Man stamped on bike and assaulted 14-year-old boy for ‘cycling wrong way down one-way street’

I suspect we've at least a generation of angry men attacking people on bikes whatever laws we enact...

Classic bully - turn yourself into the victim after starting something.

I agree. One-way streets in France are often legally two-ways for cyclists, and traffic signs will indicate this is the case. One-way systems are often put in place to provide extra parking for cars or to discourage motorists from driving through town centres, so it's only fair that cyclists shouldn't have to make a big detour because of the traffic system. Incidentally, the cyclist going the 'wrong way' still has priority over oncoming cars under the standard priority rules, which give priority to bikes over motor vehicles.

I do wish people would stop repeating the dangerous myth that bikes now have priority over cars. This is a nonsense put about by the tabloids to stir up indignation.
The hierarchy thing is NOT about priority but about vulnerability and responsibility. Drivers of bigger, heavier vehicles are expected to be more careful around more vulnerable users. That does not mean they have to cede priority other than where they normally should - despite (again) tabloid rubbish, drivers have always been required to give way to a cyclist where they would to another car.
So, whilst clearly a driver has no business running over a cyclist going the wrong way down a one-way street, it's not because the cyclist has priority, but because you're not allowed to run people over just because you disapprove of their behaviour - which, again, has always been the case.

CyclingGardener wrote:

I do wish people would stop repeating the dangerous myth that bikes now have priority over cars. This is a nonsense put about by the tabloids to stir up indignation.

I think JN35000 was still referring to the case in France, not the UK, where it is generally (though not exclusively) the case that cyclists do have priority, and certainly they do on most cycle lane contraflow one way streets.

Ok, fair point re France . . . and of course a contraflow has priority, but I thought we were discussing cycling up a one-way street without one, technically an infringement even if we think it shouldn't be. Absolutely doesn't justify assault of course.
Re overall priority, cyclists certainly have the same priority as any other vehicle would in the same situation - something I wish more motorists were aware of! But I don't think the 'new' rules give us a blanket 'priority over cars', although I have seen this suggested in the media. I'm happy to be corrected, but as I understand it the instruction to 'give priority to cyclists' at roundabouts, which has been quoted as meaning cyclists now have complete priority over cars and can push in without having to give way, simply means drivers should treat cyclists the same as other road users, giving way when appropriate and not barging through to overtake once they are both circulating.
Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by priority here?

The idea of cyclists somehow gaining "priority" in the updated HC is, as you suggest, a myth being peddled in certain mainstream media to create resentment of the equally mythical "entitled lycra clad cycling mafia".

Unfortunately, the word "priority" like the phrase "right of way" nowdays often seem to get conflated with the new hierarchy of responsibilities towards more vulnerable road user groups and used by the same media to complain that drivers in particular are being demonised on the very roads they pay road tax to use.

Agree. There have been some sterling efforts by various groups to get the message out (but not quite so much by central authorities that I'm aware of). As usual this reduces in the media / popular discourse to something much simpler and often factually incorrect...

While welcome the HC changes don't represent (any?) legal changes; they're more exhortation ("should") and rephrasing / clarification of what was already there or implied. (The key ones aren't full law either and still have "issues" eg. are still too wooly on around riding side-by-side and don't specify 2m overtaking space - just "more space at higher speeds" etc. )

Just in case anyone missed it (you can also search all the stuff here on road.cc!):

The government's info: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-t...

Overview from Cycling UK: https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycle-magazine/feature-explaining-changes-high...
FAQ (same place): https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/changes-highway-code-faqs

As an exteacher I always thought that if I assaulted a child either in school or on the street then I would lose my job.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Assault by beating AND criminal damage is merely a fine now? Even against a child? 

Yes; if the victim is a cyclist.  Cyclists have far fewer rights than normal people.

Is not assault by beating one of those serious sounding charges which is actually a bit misleading - is it not a sub-category of common assault?

Here the criminal grabbed the 14 year old by his arm and pulled him off his bike.

If it was charged for 'beating up' it would have something like eg assault occasioning ABH.

I'd be for charging the man with a more serious offence, but it does not happen. Like the 'careless driving' loophole for more serious offences.

mattw wrote:

Is not assault by beating one of those serious sounding charges which is actually a bit misleading - is it not a sub-category of common assault?

Yes, assault by beating is simply an assault that involves the deliberate application of force rather than causing the victim to fear the application of force. It can be a very minor application of force, e.g. pushing someone out of the way, or even not actually involve body/body contact, e.g. spitting. For a more serious charge of ABH the victim would have to show some physical damage such as cuts or bruising, which very luckily for the offender appears not have happened here.

That was my immediate thought too.