Three cyclists – two adults and a 14-year-old girl – were taken to hospital with serious injuries yesterday following a collision with a dark-coloured Aston Martin car at Brockenhurst in the New Forest.
The incident took place on the A337 Lymington Road shortly after 4.45pm, reports the Daily Echo. Two of the riders were flown to hospital by helicopters from the Hampshire & Isle of Wight and Thames Valley & Chiltern air ambulance services.
One of those was reported to have sustained serious leg injuries, while the other suffered severe injuries to the upper body. The third cylist, who sustained facial injuries, was taken to the same hospital by road. The driver was said to be uninjured.
Hampshire Constabulary say that other than the 14-year-old, the victims were a man aged 68 and a 58-year-old woman.
They add that a 28-year-old man from Lymington was arrested on suspicion of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He has been released on bail until November 25, while officers continue their enquiries.
Police are appealing for witnesses to the incident or anyone who saw the vehicle prior to the collision to contact the Serious Collision Investigation Unit by telephoning 101 and quoting Operation Fama.
22 thoughts on “Three cyclists seriously injured in collision with Aston Martin in New Forest”
and to think the councillors
and to think the councillors are dithering over spending money making the roads safer for cyclists.
mrmo wrote:and to think the
I think they’re more bothered about making sure that drivers of such cars are safe from the bothersome paintwork damage that detracts from the pleasure of running pesky cyclists off the road.
mrmo wrote:and to think the
I hope this is sarcasm. If not, the plans the NFNPA are trying to push through the DfT are nothing to do with safety measures for cyclists.
usedtobefaster wrote:mrmo
reasonably sarcastic, they were given money to provide for cyclists and are now trying to find ways to spend it that are “cyclist friendly” but aren’t really, and do nothing to stop this sort of thing!
Thoughts are with them for a
Thoughts are with them for a speedy recovery.
Sadly there has been a second
Sadly there has been a second incident this weekend, a cyclist seriously injured by a car towing a caravan.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11500877.Cyclist_suffers_serious_injuries_after_collision_with_a_car_towing_a_caravan/
If only the roads had been resurfaced.
Hope the victims recover ok
Hope the victims recover ok and that the person responsible receives a suitable sentence
If I was arrested on
If I was arrested on suspicion of causing serious injury by say stabbing someone, would I be released on bail?
I think I know the answer.
climber wrote:If I was
If at that time there was insufficient evidence to charge and enquiries remained ongoing then yes, you would. Happens all the time.
If there are three seriously
If there are three seriously injured victims, two of them needing an air ambulance, and you’re holding the blood-covered knife…. I don’t think you’d get bail.
Double standards, pure and simple
kraut wrote:If there are
The problem is, you (and the authorities) don’t know what happened*. Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that the car suffered a sudden mechanical failure that contributed to the collision. (Other scenarios are available: maybe a child ran into the road and he had to swerve to avoid it, or maybe a motorcyclist/cyclist suddenly did something stupid in front…etc, etc). Are we then still in the same territory as stabbing?
I ain’t defending the driver, but this kind of jumping to conclusions and convicting the bloke on the strength of assumptions really isn’t helpful. Leave that to the investigation (and trial, if appropriate).
*Unless you happened to be there?
Age old stuff unfortunately.
Age old stuff unfortunately. If I walk down the street with a car door and throw it at a child and kill it I cannot expect to get away with an excuse of ‘whoops, accident’. It’s essentially murder whether planned or otherwise.
Attach that door to the rest of the vehicle, climb in as a supposedly trained and aware operator, start it, point it and hit the pedal (none of which happen without the explicit direction and control of the driver) and then kill someone as an end result of a very predictable sequence of actions and its automatically considered to be an accident.
Beyond perverse and an example of how much leniency has been extended to anyone in a motor vehicle.
Add the complication of doing that and choosing not to stop would in any other scenario paint a more sinister accusation of deliberate intent. For example if you used a car deliberately to dispense with someone under guise of ‘oops’ you should stay at the scene, cry a bit to garner sympathy and wait for the CPS to let you off.
Drive away and then get traced should make a huge difference, after all you cannot credibly deny an accusation that you were trying to evade capture after a deliberate murder given that you ran. In step the CPS to cock that up too, defence argues no intent and killer just panicked and the fact they killed and showed no care at all to victim and loved ones gets watered down to an aggravating factor.
It is ok to kill in most countries…as long as you do it with a car. Can any politician argue otherwise?
ironmancole wrote:Age old
Sadly true. I wonder one day if it will ever change? Very much doubt it though as deaths on roads *are* actually reducing, and have been for decades, and the UK’s statistics are amongst the best in the world … therefore no great incentive for harsher penalties/laws.
I remember that thirty years ago I was studying nuclear physics (as a trainee Reactor Panel Operator on submarines). It was explained that, although we couldn’t actually witness nuclear collisions, we *knew* approximately how many would occur from their effects, at a given temperature, due to previous recordings … in the same way that we *knew* that about 5000 deaths would occur on British roads over the next 12 months because that always happened. We couldn’t possibly know when the deaths would happen or where … but the numbers would generally be about the same. It’s amazing really that that statistic is now down by nearly 2/3rds in 30 years. I hope and assume that the frequency of nuclear collisions has remained constant in the meantime.
They were driving an Aston
They were driving an Aston Martin so must be guiltyish, although if they were driving a Porsche or a BMW they’d be much more guilty. Probably.
I can’t help wonder why you’d include the make of the car in the headline. It’s as if it’s included to infer the car was probably being driven in an unsafe manner which helps reinforce presumptions. Would the make of car made the headline if it were a Renault Laguna driven by a 50yo?
Full sympathy to all those injured
I can’t help thinking 28 yo +
I can’t help thinking 28 yo + Aston Martin = trouble, is it only me thinking this?
I’m also thinking that if this person can afford to be driving an Aston Martin at that age then he’s probably going to be able to hire a very good legal team to fight his defence if this goes to court. Money vs. Justice
usedtobefaster wrote:I can’t
I was wondering if they were actually a local, or whether they were a second home, London banker type? ie I am important!!! get out of my way sort of person??
Anyone who’s read the blog
Anyone who’s read the blog should be fairly clear on my opinions about leniency of driver sentencing, but if you can’t tell the difference between opening a car door negligently and deliberately assaulting someone with a car door that’s been removed and carried for that purpose, then I think you’re failing to grasp some very basic issues.
There was some research a
There was some research a while back showing a correlation between expensive cars and antisocial driving: http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/12/the-rich-drive-differently-a-study-suggests/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Bez’s point is fair. There’s a big different between recklessness and intent. It’s pretty hard to prove intent – that someone intentionally drove at another person in order to kill/injure them. Recklessness – well it’s more akin to throwing a heavy metal object – e.g. a fire extinguisher – off a roof where it may injure someone. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/jan/11/student-fire-extinguisher-protests-jailed
You do seem to be able to get away with more reckless behaviour with a car than with any other object though.
I hope they are all going to
I hope they are all going to be ok. I hate that road. Only the other day I commented on the amount of accidents I have witnessed on it. Its is purely down to driving speed. I wish the locals volunteered for speed watch duty (like they do elsewhere)rather than throwing nails on the road, the cars are the real danger to the area.
We were out yesterday when a car behind drew up to the last rider -down a narrow county lane- stayed next to him leaving no room to move, then intentionally forced him off the road. Most of us weren’t aware what with being spread out, going downhill and windnoise, and therefore didn’t get the cars number plate.
Luckily the rider was generally ok though a little sore but this could have ended so easily as a fatality. This was assault, using a car as a weapon. the c**k driving deserves a custodial sentence and being banned from driving for a significant duration.
There are people driving on our roads who are a complete danger to everyone else. We need regular re-tests and stronger punishment for those that act like idiots
Bail doesn’t seem unusual at
Bail doesn’t seem unusual at all. But I’d think that jail time plus a ban would result if there’s been three serious injuries, especially requiring air ambulances. Good that the cops got him.
What’s the situation with civil liability of drivers responsible for cyclist injury? I’d assume they could take the shirt from his back, as well as the Aston Martin, for an accident resulting in hospitalisation. And if the driver doesn’t admit guilt, that’s extra jail time.
Cycled down the Ornamental
Cycled down the Ornamental Drive today in a group of older riders; hard to see how the verges can be improved as there are huge gutters on the edge of the tarmac, and apparantly widening is not allowed, and in any case would just encourage drivers to go faster. Oh, and we were ‘punishment passed’ by an idiot who then pulled in to one of the car parks so we could attempt to educate him. No way he was going to admit being at fault, we shouldn’t have been on the road apparantly. The road from Bolderwood to rhinefield house could be made cyclists only; car drivers could park at the deer sanctuary or Oberwater and access the pretty bits on foot. can’t see anything else working.
Some good thoughts on here as
Some good thoughts on here as is usually the case. Personally I feel the only way to force change is to use the common denominator to force the issue – money.
Civil cases where a motorist has caused harm would make a big difference – if you knew you could face expensive drawn out litigation as result of you being a numpty on the roads you might behave yourself for no other reason than financial self preservation.
The insurance industry have a lot to answer for here. At present if I’m a terror in my car the actual cost to me is wholly subsidised by my insurer. So, if I get in my car and go out and kill the main breadwinner in a family I could easily rob that family of many years of financial security irrespective of the human loss (that I’ll dispense with here as society isn’t interested).
Let’s say they earned 45k year and were 40 years old. The law has a shockingly convenient method for adding this up that typically won’t award loss until typical male retirement but instead awards a figure well short of that. Let’s say 15 years then at 40k year. Funeral costs ignored, any number of other costs incurred by the family etc, let’s say the financial loss is an even 640k.
The killer won’t pay that, they’ll instead face the common fine of maybe £200 for killing on the road, perhaps some costs here and there, victim surcharge fine and raised insurance premiums for maybe five or six years until the ‘offence’ can be removed from their endorsements list.
Even these raised premiums will be competitively reduced as ‘specialist’ providers bid to help dumbass back behind the wheel when society should actually be asking ‘do we really want this person on the roads with our loved ones?’
So, cost to the victim is catastrophically and irrevocably absolute at every level. Cost to the perpetrator is as minimal as it gets and all because the insurer acts as a shield and safety net leaving the driver to act with something approaching total immunity. It really is a unique and twisted set up.
It’s equivalent to the taxman demanding you pay income tax and when after years they discover you’ve been fiddling the accounts totalling 500k they issue a £5000 fine and that’s the end of it.
Funny how it doesn’t work like that when money is involved isn’t it? Very efficient system in operation there and cries of ‘hardship’ will fall on deaf ears.
Finally, can individuals litigate against insurers for failing to ensure their proposer was fit to be on the road? The smart arse with 25 points and an attitude waving his specialist policy about will quickly find insurers consider the risk too great should serious injury or death result and questions are asked about their clients suitability to have been on the road. The system of simply throwing enough money at a private company to allow free passage on public roads even when you’re clearly a nightmare has to end.
Would we have let Harold Shipman back as a GP because a sadistic sympathiser paid a few million pounds to the BMC?
We should also raise civil cases against the respective government departments when a driver who kills is discovered to have a poor history. The DVLA will pull a licence from an elderly motorist with poor sight even if they’ve been fantastic on the roads with a perfect history just to ensure the public are safe.
They refuse in most cases to do the same for dangerous drivers who have actually maimed and killed. Why?
If families sued these departments for failing to intervene when they should have refused a licence on the same public safety grounds we’d quickly find a shift in policy makers opinions of dangerous drivers.
You can sue for personal injury against the NHS, councils for allowing a sex offender to teach your child who then offends, all manner of culpability is already the norm. Why should the DVLA and transport department remain immune when they, like the education authority failing due diligence with the sex offender allow a motorist with questionable ability and attitude to roam the streets in a highly effective killing machine?
Petitions will continue to fall on selectively deaf ears. Make it an issue of liability and unacceptable financial burden and watch government and business take an interest.