Cycling-rage video that divided opinion world wide: How viral clip of ‘world’s most hated bike owner’ kneeing little lady within the again cascaded uncontrolled with each side embroiled in authorized battle

On a snowy Christmas Day in 2020, Patrick Mpasa was taking a walk with his wife and two children through a nature reserve in Baraque Michel, Belgium.

As he took out his phone and began recording his five-year-old daughter, Neia, a cyclist suddenly appeared on the path behind them.

With a slight shift of his knee, the rider knocked the child to the ground, sending her toppling into the snow.

The brief clip would soon spark a global storm online and begin the saga of the man labelled the ‘world’s most hated cyclist’, as a viral video spiralled into years of legal battles.

Shaken by the incident, Mpasa uploaded the footage to social media. The clip went viral, with viewers fiercely divided over who was to blame.

The cyclist in the video was later identified as retired gardener Jacques Davenne, 66, who was taken to court in Verviers after the incident.

But despite the outrage surrounding the footage, the judge handed Davenne a suspended sentence, ruling that he had already faced heavy criticism on social media.

The judge said Davenne had been cycling too fast and had not left enough space to pass by the child safely. 

However, the official noted that the man had already spent time in custody after his arrest and concluded that the incident had been minor and that he had no intention of harming the child.

The court ordered the unnamed cyclist to pay the girl’s family a symbolic €1 in compensation. 

Davenne had argued that the collision was simply an accident caused by him trying to stay upright on the snowy path.

He said: ‘When I was riding close to the girl, I felt my rear wheel sliding. To avoid a fall, I balanced myself with a movement of my knee. I felt that I might have hit the girl, but did not immediately realise she had been knocked over.’

However, prosecutors rejected that explanation.

‘He was simply annoyed by the people on the path whom he had to swerve around all the time,’ they said. ‘He gave the child a “knee punch” out of sheer annoyance because an obstacle was in his way for the umpteenth time.’

The local cyclist association also condemned the behaviour, describing it as ‘unacceptable’.

Mpasa claimed he chased after the cyclist and managed to make him stop, but said the man showed no remorse.

‘He explained what happened and asked us to withdraw the police complaint, but he showed no remorse and did not apologise,’ Mpasa recounted at the time.

The drama, however, didn’t end there. Almost a year after the incident, Davenne returned to court and launched a defamation lawsuit against the girl’s father over the viral video.

He argued that the backlash following the clip had left him feeling so threatened by the public that he was afraid to leave his home.

Jacques Englebert, Mpasa’s lawyer, responded at the time: ‘We have the right to express ourselves. We have the right to post or have posted a video on the internet. In this case, we must check whether we have exceeded the limits of this freedom of expression.’

In April 2023, the court ruled in Davenne’s favour. Mpasa was ordered to pay the cyclist €4,500 in compensation for posting the video.

The long-running dispute then took another dramatic turn in March 2026.

After a lengthy appeal, a court in Liège overturned the original ruling that had sided with Davenne, who is president of a local cycling club.

Mr Englebert told the Daily Mail: ‘In essence, the court said that posting the video was a freedom of expression and it was not a crime, so the original ruling was overturned.

‘The court said that by uploading the clip, the father had contributed to the public debate on cyclists and pedestrians, and it was not an issue.’

Mr Englebert added: ‘The cyclist had argued that by uploading the video, he had been identified, and the initial reports said he was between forty and fifty years old when he was in fact well over sixty years old.

‘Uploading the video did not identify him or his address. He says he was insulted as a result, but has not been able to provide any evidence of this.’

Following the ruling, the cyclist was also ordered to pay €2,040 in court costs.

Yet even after the appeal decision, Davenne insists he did nothing wrong.

‘I did nothing wrong… I rang my bell several times,’ he told the Daily Mail, claiming he would be looking into an appeal.

The still furious cyclist said: ‘I’m upset the case went against me as I still feel I did nothing wrong and I am going to have a meeting with my lawyer to see if we can take it further.

‘The issue I had was with my image being posted online, that wasn’t fair and social media can be a huge problem. He had no right to do that.

‘My friends recognised me and kept asking me about what happened and I told them it was an accident, just one of those things.

‘It quickly went out of control, even after I spoke with the father as a friend of mine knew his wife. I suggested we drop it and forget about it as no harm was done.

‘But then the police were involved and I was even kept in custody when the investigation started. It seemed to get out of hand very quickly for something that was very small.’

He went on: ‘I still don’t see how the decision was overturned – as far as I can see, my image shouldn’t have been posted on the internet.

‘The court said it was freedom of expression and contributed to the debate between cyclists and pedestrians. That may be the case, but it should not have been posted online.

‘I just don’t understand how they came to a totally different verdict. That’s why I am going to speak with my lawyer to see what he says.’

Turning back to the original incident, he explained why he still believes he has been wrongly accused.

He said: ‘I was cycling along the track very gently, and I saw the girl and her mother in front of me. The father was filming.

‘I did what any good cyclist does and rang my bell several times, but they obviously didn’t hear me, so I cycled past but as I did so I slipped and lost my balance slightly.

‘That’s when I knocked the little girl. I had put my leg out to balance myself, I didn’t realise I had hit her and she had fallen over as I had cycled past.

‘Then the father chased after me and berated me. [He] was very aggressive to begin with – he went to hit me, he said I had knocked her over on purpose and said he was going to call the police.

‘I said it was an accident and then carried on. I still can’t believe this video went all over the world.’

He said: ‘This has all been very difficult for me. My cycling friends understand it was an accident, but I’ve been made to look very bad because of the video.

‘Thankfully I’ve never met the man again even though I’ve been cycling along there since – but psychologically it has affected me, although as I said it will not stop me cycling.

‘Because I can assure you that one thing – I am still cycling and I intend to carry on cycling. It’s part of life and this won’t put me off at all – I’ve been riding for years, I’m passionate about it.’

The case has continued to spark debate online, with viewers dissecting the footage frame by frame and arguing over who was really to blame, as well as the duty of care cyclists owe to pedestrians.

Some viewers argued the cyclist may have simply been trying to keep his balance on the icy path.

One person commenting on his ‘knee flick’ said: ‘If you look carefully he does put his knee out at the moment he would lose his balance. He was cycling on ice and was cycling on the edge of the track. He was not cycling fast either. The idea that it was an accident is perfectly plausible.’

Another person, appearing to take the cyclist’s side, argued: ‘As a cyclist when you’re approaching people like that, you’re always calling out which side you’re intending to pass on. If you look at his wheels, if he was any further over, he would’ve been in the snowbank. But they let a toddler drift off into a bicycle path. Wake Up!’

Others even suggested that responsibility partly lay with the child’s family.

One person added: ‘My impression watching the video at the time was that part of the responsibility lay with the mother. Yes he should have slowed more but as he approached she stepped to the side which I would interpret as giving way, and that she would keep her child close to her rather than leaving them in the path of the cyclist.’

However, many people sided with the child, expressing outrage that a grown man appeared to knock her to the ground.

One commenter wrote: ‘This guy needs a sharp wake up call! He deliberately pushed his knee out!!’

Another said: ‘Even if the cyclist had stopped and been waiting for a while to get past, you can’t just knock a kid over because they are in your way.’

A third added: ‘I mean, all he had to do was stop and apologise.’

A fourth argued: ‘The cyclist doesn’t have right of way that supercedes that of other path users on a dual use path, the girl and her parents have every right to be where they are. Regardless of the situation and other rights and wrongs he has a duty to try to not knock over a small child. He made absolutely no effort whatsoever.’

 The debate has also raised wider questions about how such an incident might be treated under British law.

According to the Road Traffic Act in the UK, a cyclist who causes harm to a pedestrian could face fines of up to several thousand pounds.

Careless or Inconsiderate Cycling (Section 29, RTA 1988) applies if riding falls below what would be expected of a ‘competent and careful cyclist’. 

Ringing a bell beforehand does not automatically absolve a rider of responsibility if they did not leave enough space or adjust their speed appropriately for a child. 

This offence can carry a penalty of up to £1,000.

A British court would also consider vulnerability under Rule H1 of the Highway Code.

Under the Hierarchy of Road Users, cyclists have a specific responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians, particularly children.

Shared space rules would also come into play; on shared paths, cyclists are expected to keep their speed low and watch out for others. 

A court could also look at post-incident behaviour, as failing to stop or show remorse may influence sentencing or civil liability.