Another reason to wear a helmet?

Wallace1492

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9242970.Hove_cyclist_beaten_15_times_with_hammer_for_riding_too_slowly/

bails87

:shock:

Psychopath!

SimonAH

Bloody hell!

stuj15

in what DI Taylor described as a “massive over-reaction”.

Massive under statement!!

graeme_s-2

The Argus wrote:

the cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet

If it had been a pedestrian beaten 15 times in the head with hammer, would it have mentioned that they weren't wearing a helmet!? Have you ever seen a report of someone being stabbed or shot where it mentioned that they weren't wearing a stab or bullet proof vest!?

jds_1981

Graeme_S wrote:

The Argus wrote:

the cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet

If it had been a pedestrian beaten 15 times in the head with hammer, would it have mentioned that they weren't wearing a helmet!? Have you ever seen a report of someone being stabbed or shot where it mentioned that they weren't wearing a stab or bullet proof vest!?

Would be more interesting to know what bike they were riding

Wallace1492

A good lesson to get faster on the hills.

Twostage

How long does it take to hit someone 15 times with a hammer. You would have thought at least one of the four witnesses would have stepped up.
Agree with the above about massive over-reaction being an understatement. The implication is that in the mind of DI Taylor there is a point where the assault would not have been an over-reaction and therefore have been justifiable.
I'm hopeful that the mention of lack of helmet clarifies that the hammer made contact with skull.

saintdracula

The guy was 60 years old ffs

Wallace1492

"Old Age Lycra Lout Holds Up Traffic and Headbutts Man Holding Hammer"

Kieran_Burns

Why the hell do they have to mention he wasn't wearing a helmet? I expect he wasn't wearing a gingham dress with doc martins, a blonde wig and a hand puppet called Mr Flibble either.

What the feckityfeck does his lack of helmet have to do with anything??????

Poor guy gets beaten senseless by a coward and a thug and they mention he wasn't wearing a HELMET.

FFS.

jonny_trousers

Agreed. I'm all for wearing helmets, but wtf does it have to do with anything in this case?

Someone less lazy than me should email the editor and ask why.

jonginge

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Why the hell do they have to mention he wasn't wearing a helmet? I expect he wasn't wearing a gingham dress with doc martins, a blonde wig and a hand puppet called Mr Flibble either.

What the feckityfeck does his lack of helmet have to do with anything??????

Poor guy gets beaten senseless by a coward and a thug and they mention he wasn't wearing a HELMET.

FFS.

They assailant needs to sentenced to 4 minutes WOO

t4tomo

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Why the hell do they have to mention he wasn't wearing a helmet? I expect he wasn't wearing a gingham dress with doc martins, a blonde wig and a hand puppet called Mr Flibble either.

What the feckityfeck does his lack of helmet have to do with anything??????

Poor guy gets beaten senseless by a coward and a thug and they mention he wasn't wearing a HELMET.

FFS.

+1 completely irrelavent.
Anyway, even if he was it would have shattered in the first few blows anyway.

what sort of disturbed tw@t carries a hammer in their car anyway, and in Worthing, its not exactly south london.

king_jeffers

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Agreed. I'm all for wearing helmets, but wtf does it have to do with anything in this case?.

+1

Even if he had a helmet would the offender still have repeatedly hit him on the head? I'm sure after a while it might click.

saintdracula wrote:

The guy was 60 years old ffs.

60 is really not that old, I hate the generalisation that people over 50(+) are frail/unfit, need to be cuddled, require some form of water retaining underwear. In some ways reminds of Britain's Got Talent;

Judge: How old are you sir?
Contestant: 60
Crowd: Weeeey!!!! OMG! Whoooop! He's still freaking alive!

Some guys I come across in the gym/commute are older than 60 and way fitter than most half their age including myself.

Keith1983

Absolutely shocking!

It does seem that the writer of the article has some weird hidden agenda, he comments on the cyclist preventing the car from passing. At the end of the day no matter how slow traffic is travelling it is either safe or unsafe to pass. What a complete tool!

pangolin

t4tomo wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Why the hell do they have to mention he wasn't wearing a helmet? I expect he wasn't wearing a gingham dress with doc martins, a blonde wig and a hand puppet called Mr Flibble either.

What the feckityfeck does his lack of helmet have to do with anything??????

Poor guy gets beaten senseless by a coward and a thug and they mention he wasn't wearing a HELMET.

FFS.

+1 completely irrelavent.
Anyway, even if he was it would have shattered in the first few blows anyway.

what sort of disturbed tw@t carries a hammer in their car anyway, and in Worthing, its not exactly south london.

[devils advocate]

I think it's fair to mention in this case. In stories about a car hitting a cyclist I think it's stupid to mention the helmet or lack thereof, but in this story? Surely they are highlighting that the assailant was hitting the chap directly on his bonce, not via a helmet.

I don't think they're saying the guy should have worn a helmet, then he'd have been ok, I think that the point is the driver must have known exactly how much damage he would do as he is hitting someone directly on the head.

In a story about someone being hit on the head by a hammer, whether they have any protective headgear on is pretty relevant.

[/devils advocate]

I don't wear a helmet

clarkey cat

spose so

Kieran_Burns

suppose not

Where in the article does it say he was hit on he head?

A cyclist was hit up to 15 times with a hammer in a road rage attack.

Police believe the driver struck because he was irritated the 60-year-old cyclist was taking too long to ride up a hill.

Detective Constable Tony Taylor, said the cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, was struggling against the wind preventing the driver from passing.

At least four members of the public watched in horror as the cyclist was beaten and hit up to 15 times, in Tennyson Road, Worthing on Wednesday, in what DI Taylor described as a “massive over-reaction”.

For the full story see today's Argus.

I think my point stands.

Sorry, not point: Rant.

mudcow007

sweet jesus!

surely hitting the cyclist over the head slowed the driver even more than the bloke going up the hill?

any news on the rider?

pangolin

Good point. Perhaps I assumed it was his head because they mentioned the helmet

Twostage

pangolin wrote:

Surely they are highlighting that the assailant was hitting the chap directly on his bonce, not via a helmet.

Erm... that's what I said in my 12:31 post :- "I'm hopeful that the mention of lack of helmet clarifies that the hammer made contact with skull."

pangolin

Twostage wrote:

Erm... that's what I said in my 12:31 post :- "I'm hopeful that the mention of lack of helmet clarifies that the hammer made contact with skull."

Congratulations.

However posters at 12:46 pm, 12:49 pm, 1:21 pm and 1:26 pm either ignored your comment or disagreed with it.

If there was a forum rule against repeating each other all threads would consist of about 3 posts.

danlikesbikes

Damm what a sad thing to read - who would have though that someone could be some dumb/angry/hateful.

graeme_s-2

mudcow007 wrote:

surely hitting the cyclist over the head slowed the driver even more than the bloke going up the hill?

This really pisses me off. Drivers who can't possibly wait 30 seconds until it's safe to over take, but suddenly have all the time in the world to argue with you, or try to attack you with their cars.

asprilla

JonGinge wrote:

They assailant needs to sentenced to 4 minutes WOO

I think you need to either lay off the coffee or back away from the keyboard.

If you choose to back away from the keyboard then I'd suggest not using the time to go for coffee.

MonkeyMonster

good point kb - i actually presumed from the fact they had mentioned the helmet that he was struck on the head but as you say - it wasn't mentioned...

there's no need for people like that and he should be buried alive with some trees to benefit from his corpses nutrients.

Kieran_Burns

To be fair - i think it was simply a poorly written summary of the full story that inadvertently assumed some knowledge of the incident which is explained in the full article

(with emphasis on poorly written)