'Road rage' van driver [Adrian Burrows] punched cyclist in the face for not using a bike path

[mjr]

There’s definitely a mixed bag but there’s at least 50% that are sub optimal ranging from not very good to dangerous and awful. The problem this leads to is the issue in the OP. Because they are everywhere and a large enough percentage are poor then it seems to make drivers very cross when they’re not being used to the point of assault. On balance, I’d rather not have any.

If there are no cycleways, drivers still abuse and assault cyclists. Some drivers are just too angry, which is understandable because driving is nothing like the adverts, but those drivers need removing, not the cycleways. It's not the cycleways that assaulted anyone.

 

[markemark]

If there are no cycleways, drivers still abuse and assault cyclists. Some drivers are just too angry, which is understandable because driving is nothing like the adverts, but those drivers need removing, not the cycleways. It's not the cycleways that assaulted anyone.

Not sure I fully agree. It just separates on occasion and then pushes you back sometimes. Making cyclists part of the traffic and not separate I feel will help in the long run. It will dissipate the entitlement of roads being for cars.

 

[mjr]

they rarely do report any arguments made against the mitigation claims. Whether or not such arguments were made.



150 hours is right at the top of the scale if the harm level was 3, or the bottom if it was considered to be level 2. But certainly within the guidelines either way.



No driving offence was charged, so that is not within the power of the magistrate. The offence charged was Assault causing Actual Bodily Harm.

And the sentencing guidelines for that offence appear to have been followed.

I don't dispute any of that, but you asked how it sends the message that asaulting cyclists isn't really punished.