be on the recieving end of such lazy and potentially dangerous jibes."

Thread here, in Beginners:

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=32717

A few others have also complained. As I say in the thread, it's partly the context. DIYSOS is a family show (I'm afraid I quite enjoy it, in a knitting-at-the-same-time sort of way) and they are basically meant to be helping people out. If it had been Clarkson on Top Gear, I'd barely have noticed, because we all know what Clarkson is like. I always thought Nick Knowles was better than to stoop to stereotyping and idle rants like that. If it was just insults, I'd not bother, but when it comes to threats of violence, however apparently chummy, I draw the line.


----------



## J4CKO (25 Apr 2009)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> out of interest - why/how was your uncle "out riding" his bike on the motorway? Or was he on a motorbike???




I did mention having a four cylinder engine in the post, as a means of escape and generally cyclists don't fare to well on the Motorway.


----------



## Crankarm (30 Jun 2009)

This story might be really relevant now as we are currently experiencing a heat wave and drivers' fuses are very short. 

There will be loads of hot and angry chavs and psychos in all sorts of vehicles spoiling for a confrontation. Be careful and be safe. Back off to ride another day.


----------



## fossyant (30 Jun 2009)

There have been warnings on the local radio, asking drivers to calm down/be careful due to the heat...


----------



## John the Monkey (30 Jun 2009)

fossyant said:


> There have been warnings on the local radio, asking drivers to calm down/be careful due to the heat...



...irate motorists, of course, being the only potential criminals that we have to ask nicely to obey the law, it seems.


----------



## tdr1nka (30 Jun 2009)

You get stoopid drivers when it's too hot, stoopid drivers when it's too cold.
I feel you get the same proportion of stoopid drivers no matter what the weather 'does' to everyone.


----------



## col (30 Jun 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> ...irate motorists, of course, being the only potential criminals that we have to ask nicely to obey the law, it seems.



It seems this applies to all walks of life, even us cyclists when we try to dream up ways of getting back at people, we could go too far in this unusual heat too?


----------



## Bollo (30 Jun 2009)

Anyone know what happened to the accused in the OP?


----------



## Browser (28 Apr 2010)

Bollo said:


> Anyone know what happened to the accused in the OP?



Article in the Daily Fail, 'the trial continues'.


----------



## slowmotion (29 Apr 2010)

a £150 wing mirror?


----------



## sheddy (29 Apr 2010)

_Arch, can you remember in which half of the DIY SOS was the remark made ? (We need to look up the iplayer) _
Sorry just noticed that was a year ago - doh


----------



## Mark_Robson (29 Apr 2010)

What a terrible, stupid waste of a life. It will be interesting to see how long the driver gets.


----------



## dodgy (7 May 2010)

I've had to temporarily drop my Daily Mail firewall rule to find a link for this (true). The driver got life.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-clipping-wing-mirror.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## mr_cellophane (7 May 2010)

dodgy said:


> I've had to temporarily drop my Daily Mail firewall rule to find a link for this (true). The driver got life.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-clipping-wing-mirror.html?ito=feeds-newsxml





> The driver got his just deserts and had no right being on the road.
> I do think it is time that cyclists paid road insurance and took a test as they are a menace on the roads at times and seem to think that they are exempt from the rules of the road.
> 
> - r4, sitts, kent, 7/5/2010 16:53


WFT has that last sentence got to do with it !


----------



## Jezston (7 May 2010)

I do love all the indignant mind-jobs going on about how life doesn't mean life because of 'liberals'. Because of course under more right-wing governments it was any different.


----------



## Crankarm (7 May 2010)

On the scale of sentences that are handed down to motons who kill cyclists this is a tsunami of a sentence. Well done Judge Richard Griffiths-Jones! Cyclists should be relieved that a court has finally seen sense in sentencing a dangerous, selfish and arrogant killer driver to a lengthy term of imprisonment. However, 13 years for killing some one, in such a predatory manner is too lenient. He should have received a minimum of 20-25 years. But at least he has been given a life sentence of which he must serve 13 years before he is eligible for parole. He might not be released after 13 years, but there is a possibility he might if he has behaved himself and shown remorse which he has yet to do. Still a sickening crime. A genuine psychopath.

How can some one be allowed to drive a car for a period of many years who has never had a license, insurance or bought road tax? This system is clearly failing.

And only one depressing comment on the case from the DM readership,



> The driver got his just deserts and had no right being on the road.
> I do think it is time that cyclists paid road insurance and took a test as they are a menace on the roads at times and seem to think that they are exempt from the rules of the road.
> - r4, sitts, kent, 7/5/2010 16:53



How can people be so insensitive and thick?

RIP Mr Paul Webb. The sentence must be of small comfort to Mr Webb's family and his partner Nadia Wazea. My sympathies and condolences to them.

Let this case be a warning to all motons who inadvertantly or deliberately close pass us or who lose it altogether and try to knock us off or run us down. You will hopefully go to prison for a long time.


----------

