- 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
- brooksby 10 min 44 sec ago
Why do you think that cyclists complaining about allowing every minicab and Uber to hare along the bus lanes, is being "entitled"?
- quiff 19 min 58 sec ago
Ah yes, just spotted where "performance line" is quoted on the website. Couldn't see any that fall into both 'evolution' and 'performance' line...
- anotherflat 28 min 19 sec ago
Road tubeless? Worst upgrade I ever made, hoping when I get round to trying over Xmas that I can get the new (non-tubeless, so hopefully a slacker...
- Rendel Harris 32 min 35 sec ago
TRP cable-actuated hydraulic calipers, haven't tried them myself but reviews generally rate them as better than cable-only brakes such as Sora. I...
- wtjs 45 min 38 sec ago
And we can be sure that Police Scotland would be similarly disinterested...
- wtjs 49 min 41 sec ago
The self-professed cyclists are really self-claimed cyclists of the 'I'm a cyclist myself' variety
- slc 2 hours 1 min ago
They should read scampercraft and not exaggerate the danger of scuttling along. I discourage squirrel predation by acting like one.
- HalfDanHalfBiscuit 2 hours 10 min ago
You can get the Varia for £10 less from Decathlon.
- Geoff H 2 hours 45 min ago
Perhaps they should apply the same standard to dangerous, unsafe, poorly designed roads and COMPLETELY rip them out rather than "fix" or "redesign"...
Add new comment
44 comments
Accroding to the linked article, and I'm not sure if it is the way they reported it in the newspaper or the court, but they mentioned althought it was an e-bike, he was relying on pedal power. Now all e-bikes need pedal power but not sure if they mean he had turned off the assist or were indicating it wasn't a pedelec. However if using power or not, 13-15 mph on the flat seems about right on a legal heavy electric bike
For the shared path, and assuming the speeds mentioned in the court were accepted as truthful, he was towards the top end of recommended top speed for shared paths on the inital pass but they could see him coming and he mentioned he could felt he gave them enough room as they were on one side.
On the way back they had spilt to eithe side and he had almost halved his speed down, whether that was because of the spilt, or the "advice" yelled previously.
In conclusion, depending on the width of the path on the initial contact, I might have done similar speeds in the circumstances presented assuming I knew they had seen me and made some attempt to control the dogs as well. And Paul Oliver is a tosser.
If I was cycling along a shared path and saw people walking a dog coming the other way, I would definitely slow to walking pace, ie, 6 kph; 20 kph is way too fast.
Which is an excellent argument against shared use paths...
Slowing to walking pace or slower every time you encounter a pedestrian? Might as well just be a pedestrian...
Except that all cycle paths, shared or not, are shared. There is no path in UK where pedstrians are not permitted to walk - or stretch a virtually invisible extending dog wire. The only effect of segrating the path is to limit the space available to cyclists.
Yes, maybe 20kph is too fast, not sure how close the assaulter was to the cyclist but the point is that no matter how close/fast the cyclist was travelling that is no excuse for an attack whether provoked or not. It's hard to say without knowing all the facts but a bit more consideration from both sides could have avoided this.
Not saying its the same thing but I was buzzed by an old woman on an e-bike yesterday and she was travelling well in excess of 15mph. It could have been painful for both of us if I hadn't jumped out of the way - mind she was wearing a rather natty pair of ski goggles
I'm dithering about whether to be grateful that he got convicted and got a jail sentence, and being angry that it was so lenient. It was a deliberate, pre-meditated attack (whatever the judge thought) which caused serious injury, and without looking up the sentencing guidelines, six months seems pretty low to me.
I wonder if a youth cyclist who attacked a pedestrian for walking in their way and inflicted those injuries would get only six months?
Maximum without "Intent" is 5 years. But in this day and age I'm surprised it wasn't suspended.
But there was intent, so what is the max sentence for that? and what do the sentencing guidelines say?
We know there was intent, but the judge decided there wasn't. However with intent it starts at 3 years (depending on other factors) and upto 16 /"life"
Looking at the sentencing without intent, it was very close to being community order / suspended though and I suspect the initial covering up of he crime swung it to even any jail time. The Judge had it as the lowest category possible but added the "covering of evidence" or had it as Category 2 but reduced it massively due to factors but his remarks indicate the former.
Middle age privilege. The fuss and lies you'd see in the media for a young 'thug' doing the same.
Age gives you wisdom over the young apparently...unless we're talking assault in which case it gives you excuses
What are snowflake tears? Are they cold and sharp? Does each one look different and unique? Are they only around in the winter and early spring?
Teenager first offence wouldn't even get charged in Australia.
I realise the Defender is there to defend, but the ironically named Ian Speed claiming in defence that the injuries were only caused because he was going faster the stopped when the assialant then also attacked him when he was on the floor is going beyond parody.
I also don't get how the Recorder can also state "Although it wasn't premeditated, it was a deliberate push." How much premeditation is needed. Yes he didn't plan to push a cyclist off when he first set off on his walk but he obviously planned it when he saw the cyclist was coming back towards him.
Lying liar tells lies basically. And he's a thug and his partner is a liar too.
I can write that without fear of libel.
Pages