Horrible.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Ferry Road assault on cyclist
(38 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
"his was a brutal and unprovoked attack on a cyclist who was using a marked cycle path"
I can't help but think that they said this bit because pavement-cycling is an offence that should be punished with vigilante justice.
Posted 9 years ago # -
From reading the report I reckon they said that because the guy who carried out the assault accused the cyclist of being on the pavement (it does refer to an 'altercation', so I think the cyclist has then defended his right to be there - pure conjecture of course and I hope he's okay!).
Posted 9 years ago # -
From reading the report I reckon they said that because the guy who carried out the assault accused the cyclist of being on the pavement
Presumably they're hoping that the perp will read this and turn himself in, as it seems wildly irrelevant otherwise. Either that or it's a sort of institutional Freudian slip, and they don't bother to appeal when cyclists not on marked paths are attacked. I could believe either.
Posted 9 years ago # -
" I could believe either."
Same here. The optimist in me (if there can be any optimism about this at all) hopes it wasn't a Freudian slip.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Not sure if it's still the case but on the ramp down to West Granton access from the bridge the pedestrian and cycle sections are on different sides compared to the rest of the area.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I suspect the victim was on the shared cycle/footways that go underneath the red bridge, which is probably why the police statement was phrased in that unusual way. There are railings at the kerb too which restrict the path width as well. Another example of shared paths just not working.
Posted 9 years ago # -
It's a dog-whistle, of course. An implication that those not on marked cycle paths are "asking for it".
Posted 9 years ago # -
Trying to avert the usual comments below the line?
Posted 9 years ago # -
@CalumCookab"An implication that those not on marked cycle paths are "asking for it"."
Are you genuinely saying that the plod would ignore a serious assault based on geography??
That takes paranoia to a new level.
Posted 9 years ago # -
At first glance, this would appear to be a conflict between cyclist and dog walker. A classic scenario we've all encountered on shared use paths. However does not normally end in serious assault!
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Are you genuinely saying that the plod would ignore a serious assault based on geography??"
You've clearly never tried to report abuse from drivers.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Yes, geography has nothing to do with it. The cyclist must have been someone important, like a doctor or a judge.
Glad they caught the guy at least.
Posted 9 years ago # -
serious assault generally does not equal abuse (in the form of being shouted at or beeped at by a driver).
The case above involved facial injuries requiring hospital treatment. I suspect the police would treat that the same no matter where on the road it took place, no matter what transport choice of the victim etc etc.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@wc
testing your faith, out of interest -
if someone angrily waved an iron bar at you repeatedly, while shouting abuse, but you managed to avoid being hit due only to your own quick thinking and agility
would you expect the police to treat that as attempted assualt and give you a crime number while they attempt to track down the assailant?
what if you had third party witnesses who were horrified and also took a photo of the would-be assailant?
well i can tell you, they aren't interested in the slightest, if that weapon is a motor vehicle.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Well Bax, all I can say is that when I was threatened on a cycle path by a dog walker with a chain, the police were very interested and came to the house with a set of mug shots (they knew who the nutter was, just I couldn't pick him out).
Posted 9 years ago # -
@mgj
indeed, they will take being threatened with a weapon seriously
but not if the weapon is a motor vehicle.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"You've clearly never tried to report abuse from drivers"
I am not reading that verbal abuse is the reported crime in this, rather it was a serious assault.
My point earlier in the thread is that it is ridiculous to assert that the police would ignore an assault simply because someone was on the pavement and on a bike.
To be honest, idiots in cars verbally (and physically) abuse other car drivers every day - and I imagine that a case of "He said, She said" between car drivers gets the same level of investigation (i.e. pretty much nowt) as a similar in a bike/car verbal altercation would.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I have no doubt that if the pedestrian had committed the serious assault in another location he would still have been charged.
I think dougal and others point is that if the perpetrator had been driving and deliberately driven into the victim causing hospitalisation the police would likely have been less interested.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I think dougal and others point is that if the perpetrator had been driving and deliberately driven into the victim causing hospitalisation the police would likely have been less interested"
I am not sure that is what they are saying - most seem to be talking verbal abuse - and as WC notes, that is not the same thing.
Your scenario is extremely rare and if it happened as you describe, said cyslist was hospitalised, and the police did not investigate, then I agree that would be scandalous.
But (personally) I dont see the point about getting all upset about hypothetical situations where people may or may not investigate made up crimes !!
Posted 9 years ago # -
"But (personally) I dont see the point about getting all upset about hypothetical situations where people may or may not investigate made up crimes !!"
Indeed.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I think dougal and others point is that if the perpetrator had been driving and deliberately driven into the victim causing hospitalisation the police would likely have been less interested"
If that's the case then, yes, I still think that opinion is wrong. Unless someone can show me a case where a driver deliberately tried to hit a cyclist with their car, did so, caused hospitalisation, and could be identified (noting we're talking about the police here, and not the courts then being lenient), and the police simply didn't bother to investigate.
Posted 9 years ago # -
p.s. I do think the majority of near misses are due to incompetence rather than malicious forethought and deliberate attempts to hit someone, so not really on point with the iron bar swinging. Not to say it isn't wrong, and the police definitely don't take those seriously, but it's not attempted assault without an intention to assault, and rather is dangerous driving etc (or should be seen as such).
Posted 9 years ago # -
Yes, I suppose that the intent to injure is probably the difference here. A driver deliberately passing too close to a cyclist may think they are trying to persuade the cyclist they do not belong on the road but probably doesn't intend to injure them. In a similar way to a person carrying an iron bar in an intimidating fashion only strays into attempted assault when they start swinging it.
The frustration which the law fails to recognise is that the driver has a greater risk of causing injury through negligence than the iron bar carrying thug.
As you say getting the courts to provide appropriate sentencing is completely different matter to a police investigation.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@fountainbridge
"Not sure if it's still the case but on the ramp down to West Granton access from the bridge the pedestrian and cycle sections are on different sides compared to the rest of the area."
Yep, still the case. Go down the ramp on the designated side, and you find yourself on the wrong side once you hit the flat.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Unless someone can show me a case where a driver deliberately tried to hit a cyclist with their car...
Nobody will be able to do this because that determination can only be made by the court (or jury), no?
Posted 9 years ago # -
I dont see the point about getting all upset about hypothetical situations where people may or may not investigate made up crimes
The situation I alluded to wasn't hypothetical or made up.
On Sept 1st I was driven at and swerved into by a motorist. He then braked heavily in a bid to get me to crash into his rear end. When I swerved into the other lane to avoid that, he then swerved over to get me that way.
I only stayed upright by having very quick bike-handling ability.
A witness emerged who had taken a photo of the vehicle as they were horrified I had almost been run over by the motorist.
The police have shown no interest in either speaking to the witness or identifying the driver.
I would have felt less threatened by someone waving an iron bar about, because I'd have had more options. You can't disarm someone using a vehicle as a weapon, and its also harder to flee the situation.
Yet the police would take one type of incident seriously, and ignore the other.
Posted 9 years ago # -
[leaving the thread]
Posted 9 years ago # -
@bax, that would be the incident where you first said you couldn't be bothered reporting it.
Then you said you wouldn't report it "today" because you wanted to watch a monster mountain stage in The Vuelta??!!
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
