A driver accused of punching and choking a cyclist during an alleged road rage attack on the Hardknott Pass has been found not guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
36-year-old James French denied assaulting cyclist Lee Kermode during a confrontation between the pair on the famous Lake District climb, known for its narrowness and fearsomely steep gradients, in May 2021, Cumbria Crack reports.
The motorist was accused of clipping the cyclist with his car as he passed him, prompting Mr Kermode to retaliate by striking the vehicle. Mr French then allegedly blocked the rider’s path before punching and “strangling” him, cracking the frame of his bike in the process.
However, French claimed that he was only acting in self-defence, and had been simply trying to “subdue” the cyclist, who he says damaged his car before leaning in through the vehicle’s window to attack the motorist.
> Road rage driver who rammed cyclist off bike after pursuit avoids jail
Carlisle Crown Court heard earlier this week that Kermode was cycling with a group of friends in the Lake District when he rode on ahead on the Hardknott Pass, commonly regarded as one of the toughest climbs, if not the toughest, in the UK and one of the steepest roads in England.
Prosecutor Neil Bisarya told the jury that the cyclist soon became aware of a motorist driving behind him in a Volvo and, as he approached a passing place on the extremely narrow road, “tucked in” to let the driver pass.
“What actually happened was that the Volvo passed by so close to Mr Kermode that it clipped his right arm with the nearside wing-mirror,” Bisarya said.
“Mr Kermode stopped, and shouted ‘idiot’ and he hit the nearside of the Volvo with the outside of his hand to make the driver aware of how close he was to him.
“Mr Kermode felt that the driver had [close passed him] on purpose in retaliation for being stuck behind him.”
> Furious road rage motorist goes viral for confronting cyclist — as car rolls away because he forgot to apply handbrake
According to the prosecutor, Mr French stopped his car, blocking the cyclist’s path, before walking towards Mr Kermode while shouting, ‘You should have stopped and let me pass’.
Mr Bisarya continued: “It’s alleged that the defendant punched Lee Kermode on the nose and then again on the mouth. The defendant then put Mr Kermode into a choke hold, wrestling him to the ground.
“Lee Kermode was still straddling his bike when the altercation took place and both men fell to the ground and on to the bike, causing the bike frame to crack in three places.
“The defendant stood over Mr Kermode and started to strangle him with both hands. Lee Kermode said the defendant continued strangling him with such force that he could not breathe or make a sound.”
The prosecutor said that the cyclist claimed that he felt himself growing weaker as the motorist continued to choke him, and feared that he was about to be killed.
He then told the jury that the attack was only curtailed after a female motorist, believing there had been a collision, stopped to offer help.
Two other cyclists who had been riding with Mr Kermode, Bisarya said, later reported seeing Mr French’s Volvo parked in a passing space further along the valley, as the motorist stood by the car holding a wrench.
“It happened so quickly”
When interviewed by police, who were contacted by both men in the wake of the incident, the 36-year-old denied both clipping the cyclist with his car and assaulting him, and instead claimed that Mr Kermode had instigated the roadside scuffle.
“He said he was the victim and that Lee Kermode had damaged his car and assaulted him, appearing at the driver’s door to attack him,” Bisarya said.
“He said he stopped his car and Lee Kermode rode alongside his car on the driver’s side and leant through the window and started to assault him while he was still in the driver’s seat.”
French claimed that Kermode continued to attack him as he got out of his car, and that he tried to restrain the cyclist.
“He hit me first,” Mr French told police at the time. “We had a scuffle where he hit me. I fell on his bike and he came at me again and then we just had a fight. Then I just tried to subdue him so he would calm down.”
> “Red mist” driver who deliberately drove at cyclist escapes jail and driving ban
Giving evidence during the trial, the motorist said that he had been out for a drive in the Lake District with his girlfriend when they approached Mr Kermode on the Hardknott Pass, which French described as a “dangerous, single-track” road.
He claimed to have driven behind the cyclist for three or four minutes, eventually overtaking him when the road widened.
Denying that he clipped Mr Kermode with his car when he passed, French told the court: “We drove very slow and then he struck the rear of the vehicle.
“As soon as I’d got out of the door, Mr Kermode was at my side of the road, on the driver’s side… At this point, he walked over to me.
“He was saying things but I was more focused on the fact that he was moving towards me very quickly. He was in my face. I told him to get out of my face… He struck me in the face, on my cheek.”
The motorist continued: “We both fell over the bike. I fell towards him. I’m assuming he fell over the bike too. It happened so quickly. We were on the grass at the side of the road. He tried to punch me again.”
French then claimed that, after the cyclist missed with his second punch, he struck Mr Kermode on the nose, before the pair began to grapple on the ground.
“I was shouting at him to calm down,” he said.
> Road rage van driver who assaulted cyclist, knocking him unconscious, handed suspended sentence
Following the scrap, French said that, as he attempted to retrieve his keys, which had fallen on the grass, the cyclist continued to swear, accusing him of driving “too close” to him.
Pointing to the rider’s cracked frame, French allegedly said: “Look at your bike; was this all worth it? What was the point?”
After driving along the valley for a brief spell, the motorist began to feel sick and pulled over at the side of the road.
When asked about the wrench, French claimed that he was standing beside the car for fresh air and was simply tidying up the tools in his boot, which he says had become loose, when the two cyclists approached to enquire about the incident.
After deliberating for less than an hour on Thursday, the jury at Carlisle Crown Court cleared Mr French of the assault charge.
Add new comment
43 comments
Wow! What a piece.
I would've pistol whipped him with my steel tipped Zefal. I would've shattered his nose and taken a few toothy souvenirs.
Lying slimebag.
How on earth has a jury decided he was not guilty?! He is quite obviously lying and contradicting himself, it is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain that he exited his vehicle and then attacked AND STRANGLED the cyclist who was still on his bike. Or... we can choose to believe that the cyclist damaged his car for no reason!
The cyclist is supposed to have been astride his bike, walking extremely quickly, up a steep hill with a bike between his legs towards the dangerous driver, and then started throwing punches at the driver? The cyclist wouldn't be short of breath at all on that steep hill?
So strangling is now OK... good to know we've set a precedent.
As for the "i just happened to stop soon after because I was feeling sick, to tidy up the loose tools in my boot" ... what the actual F. What sort of imbecile believes anything the driver said?!
Because the case wasn't made beyond reasonable doubt or the jury don't understand cycling.
It's really a saturday night punch up with each party saying the other started it. Hard to get a convicton from that no matter what any of us think is likely what happened.
If the driver is claiming self defence, then strangling maybe ok, after all you can kill someone in self defence and that be accepted as reasonable force. It's not setting a precedent for anything.
Well, a jury that doesn't understand cycling when the victim was astride a bicycle at the time of the attack... is quite a problem.
Presumably the courts don't select a jury of misogynists for rape cases?
That's partly down to the prosecution to do their job.
I agree with the bias against cyclists and expect the benefit of the doubt to go against the cyclist. There is also the issue that jurors will be car drivers and judge the defendant on their standard of driving rather than above test standard that we should have.
All it takes are 3 members of the jury who have cyclists shouting angrily at them for no reason at all, all of the time...
How on earth has a jury decided he was not guilty?!
Because any offence against a cyclist up to, and including killing, is considered by the public to be an acceptable matter for mirth. This morning, R4 Extra about 09:20, there was a hilarious joke about a driver killing a cyclist and nobody on the pretty crap programme (I woud normally avoid this one, but it just happened to be on when I switched on) failed to appreciate the hilarity- for some reason, the joke didn't feature a child or a pedestrian, it wasn't 'oh dear, I've hit a child or a lollipop lady, never mind, she had it coming!'
It's those dangerous roads again, not the people who choose to drive like idiots on them. No, it's the strip of tarmac that's dangerous.
Hmmm, although the following assault has been dealt with as Not Guilty due to He Said/ He Said, surely both sides have admitted the driver passed the cyclist close enough that he could reach the side of the vehicle whilst cycling slowly. So was he not also charged with careless driving? I also wonder if the driver showed evidence of the vehicles damage as part of his defence. I mean both him and others on here seem to think that knocking on someones property, whether a car or a front door, is the equivalent of Criminal Damage and should be dealt with by assault, whether physically or verbally.
Ludicrous judgement. How the fuck does a cyclist going up hardnott pass manage to catchup with a driver that's overtaken him and then somehow ride alongside the driver attacking them through the window? It's a fucking struggle to pedal up that hill with both hands firmly on the bars. If he was going down the hill, if he took one hand off the brake to attack a driver through the window he would have been on the floor and under the car. This is an absolute farce and just reenforces the prejudice, anger and aggression directed at people who are simply riding a bike instead of driving a car. As for tool tidying, this
judge isjury were utter wankers if they seriously think that was a valid reason for standing there with a wrench preparing to hit the other two cyclists.Looking at map software, there is a gentle rise by the fort over about 1km after 4 steep sections, so conceivably it was there.
I've ridden up this hill a few times, and there is no point on it where I felt it was gentle. In fact, it is mostly so steep that if you do stop, you have to go down the hill a little in order to get moving again. A driver should be able to overtake any cyclist going up hill without being so close as to hit them. No driver should attempt to overtake a cyclist going down it.
There are no gentle sections to Hardknott. I have ridden it and it is brutal all the way, reaching steeper than 1 in 3 on some bends.
I stand corrected then. Need to improve my map reading skills
I've ridden it and walked it many times. It is horrible to ride, and I love climbing steep hills! Whichever way you approach it, it is tough. Do Hardknott first from the west at Eskdale and it is horrible! Go over Ulpha and drop down to the foot of the east side and it is horrible! And you've had to grovel over Ulpha beforehand. Do it from the east and you have Wrynose to do first which is almost as horrible! Out of the saddle in the dry and the rear wheel is breaking away, if you're descending Hardkott or Wrynose, you need to have your hands clamped as hard as you can on the brakes otherwise the speed picks up so quickly you cannot stop safely. On the way up all you can smell is burning clutches from the cars, on the way down all you can smell is burning brakes. But the worst thing about these climbs are the idiots in cars who do not have a clue how to drive these roads. They take a special set of skills to negotiate safely, I've lost count of the times I've been over and seen a car on its side, having lost control on one of the hairpins. I completely avoid it in the car now, even though it knocks so much time off getting to the west of the lakes, because most cars going over there are stupid daytrippers without a clue, you even get tourist minibusses going over there!
But I still don't consider it to be a dangerous road! A challenging road, driven over by dangerous drivers!
Nothing to do with a judge. Jury case.
A Judge can direct a jury in his summing up, it was clear the driver lied and the Judge failed to highlight this.
"tidying up the tools in his boot, which he says had become loose"
Wow, that cyclist must've slapped his car REALLY hard. No wonder it was damaged.
'When asked about the wrench, French claimed that he was standing beside the car for fresh air and was simply tidying up the tools in his boot, which he says had become loose, when the two cyclists approached to enquire about the incident.'
ha, ha , ha. Of course you were. 'Kin ell, who believes this crap?
Exactly describe how did the cyclist make the driver stop and get out of the car? Mind control? There's no self defence if the cyclist can't actively force a driver out of the far side of a moving vehicle that is in front of the cyclist. The driver has to perform a definable sequence of events in order to be out of the 'safety' of the car and in 'harms way'. The lawyer acting on behalf of the cyclist was no Rumpole.
https://youtu.be/SzO9KtyVw-Y?t=75
"However, French claimed that he was only acting in self-defence, and had been simply trying to “subdue” the cyclist, who he says damaged his car before leaning in through the vehicle’s window to attack the motorist."
...does not tie in with...
"As soon as I’d got out of the door, Mr Kermode was at my side of the road, on the driver’s side… At this point, he walked over to me."
That's the problem with no other witnesses ( except the girlfriend who doesn't feature). It's just one word against another - see brooksby's post.
I wonder if there was much medical evidence to support one side's version?
Except that the driver managed to totally contradict himself, raising doubts over his side of things - which should have been pounced upon by the cyclists lawyer
And yet somehow the person on a bicycle walked over to the person in a car while still straddling his bike. This also doesn't seem very likely
No idea how the jury swallowed mr French's version of events, he was obviously making it up as he went along, none of it makes any sense whatsoever.
He was "just tidying up his tools". Sure. That's exactly what any reasonable person would have top of their mind after a fight with another road user. Must tidy up the tools in the boot.
Trohble is, it only tales one refusenik on the jury to make the rest lose the will to live after a few hours.
So what did the girlfriend say? Amazing the journo who wrote the original story didn't reference her testimony or mention why it was missing if she didn't testify. Did she confirm the driver's account, or did he send her on a nice vacation in Spain so this would be a purely he said, he said case?
Well, I was thinking that this was a 50:50 case, with no compelling evidence either way, then I read the bit about tidying up the tools in the boot; guilty as f*ck.
"Just after I spilled the large gentleman's pint I suddenly remembered that I was on my way to cook Sunday lunch for the family and so took out my carving knife and started sharpening it with a steel. I am appalled that anyone could have construed that as me trying to make a threat in any way."
Pages