Cyclist attacks driver in Hove

2»

Comments

  • rf6
    rf6 Posts: 323
    I think you're right to be cynical, I think they're deliberately trying to introduce a car v cycling argument to boost sales and hits on their site. I'd be interested to find out the full facts of what happened. I should think this chap has a good chance of a spell inside if found guilty.
  • Mettan
    Mettan Posts: 2,103
    downfader wrote:
    jealous even of our physical ability and physiques

    Agreed - that's at the root of their irritation for many - 58 year old company directors driving Bentley's don't like seeing someone in there late 20's early 30's flashing their 'athletic prowess' right in front of them - neither do 44 year old overweight Nurses who haven't exercised for 20 years (not trying to criticise anyone as such, just an example) - the list is endless - millions of other British peeps fit into this spectrum.
  • Mettan
    Mettan Posts: 2,103
    Buppy wrote:
    They should be reporting driver punching cyclist incidents in the papers - only it would probably take up half the space in the paper. :(

    Agreed - also, the GBP don't seem to realise the amount of times we are nearly injured or potentailly killed on the roads by motorists - we face that quite regularly - no wonder a cyclist's anger can boil over from time to time.

    (not condoning the serious assault above, of course)
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    Ber Nard wrote:
    ...
    Maybe I'm biased and being cynical, but I fail to see how his enthusiasm for cycling or his weekly mileage has anything to do with this.

    Rob

    I suspect you are being biased or cynical.

    The reference to his enthusiasm for cycling and mileage will no doubt have been said in court as part of the bail application by one party or the other
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • downfader
    downfader Posts: 3,686
    Ber Nard wrote:
    The Argus really are trying to stir the sh!t, aren't they?

    Rob

    I'm not convinced the Argus is. I've been on their site several times, and yes there are idiots posting the comments at times (that includes people that should be on our side but then try to justify RLJing and pavement riding).. The paper, much as with my local at times gets it wrong because of low staff numbers compared to bigger papers, spelling and phrasing could be better.

    There are other papers I could definately point out that have spurious ambitions for us on two wheels.
  • StillGoing
    StillGoing Posts: 5,211
    This is not a first time offender. You do not appear for a first hearing and be given court bail on the proviso that you wear a curfew tag until the next hearing if it's your first time in front of the judiciary. Sounds like it's coincidental that the accused is a cyclist who also has a bent for breaking the law. Curfews are usually reserved for burglars to keep them away from your property during certain times of the day.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    philthy3 wrote:
    This is not a first time offender. You do not appear for a first hearing and be given court bail on the proviso that you wear a curfew tag until the next hearing if it's your first time in front of the judiciary. Sounds like it's coincidental that the accused is a cyclist who also has a bent for breaking the law. Curfews are usually reserved for burglars to keep them away from your property during certain times of the day.

    Really?

    You clearly are not aware of the Bail Act and its provisions.


    It matters not whether it is first offence or not, you can still be remanded in custody or given bail conditions first offence or not. The determining factor is are there substantia;l grounds to believe the accused inter alia :
    a) would fail to surrender to bail
    b) interefere with witnesses
    c) commit offences on bail
    d) need to be remanded for their own safety


    This is a VERY serious assault and there is a real risk that an accused would have an incentive to breach unconditional.

    If as you say the accused has been given a curfew enforced by a tag, then there would need to be an element of night time alleged offending. A curfew is not usually appropriate for a daytimer offence

    I suspect he has been given a condition of residence and that is enforced by the tag ( it may have been expressed tbe at X address between certain hours) to try to deal with the risk of him failing to surrender to bail ie fleeing. This is because if convicted of such an offence as alleged he is likely to face a substantial period of time in prison.
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • Heckler1974
    Heckler1974 Posts: 479
    The victim of the Hove bike rage attack has died.

    Tony Magdi died late last night in hospital after suffering an infection.

    The 52-year-old greengrocer had been in a specialist brain injury unit since he was punched during a row in Portland Road, Hove, on November 7.

    Mr Magdi was a well known face around Hove and was a loved and respected man.

    If you would like to pay tribute to Mr Magdi please email anna.roberts@theargus.co.uk For more please see tomorrow’s Argus.

    Link
  • BigJimmyB
    BigJimmyB Posts: 1,302
    So now it's a murder charge?

    Truly awful and over something so so trivial.

    RIP
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    So now it's a murder charge?

    Truly awful and over something so so trivial.

    RIP

    It is a tragic incident. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, there is no justification for someone loosing their life.


    As for a murder charge, it is impossible to say definitively based on the newspaper story. It may be difficult to prove the necessary causation. If it is an infection, then the causation link may not be there to show the accused caused the death.

    Whatever the legal point, it is a tragic case
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Ultimate and uncessary proof that it's never worth getting into an altercation on the road - since you never know how it will end up.
    _
  • dilemna
    dilemna Posts: 2,187
    spen666 wrote:
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    So now it's a murder charge?

    Truly awful and over something so so trivial.

    RIP

    It is a tragic incident. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, there is no justification for someone loosing their life.


    As for a murder charge, it is impossible to say definitively based on the newspaper story. It may be difficult to prove the necessary causation. If it is an infection, then the causation link may not be there to show the accused caused the death.

    Whatever the legal point, it is a tragic case

    +1.
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • rti
    rti Posts: 1
    Never murder when a car driver kills a cyclist though. Always an `accident'.

    If the three cyclists cut up by this driver had say even filmed the incident, I doubt the police
    would have taken any action.

    One law for them...
  • Heckler1974
    Heckler1974 Posts: 479
    rti wrote:
    Never murder when a car driver kills a cyclist though. Always an `accident'.

    If the three cyclists cut up by this driver had say even filmed the incident, I doubt the police
    would have taken any action.

    One law for them...

    A driver doesn't intend to hit a cyclist, thus, it's an accident. Whether the actions of the driver contributed to (or caused) the accident determines whether or not it's a legal matter.

    If the cyclists had filmed the incident and ridden on and reported the driver then action would've been taken if there was evidence to bring a prosecution. One of them didn't he stopped and punched the driver and the driver is now dead, end of.

    Or perhaps you are suggesting that dangerous driving should carry a death sentence?

    You are a troll, using an account created to raise a reaction or cause offense, which ever it is, I hope you are happy that you have managed both.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,692
    rti wrote:
    Never murder when a car driver kills a cyclist though. Always an `accident'.

    If the three cyclists cut up by this driver had say even filmed the incident, I doubt the police
    would have taken any action.

    One law for them...

    This case is nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of motorists / cyclists involved in collisions, either you haven't read what it is about or as above you are trolling. It is a case of assault that has ended up with a death and must be condemned by anyone with an ounce of decency.
  • rf6
    rf6 Posts: 323
    Pross wrote:
    rti wrote:
    Never murder when a car driver kills a cyclist though. Always an `accident'.

    If the three cyclists cut up by this driver had say even filmed the incident, I doubt the police
    would have taken any action.

    One law for them...

    This case is nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of motorists / cyclists involved in collisions, either you haven't read what it is about or as above you are trolling. It is a case of assault that has ended up with a death and must be condemned by anyone with an ounce of decency.

    +1. Quite right. This is disgusting, I hope the offender gets a long stretch.

Categories