A man suffered a broken leg in a road rage incident.
The 37-year-old victim was deliberately mown down by a car as he argued with the driver.
He was driving along a dual carriageway in Trafford when he saw a man erratically driving a dark saloon – possibly a Jaguar – while speaking on his mobile phone.
The driver of the saloon then pulled behind the victim's white Peugeot as both lanes merged at Dunham Road near its junction with Groby Road, Altrincham.
He started making hand gestures and continued to drive aggressively.
The victim eventually pulled up to remonstrate with the driver, and got of his car. As he did so, the offender reversed a short distance and then drove at the victim, knocking him over before speeding off towards Altrincham town centre.
The man was treated at the scene and taken to hospital for further treatment where he was treated for a compound fracture of his leg and a suspected broken wrist.
Police are now appealing to anyone who witnessed the incident to come forward.
Detective Constable Stuart Brierley, from Trafford CID, said: "It is clear from the offender's actions that he has no conscience - not content with deliberately knocking this man down he then drove off with no regard for the victim's welfare.
"We are doing everything we can to catch this man and I would ask the public help us find him.
"It would have been quite busy at that junction, and there is potentially a lot of witnesses who may have either seen this attack or the dark-coloured car being driven at speed.
"If you did, we need to hear from you."
Anyone with information is asked to call Trafford CID on 0161 856 7652 or the independent charity Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 18 and replies | View All
thoughtful, East of Manchester (15/03/2010 at 16:29)
Its a joke
Vote for David, tory land (15/03/2010 at 16:29)
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (15/03/2010 at 16:40)
Black Flag (15/03/2010 at 16:56)
The very end of that statement highlights the problem. By mentioning assault, you've shown that attacking someone with a weapon doesn't automatically make it attempted murder.
It's all very well saying that anybody who attacks anybody else in any way whatsoever should be charged with attempted murder, but the end result would be lots of people being acquitted, because proving an intention to kill in many of the cases would be very difficult or even impossible.
canonball, inside the helmet (15/03/2010 at 17:24)
chris (15/03/2010 at 18:58)
Sensible Stockport (15/03/2010 at 22:19)
Britt/Canada (15/03/2010 at 23:56)
15/03/2010 at 16:56
Unfortunate,but 100% correct,,,the laws need revising.
When in Rome (16/03/2010 at 00:30)
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (16/03/2010 at 08:50)
I don't understand the term "with intent" anyway, if someone intends to kills someone and carries out that intent, it surely then becomes an "attempt". Therefore if the law was changed to show that for example, someone carring a knife, in the street where there is no need (i.e. not a boy scout or a bloke gone camping) then surely a crime of "intent" should be introduced within the law and if used in a fight should then become "attempted murder" because someone using a knife in a fight has only one intention, to take down the other no matter what the outcome.
I only put my original comment on because yesterday, there was another story on MEN where a scrote had his sentence reduced after deliberately mounting a pavement, mowing someone down in a car, then driving off leaving him for dead and the police charged him with dangerous driving. And to add insult, his victims family didn't even know he had been released early
Black Flag (16/03/2010 at 09:10)
You're treating attempted murder as a meaningless term which can be applied to anything you dislike enough. It isn't. It has a specific meaning.
"Therefore if the law was changed to show that for example, someone carring a knife, in the street where there is no need (i.e. not a boy scout or a bloke gone camping) then surely a crime of "intent" should be introduced within the law"
So guilty until proven innocent. I hate the pathetic approach in this country of criminalising the possession of more and more objects, as if it is the object which commits the crime, not the person. It is an embarrassment to the nation. Should we take it to its logical conclusion and criminalise anyone who is driving a car when there is no need (whatever that means)?
"if used in a fight should then become "attempted murder" because someone using a knife in a fight has only one intention, to take down the other no matter what the outcome."
Which, by your own definition, means they might not be attempting to murder.
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (16/03/2010 at 12:49)
Black Flag (16/03/2010 at 12:58)
No, I'm not. To be honest I don't really think it takes that much in depth knowledge to work out that, in order to be convicted of attempted murder, it would probably be necessary to prove that the accused was attempting to murder somebody.
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (16/03/2010 at 13:12)
So! having a knife and using it in a fight, does that not provide enough evidence to convict someone on attempted murder? and the carrying of a knife has only one purpose i.e. intent.
I too am annoyed about things being criminalised unnecessarily but, these days, some of the knives kids carry are meant for one purpose ... hunting.
If you were a policeman and you stopped and searched a hoodie teenager as part of a gang in a known troublespot and he had a knife up his sleeve, would you automatically think he'd forgotten to put it in the sink after his tea the poor mite. Common sense!!!
Black Flag (16/03/2010 at 13:59)
No.
"and the carrying of a knife has only one purpose i.e. intent."
Wrong.
"I too am annoyed about things being criminalised unnecessarily"
I don't believe you.
"but, these days, some of the knives kids carry are meant for one purpose ... hunting."
Wild speculation.
"If you were a policeman and you stopped and searched a hoodie teenager as part of a gang in a known troublespot and he had a knife up his sleeve, would you automatically think he'd forgotten to put it in the sink after his tea the poor mite."
Unlike you, I wouldn't assume anything.
"Common sense"
Please use some.
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (16/03/2010 at 15:49)
Your honour I was taking the best cutlery to be cleaned it was a cold day so I had a scarf round my face and tripped up falling into the bank waving the knife, the assistant started thowing money at me, I thought she must be mad so I kept it for safe keeping.
His honour Mr justice Black flag: "okay then off you go, case dismissed on lack of evidence"
Black Flag (16/03/2010 at 16:16)
I don't really care about anybody carrying a knife. I care about my freedom and safety and neither are served by silly knee-jerk laws which ensure that the average person is left defenceless. Knives aren't the problem in the scenario, people who attack others are the problem.
"you would give them the benefit of doubt as to why they have the knife."
It's called the presumption of innocence. It's a fairly traditional British legal concept. You should look it up. It's what ensures that, if you're behind the wheel of a car, you can't be locked up under the spurious assumptions that you're probably going to do the same as the driver in this story.
"Common sense? how do you think the police work?"
They're people, so like any group of people, there'll be a whole range: some will be completely inept, some will be corrupt, some will be thuggish and some will do a decent job. However, I'm sure the vast majority apply more common sense than you would wish them to.
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (16/03/2010 at 17:02)