You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
The way I read it (with the same difficulty you mention) is that the charge is actually for 'assault causing actual bodily harm', and it seems that the journo has turned it into 'road rage', perhaps to make the headline snappier, or perhaps they were keen to say that pedestrians can launch 'road rage' attacks, too. Perhaps it was something said in court, e.g. in pleading guilty the defendant may have said 'it was road rage, really' (which obviously has no bearing on the charge).
Oh well.
Oliver Schick
Does seem very odd. It is a terribly written article. I had to go back and forth trying to work out who was who in the situation only to finally work out that the one accused of "road rage" was the pedestrian at the time...It's just assault surely.