- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgJail for dog-walker who broke cyclist’s ribs by pushing him off his bike
A dog-walker who pushed a cyclist off his bike, causing him to break five ribs and a shoulder blade, has been jailed for six months for inflicting grievous bodily harm, while his wife has been fined for claiming she did not know the assailant.
Warwick Crown Court was told that company director Paul Oliver, aged 49, fled the scene after attacking the cyclist on the Kenilworth Greenway in Warwickshire.
His wife Sarah Oliver, 45, and a friend, Lynnet Armstrong, 55, remained at the scene and told police that the cyclist had been assaulted by someone they did not know, reports Kenilworth Weekly News.
However, the police had already established the identity of the attacker by the time they went to the couple’s home the following day, ostensibly to take a witness statement from Mrs Oliver.
Instead, officers arrested both Mrs Oliver and her husband. She reportedly told an officer, “I’m sorry, we shouldn’t have lied.”
Gary Rutter, prosecuting, told the court that Jaroslaw Zachwieja had gone for an evening ride on his e-bike on the former railway line, which is now a greenway shared by cyclists and pedestrians.
He was riding at approximately 20 kilometres per hour when he saw the Olivers and Armstrong walking in the opposite direction.
The court was told that the trio, who were walking their dogs, were taking up half the path and he did not feel that he had to take evasive action.
But as he rode past them, Oliver shouted at him to “Slow the f*ck down!”
Later, after turning round to go back to where his car was parked, Mr Zachwieja passed them again, this time at around 12 kilometres per hour, and felt a “massive blow” as Oliver shoved him from his bike.
Oliver then picked him up by his shoulders and threw him back to the ground, before leaving the scene.
His wife and Armstrong called the police as well as an ambulance and claimed that the perpetrator of the assault was someone they had met on their walk but whom they did not know.
Ian Speed, defending, told the court: “The injuries were totally not intended, and could have been partly caused by the speed he was travelling at. If he had been almost stationary he would not have suffered such injury.”
But Recorder William Davis, jailing Oliver, said: “You believed he was riding too fast, given the width of the path. I accept there may be legitimate disagreement on what would be a safe speed to pass.
“You appeared to be angry, and as he went past you pushed him, causing him to fall off his bike.
“Although it was not premeditated, it was a deliberate push,” he said.
Given that Oliver’s actions had resulted in serious injury, he added that “Appropriate punishment can only be achieved by the imposition of an immediate sentence of imprisonment.”
Both Mrs Oliver and Armstrong had been charged with perverting the course of justice, but instead pleaded guilty to the alternative charge of assisting an offender.
Mr Davis told them: “Both of you lied about what happened. Fortunately the truth was quickly uncovered.”
Both were ordered to pay £1,200 costs, with Mrs Oliver fined £160 and Armstrong being given a 12-month conditional discharge.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Destroyer666 2 sec ago
Although the article does not make this clear, the Cybertruck reference is not made by Ingrid, but just some person stating their opinion on the...
- Secret_squirrel 1 min 58 sec ago
Perhaps its worth pointing out to the Car brained in Manchester that Deansgate used to be dedicated to trams and they should fuck off elsewhere in...
- chrisonabike 12 min 19 sec ago
Taxis in bus lanes? That's nothing. Edinburgh can boast bus lanes with car parking spots specifically marked within them! (Example - two here)....
- wtjs 46 min 19 sec ago
Just like pushing a sore tooth, it's sometimes worth looking at these comments to see just how thick thick people are. Last night on the BBC NW...
- Jules59 47 min 22 sec ago
Comparing road fatalities per 1 billion km driven then Australia has about twice the death rate of the UK....
- chrisonabike 1 hour 42 min ago
But but nobody ever fell over *before* on a night out?...
- brooksby 2 hours 40 min ago
And that's the thing. It's the motorists who are creating the danger, and yet they think it is everybody else's problem to solve.
- cyclisto 2 hours 46 min ago
Absolutely no brand snobber here, and if wasn't in love with my current old heavy bike, I would definitely like to have a Ti bike, so I have...
Add new comment
44 comments
Seems like a method-of-transport-aggravated-assault to me.
Viciously attacked because he was riding a bike.
His low speed clearly was not the cause of the injuries either. (I had fairly similar injuries from being hit by a car at ~40mph)
I'm presuming that the CPS decided it was just easier to accept their plea of guilty on 'assisting an offender'?
From where I'm sitting, lying to the police and saying that "a man they had just met on their walk, who they did not know, had pushed the cyclist and then run off" is a clear-cut case of 'attempting to pervert the course of justice'...
I think perverting the course of justice is more against the offender initially or if someone lies in evidence in court / attempts to intimidate witnesses etc or if they hinder cases for several weeks. Still doesn't seem to be used enough in other cases where the driver states they thought it was a deer or other crapness and should be a default when they leave the scene of the crime in hit and runs.
Still would have preferred jail time as well but as the judge decided the original offence was at the low end. What I do wonder is different is why one was only fined £160 (They own a business so if means tested should have been alot higher) but the other got a 12 month conditional discharge? Surely equal sentencing should have applied there.
At last an almost appropriate penalty for attacking a person who happens to be on a bike. Normally the bike acts as mitigation for any criminal act directed at the rider. 6mths in jail for this entitled twat will be tough I hope. Now this type of sentencing needs to be the norm for anyone who uses their vehicle to intimidate or attack cyclists.
I love victim blaming, I just love it,"' Ian Speed, defending, told the court: “The injuries were totally not intended, and could have been partly caused by the speed he was travelling at. If he had been almost stationary he would not have suffered such injury.”'
Aka her skirt was too short it's her fault.
''I’m sorry, we shouldn’t have lied.”
Shows where their priorities are.
“If he had been almost stationary he would not have suffered such injury.”
FTFY: if he had not been born he would not have suffered such injury.
Do not pass Go.
"Do not pass Go" 10/10
Ian Speed, defending, told the court: “The injuries were totally not intended, and could have been partly caused by the speed he was travelling at. If he had been almost stationary he would not have suffered such injury.”
So what is the intent of pushing a cyclist off a bike...to give him a nice fuzzy feeling? Of course injury was intended, that's usually what occurs when you've just assaulted someone.
And is the defence liar also a physicist as well as a general practitioner/ER doctor - he knows how less the injuries would have been if the cyclist "had been almost stationary"...
As I said previously, the defences job is to try to either dispute the prosecutors evidence or to mitigate sentencing. However what I do hate is when they essentially victim blame as bad as he just did. If it was a rape case and had stated the woman wouldn't have got injured so much if she had not fought the attacker and just let them do what they wanted, he would be rightly pillored nationally and might even be in trouble with his practicing authority. However he is allowed to do the same type of victim blaming here and no one who isn't a cyclist will raise a peep.
Edit: Of course there might be other defence barristers called Ian Speed in the Midlands but his resume shows he must have been offering ‘hands on platinum service’ which to me just sounds like he offers "happy endings". (although I would insist on a bag over his face if I happened to be a client in the future).
JHC; was he the Kray brothers' solicitor?
And the fact that after the initial assault, the defendant picked up the victim 'by the shoulders' (!) and threw him to the ground again. Vicious!
but, but, the assault wasn't premeditated your Honour..
Just seen in the main newspaper articles that the Defence also pleaded for a suspended sentence because he owns a company.
It doesn't mention the wording but judging on his initial victim blaming attempts, I suspect it was along the lines of "My client is shown to be landed gentry and not a prole like the lazy immigrant who tried to assault my client with the air currents caused by his passing. As we know a Sonic Boom can break glass, so my client wasn't to know the speed of him going past wouldn't have caused a similar effect.
The sentancing is so screwed in the UK, so this guy get's a custodial sentance whereas a driver kills a cyclists and receives a suspended sentance
yeah but the sun was in the drivers eyes, etc.
Surprised he got jailed but not surprised at the usual soft touch sentence for his partner.
This couple sound like the usual aggressive dog owners who seem to think their walking crap factory is more important than other people.
I do believe the current pc term is "mobile turd dispenser"
Shared path limit for cyclists is 10 kph in Australia, so his 20 kph (maybe faster if he admitted 20) is too fast.
Are you referring to a different Australia to the one in the southern hemisphere?
There is no 10 kph speed limit for shared paths in Australia, paths cannot have specific speed limits applied. If you cycle too fast on a path in Australia and collide with a pedestrian the offence would relate to not giving way to a pedestrian and dangerous cycling.
Although we have had stories listed on this site recently of Police in australia stopping and fining cyclists for going faster the 10kph on an urban shared area, including the fine being actually more then speeding drivers would get. So it might not be legally signed across all of Australia, but Police will enforce when they want to.
Exactly. It's more of a general guideline...
In the UK, we don't have fixed limits but Sustrans recommend no faster then 15mph at all. And he was on an ebike on the flat. The power assist would cut off at that speed and can weigh upto 20kgs so I don't think he was going much faster. Without knowing what the path was like at that point, how wide a berth he could give AND how controlled the dogs were, I can see me passing at close to that speed but more then likely it would be the speeds he used the second time.
DM article describes the location as a 'path in a country park', doesn't mention it's also a cycle path on a disused railway line that's part of the national cycle network - I wonder why?
Well, the DM is known to only have a casual relationship with the truth
Hardly. Not even a nodding acquaintance.
Well I don't know what you even bothered looking there. I'm sure most of the comments were along Ian Speeds victim blaming / should have strung a wire type things.
got to keep close tabs on the enemy!
From the web site : The Greenway, as well as being a linear Country Park, is a permissive bridleway which means that it can be used by pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders. The track is segregated with a natural grass track for horses and a firm track – made from recycled materials and Derbyshire limestone – for other users.
I would interpret this as a shared use path, not a cycle path, but I may be wrong.
I think it's legal status is a bridleway, over which the NCN cycle path is routed - so yep, it's shared space.
Pages