- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cycle path stock photo Farmer attacked cyclist with billhook after road rage row over cycle lane
A farmer attacked a cyclist by throwing a billhook at his bike following a road rage incident in which he became enraged because the man was not using a cycle lane.
Robert Fell, 66, overtook Andrew Smith who was riding on the main road rather than using a nearby cycle lane.
Mr Smith, in his 30s, claimed that Fell overtook him dangerously and so he shouted at the farmer warning him he was too close.
This prompted Fell, who was just yards from his home, to wind down the window of his VW Transporter van and retort: 'Well get on the cycle path then!'
Mr Smith then decided to follow Fell back to his nearby farm in the tiny hamlet of Millington on the outskirts of Knutsford, Cheshire.
Shortly after Fell got out of his vehicle, Mr Smith walked past a 'Private Property Keep Out' sign on a private road and confronted the farmer in his yard, saying: "Why are you speaking to me like that?"
Fell fired back: "Get off my lane!" before grabbing the billhook - which is used to trim tree saplings - and hurling it toward Mr Smith.
The tool struck Mr Smith’s bike, damaging his £2,950 carbon framed L6 Sport Disc Road Bike. Fell was arrested shortly afterwards at the rural premises.
> Bingo cards ready...'cyclists don't pay boat tax'
At Stockport magistrates court, Fell pleaded guilty to causing harassment alarm and distress, after his not guilty pleas to assault and criminal damage were accepted, The Mirror reports.
While Mr Smith, who was not in court, claimed £2,195 worth of damage was caused to his expensive bike, JPs refused to order Fell to pay any compensation as the victim had been on private property at the time of the attack.
The incident, which took place around 3pm on April 8 of this year, came after Fell claimed he had experienced various 'difficulties' when cyclists did not use the cycle lane built in 2017 next to his property as part of the £200m A556 Northwich by-pass scheme.
Despite what many people out on the roads might claim, the Highway Code makes it clear that cyclists aren't obliged to use cycle lanes.
Alex Bowden, of our sister site eBikeTips, lives locally and he explained why cyclists in the area preferred to use that section of road rather than the cycle path.
> Monday moaning: Why don't cyclists use cycle lanes?
He said: "The road linking the M6 and the M56 (the A556) used to be a crazy busy dual carriageway...
"Everyone hated it because it was not really an arterial road so George Osborne decided to bypass it. They built this 'link road' which is exactly what you'd imagine and you can't ride a bike on it.
"However, impressively, they turned the dual carriageway into one lane each way and turned the other half into a cyclepath/footpath/horse track thing.
"The old A556 is now pretty much completely empty so ironically the road has become very safe to ride on. They also resurfaced it.
"The cycle path is shale and has bollards and side roads. It's not bad. But the road is better."
> Stagecoach apologises after disabled cyclist harassed by driver for not using cycle lane
He added: "If this fella is annoyed about some cyclists not using the shale, he might want to stop and think about whether he preferred it when every single vehicle travelling between the south of England and Manchester went past his house."
Defending Mr Fell, lawyer Lesley Herman said: "Mr Fell lives near a new motorway junction and a cycle path has been put in place, at some expense to the government.
“It is very close to his property and he has a lot of difficulty with cyclists who do not choose to use this cycle path.
"The complainant was the one who said 'you are too close' and the defendant then responded by saying "Well get on the cycle path then". He then went home and did not think there was going to be any problem.
"But Mr Smith went along a private road for some distance to get to his house. There is a sign that says 'private property keep out' and Mr Fell was surprised to find someone on his property.
"He had a serious accident at work and is a man who has to walk on crutches - and there was a young man on his property. He accepts that he misread the situation and the cyclist said 'why are you speaking to me like that?'
"It is a working farm and he has equipment which he is using. A billhook was in his right hand and he was concerned so he threw it in the direction of the cyclist but at the floor and it caused a scratch on the bike.
"If he had intended to throw it at Mr Smith himself, it would have caused him some damage. He just wanted to frighten him and for Mr Smith to leave. It is a very unfortunate incident and he knows he cannot behave in that way and that he has to see it the other way the person would have seen it. He accepts Mr Smith would have been concerned for his safety."
Fell has been conditionally discharged for 12 months and ordered to pay £107 in costs and surcharges
JP Ravji Patel said: "The victim has been onto private property where it says 'do not enter' and it made the defendant vulnerable. Therefore, there is to be no order for compensation."
At home, Fell declined to comment.
His wife Linda said: "We just want to put this behind us and move forward with our lives."
Latest Comments
- Zebra 24 min 54 sec ago
One thing which will influence me next time I buy new wheels is the noise which the freehub makes - how loud it is. I have tinitus and am quite...
- David9694 1 hour 13 min ago
More notice needed for Remembrance Sunday road closures...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 54 min ago
This is an impressive new way of avoiding work by the police! Several crimes here (eg. phone use) - so is the new game "if we can identify *one*...
- HeadDown 2 hours 17 min ago
Which explains a lot. I reckon the standard of driving in the UK has noticeably decreased in the last 5-10 years. A host of factors no doubt, but I...
- Keykey1985 2 hours 52 min ago
He wasn't brake-checking me, he was trying to get me to stop. Nothing good would have come from me stopping.
- PRSboy 3 hours 10 min ago
It was designed around 28mm tyres but there's lots of clearance and could certainly take bigger tyres.
- Cugel 3 hours 13 min ago
A dinosaur version is shurely for the kiddies. Myself I'd like The Hindenburg. There may be The Freisian, filled with methane rather than hydrogen,...
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 27 min ago
When I see SLOW HORSES I always think ah, so this is where the ones I bet on are kept...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 8 min ago
No great mystery in either case, surely? Both US politician and the motor trade say "choose us and your life will be better and easier!" And other...
- stonojnr 6 hours 20 min ago
theres an attitude I encounter alot locally, and demonstrated in bucket loads by drivers on my commute home tonight, that cyclists shouldnt be on...
Add new comment
43 comments
A common problem with these so called cycle
lanes is that some of them have too many breaks which give priority to vehicles exiting side streets which slows you right down every time, see the southbound A23 from Salfords onwards.
Also a lot of cycle paths are badly maintained, badly broken surfaces and a lot are dual pedestrian and cyclists which do not really mix.
Someone put that point across about slowing down faster cyclists in the comments. The reply was one I believe Socrapi used once in a similar debate of "why should cyclists be allowed to go fast on roads, if they want to race, they can use a track. I'm not allowed to race or drive fast on public roads in my car"
Motorists are not allowed ( theoretical) to drive fast, because they do nearly all the killing and injuring.
I know a few places where I prefer the road to a cycle path. Ive been moaned at a few times for it. I also know that if you decide to pursue an argument with someone they may be the sort of person who likes a bit of verbal or they may be the sort of person who'd quite happily kill you. Its your choice to pass on or engage. I'd personally always recommend leave it.
And for the armchair (I'm a tufty I'd take him) warriors remember once you start a fight you have no idea what will happen.
seems like this is a criminal case, but presumably there could be a small claims case because the farmer has caused the damamge, this is not disputed, and it doesn't need to be a criminal act for compensation to be due.
Despite the farmer’s initial irresponsible behaviour there’s nothing in this report that suggests he did anything else apart from drive off.
I’m glad to see that the judge saw common sense and did not award the cyclist any compensation or damages.
The cyclist acted irresponsibly and unreasonably by trespassing which, had that happened to me on my private property, would have resulted in more than just a few chips to his bike.
As cyclists many of us seem to be self-righteous and ‘privileged’ in our interpretation of right and wrong.
What does it say about the frame of mind of this cyclist that he felt it necessary to trespass and confront somebody about a fleeting verbal altercation?
Farmer 1- Cyclist -0.
What was the initial irreponsible behaviour? Left hook, not even leaving the lane to overtake. Punishment pass? Remember this farmer has had "lots of difficulty with cyclists not using the cycle path". How can anyone deciding to use flat tarmac cause difficulty to another road user? Especially, as pointed out by others, the road is mostly empty. Sounds like he likes to Police that route then if he gets "lots of difficulty" along it.
I don't think I would have followed him onto a farm, however it depends if someone had been very close to ending my life and when queried about it, had shouted out, "Well you should have used that bike path then" as justification.
If, as you appear to be threatening, you think you have a right to assault somebody for being on your land without your permission then you are very dangerously misguided.
Yep, I meant to include something about that line in my original reply. Still no surprise Boo is actually agreeing with someone who states they would actually have committed a lot more then chipped bike to someone. Remember he was advocating a trained boxer hitting someone on the street before. So strange he seems to ignore the old adage of Sticks and Stones might break my bones but words will never hurt me and reverses it to "You say words and deserve to be knocked off your bike from behind, punched by a boxer or struck with a billhook."
ah so farmer commits punishment pass (because he has had issues with other cyclists, not necesarily this cyclist) and abuse, and in order to avoid any discussion flees onto his land with a 'nah nah, can't come here' and the cyclist is the entitled one in this exchange. Farmer sounds like a real Karen to me.
Next time I have a loud party and anyone comes onto my drive to complain, I'll just throw a spanner at them, apparently coming to talk to someone on their land counts as trespass, and throwing weapons at them is therefore OK.
Trespass requires the landowner to demonstrate loss. If you are on private land in England and Wales* the landowner can require you to leave by the shortest reasonable route. But if you haven't caused any loss, they cannot sue for trespass.
In Scotland, there is a right to roam, subject to rules about privacy and still not causing any loss. So you can walk in anyone's field, but not their garden. Seems to work ok.
*I realize this reads as if it applies only to cross-border straddling...
That is useful to know. I can assault someone on my property and damage their property despite not being threatened or attacked and I don't have to compensate the victim. I wonder if this law only applies if a cyclist is the the victim. I already knew that motor supremacists can deliberately endanger a cyclist on the Public Highway of course.
Can you provide any evidence to show that Andrew Smith didn’t threaten the farmer? All we have here is the bare bones of a report.
A report that contains alot of the Defence statements and not one stating he was subjected to physical threats. Surprise and wanting to scare him off by throwing the only weapon he had in his hand near, but apparently not at, the cyclist was the only bits mentioned in defence.
You want someone to prove a negative. Ok.
You can act in self defense in a reasonable manner but your others posts indicate you prefer to dispense your own brand of punishment. This would be beyond self defense.
why would you assume he had? with only the bare bones of a report, what we do know is that only one of the parties was carrying and prepared to throw a weapon.
Point 1. I don't 'put myself in danger' by walking onto private property to talk to someone. I do it every day in my work. If the property owner chooses to act aggressively or assault me, that is on them.
Point2. Scared and vulnerable farmer (yes...that bloke in the picture) is so scared of being attacked that he takes a potentially lethal weapon out of his car and tosses it gently on to the floor at the feet of his would be assailant. Really?
I'd guess the cyclist may well not have been on someones property to make a polite inquiry. Unless your a bailiff I don't suppose in your job you are quite in the adversarial position.
I don't know the cyclist's mindset at the time, but if he felt his life had been endangered by some entitled wannabe RoboCop, purely as punishment for riding on the road, then asking said driver why he felt so entitled seems reasonable enough. Cyclist had only travelled 'yards' to the lane and may well have been passing Farmer Fell's drive on his route.
As I said, Farmer Fell kindly offered the use of his billhook to the cyclist by lobbing it at him. No mention of that offer being taken up in the newspaper report.
I'd guess court bailiffs aren't on people's property to 'make a polite enquiry'. Should they also be assaulted?
As for my work, many years of enforcement of Housing and Nuisance law, so yes, plenty of potential for/threats of violence and aggression, and some actual instances. Never yet felt that I was 'asking for it'.
And I'd imagine you have had some training in how to avoid getting a fat lip. And I didnt say he was asking for it OTOH its not competely suprising he got it.
Cycling gets the system going quite nicely. Add on a problem driver and maybe thats not the best time to make a 'polite inquiry'
Well, my naturally endowed physical cowardice helps me to avoid the fat lip, and would probably militate against my getting into a hot tempered argy bargy with Farmer Fell .
As for 'not completely surprising he got it'? Is that an accepted defence in cases of assault and criminal damage?
"As for 'not completely surprising he got it'? Is that an accepted defence in cases of assault and criminal damage?"
Personally I'd rather not get punched in the face than have my day in court saying "he punched me in the face"
Is there no cross examination in these courts? "Difficulty with cyclists" is a lie, that road is practically empty. I've been down it this afternoon and was passed by 1 motor bike and no other motorised traffic.
As I wrote on an earlier thread, I stopped using the cycle lane because it is covered in debris and I have suffered multiple punctures. Also there are several driveways that cross the cycle path but their stop lines are on the road edge so there is the worry of drivers exiting their property without stopping to check for cyclists.
The road wide, lightly trafficked and safer.
Doesn't matter if it's a lie or not, dealing with slower traffic is every day life. It is never an excuse.
Farm house inexplicably burns down
I suppose it was only a matter of time before you started talking billhooks.
Invaded - he cycled down his drive way!?!
Also is the use of a Bilhook (Machete) an appropriate level of self defence, against an unarmed man, who's only threat was that he wanted to talk about a driving incident?
Also why was his Bilhook to hand when he had just got out of his vehicle?
But he had just got out of his vehicle - no valid reason to hold a farming tool whilst driving. So if it wasn't in his hand, he consciously picked it up to use it as a weapon.
Let's hope he doesn't hold a shotgun licence.
Also on crutches. So quite dexterous to have crutches and thrown it hard enough that it bounced off the floor and hit the bike enough to damage it.
Apparently though it is the cyclists fault and not the farmers who obviously drive close enough on a very empty road (and from the sounds of his defence, definitely the not the first time) to cause the cyclist to complain. Still as boo and nic seem to indicate every time, we should just accept that drivers will kill us one day with bad driving and just cycle along quietly until they do.
Since I have been passed close at speed by several motor vehicles (2 tonnes +) I have fitted a 1m pipe perpendicular to my bike frame. That is white so shows up quite well and should help those who are not able to judge 1.5m separation from another vehicle.
Obviously I'm aware of this and do not encroach on the other lane where motor vehicles may safely pass..
They certainly did today.
Pages