Police in Wiltshire have issued an appeal for witnesses after a cyclist was killed in a collision with a lorry on Saturday.
The fatal incident took place at 10.30am on Saturday morning near Hillcrest Farm on the A354 at Coombe Bissett, reports BBC News Wiltshire.
According to Wiltshire Police, the victim, a 49-year-old man from Salisbury, was struck by an overtaking lorry and died at the scene due to head injuries.
Another cyclist riding with him was uninjured.
Police can be contacted on 101.
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Poor Vincent cannot get over the simple fact that given the choice people prefer dedicated cycling spaces, rather than pretending to be cars like vehicular cyclists.
What is the point of the fancy air sensor if it can't account for changing weather conditions?? If all you care about is a delayed approximation of aerodynamic watts in steady conditions, you don't need any special sensors for that. Just your speed on a decently flat course is enough to approximate rolling resistance and drivetrain losses. And the rest must be aero. If you assume a less aero body position at the same watts, your speed will drop while rolling resistance also drops, which means approximated aero watts goes up. And that's enough to demonstrate what you've shown in your testing protocol ("I sat upright and the number went up a little while later").
Your correction is accurate - it's almost always been "the (lack of) thought that (doesn't) count". "Massive" - less than a billion a year spent on active travel (trying to catch up / building a network across the entire country) Not massive - 6 billion every year (2026-2030) spent on road *maintenance* of existing "already built, goes everywhere, very convenient" road network for inactive travel Ultimately the reason "cycle infra" is *needed* is those unbelievably colossal amounts spent every year (and for more than a century now) on making mass motoring not just viable but apparently the "best choice" for most journeys. As the Dutch and others have shown, the majority of people *are* prepared to cycle and even mix with very light, slow local motor traffic *if* cycling is also made safe and convenient for the whole of their journey (including secure parking at both ends). (The history of the financial drivers of the current situation are a complex topic but note that while people complain about "crumbling roads" and underfunded motor infra - with some reason - by us continuing the fuel duty escalator freeze (for example) we're actually helping motorists pay *even less* for that activity / subsidising more of the cost of driving than ever.)
yes, but people will still object - which was my point.
So ' Priority of Road Users' and 1.5 metre clearance at 30mph has been been reduced to 'sharing'? NCN route 2 here in South Hams is an absolute scream with white vans, tractors and total idiots who refuse,or are totally incapable,to reverse on high Devon banked lanes ...means you have to get off and pedal back to a passing place....could be at that all day...so I don't bother...
@MaxiMinimalist Agreed. The big problem I see now is today's parents grew up being driven to their schools, and therefore, see private motor vehicles as the only viable form of transport. The vast majority of UK infant and primary schools have a catchment area that is within easy walking distance from home to school. Yet, the traffic caused by pupils being driven to/from school is astonishing. Banishing the "School Run" should be a priority for all schools.
When I was a kid (that was during the previous millenium when phones were connected to a plug in the wall), I rode my bicycle to school, music academy, sport grounds, parties even during the winter. The government didn't have to spend, correct that, didn't have to think of spending massive amounts of money to build cycling specific infrastructures. Over the past 3 or 4 decades, cars have grown bigger, taller, safer (for their drivers) and faster. Meanwhile, motorists have become abusive, aggressive, hypersensitive to people moving on two wheels, aka cyclists. Spending billions upon billions on new infrastructure won't address the crux of the matter. Sadly.
Obree had some actual talent in his legs though, in addition to his bike/aero engineering talent.
Малко като опит за доказване е излязло... Никой няма нужда от толкова голям въртящ момент и мощност на шосеен велосипед с тънки гуми, които дори трудно ще предават тази мощност върху пътя. А ако има и ограничение от 25 км/час е още по-безмислено.
Not sure how informative that is. I imagine for all most of us know it could be Europe's only 'volumetric modular building'. 🤷♂️
13 thoughts on “Witness appeal after Wiltshire cyclist killed in collision with lorry”
“Struck by an overtaking
“Struck by an overtaking lorry” – if this is a fact then do they even need witnesses?
RIP the cyclist.
Please note that it happened
Please note that it happened at Coombe BISSETT, and the correct link should be http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-28079385
“Another cyclist riding with
“Another cyclist riding with him was uninjured”
So the police have a witness; or doesn’t a cyclist count 😕
By witness they mean an
By witness they mean an independent person not associated with the cyclist or the lorry driver.
RIP and my thoughts go out to the guys friends and family.
usedtobefaster wrote:By
Absolutely right. When investigating a road fatality the police are right to get as much information as they can. The other comments on here lambasting the police for not just taking one statement from a fellow cyclict and then proceeding with that are just comical.
They want witnesses to build a case. They want the case to be airtight. Corroborating witnesses, independent of those involved are good evidence on which to obtain a conviction.
If they just went in to court with a statement from a fellow cyclist the defence could and would claim that the witness had an axe to grind.
Put it like this instead. Would the people that think they should just take the other cyclists word for what happened, also be happy if it was the lorry driver who had a mate in the cab and the mate swore blind the cyclist was the one at fault for some reason and the police just dropped the case because they had a witness that said it was the cyclists fault?
I think not.
struck by an overtaking lorry
X(
I hope the driver gets prison. You either do a safe overtake or you don’t, a safe overtake doesn’t result in someone dieing.
kie7077 wrote:
struck by an
I don’t know the facts here. I don’t know the road, I don’t know if any other vehicles were involved in any way or what the lorry was overtaking at what speed or where the cyclists were immediately before and then during the incident whether they were on the road already or came on to the road during, or were crossing the road.
Do you think maybe we ought to find out exactly what happened before we send anyone to jail or is that just a bit old fashioned?
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’
oozaveared wrote:kie7077
Do you really think that kie was suggesting otherwise? He was merely articulating what I suspect that many of us feel absolute disbelief that a cyclist was killed by a lorry which was allegedly over taking and the cyclist died as a result. Kie was merely expressing a hope that the driver receives a prison sentence which tbh is perfectly reasonable if found guilty of a serious driving offence which has resulted in some one being killed. We don’t need your rant suggesting or assuming that Kie meant we dispense with the judicial process and just throw the driver in prison!
Airzound wrote:oozaveared
“Do you really think that kie was suggesting otherwise?”
Well that’s what he did suggest. No caveats or ifs or buts about it. It was so blatent and clear it exactly reminded me of the Alice in Wonderland quote about sentence first verdict afterwards.
“Kie was merely expressing a hope that the driver receives a prison sentence which tbh is perfectly reasonable if found guilty of a serious driving offence which has resulted in some one being killed.”
Yep and the small but important word there is “IF”.
I just read what people write. If they mean something else by it and you two are both using “the force” to deduce meaning then I am unfortunately embarassed in that department so I am left only with the words.
As a suggestion, because I may not be alone in being un-connected with “the force” that you guys are using, would it be a good idea you think if when people had caveats they just wrote them down in their post. That would make it easier on the rest of us not using ESP.
.
.
oozaveared wrote:kie7077
Unfortunately we know fine what will happen. The police will find some version of the truth, the CPS will go for a minimal charge, and the judge will let him off with a mildly tapped wrist.
Surely better would be to recognise that driving is a privilege, and say that if you kill someone with a motor vehicle then, unless you can unequivocally prove your lack of fault you lose that privilege; then deal with the issue of punishment separately.
oldstrath wrote:oozaveared
I couldn’t agree more. I believe that the enforcement of driving standards is lax, that the CPS and the police don’t take dangerous driving seriously enough, that the CPS often pursues the easier charge of of Careless when they should be pursuing a dangerous charge, that the sentences are way too low and that much extended driving bans are necessary.
But you still have to have the facts before making judgements.
There are all sorts of
There are all sorts of questions to be asked, relating to how this happened, and I’d guess that’s why the police want unconnected witnesses: is the lorry UK or foreign (ie. left or right hand steering)? Did the lorry successfully overtake the first cyclist but then hit the second one? Did he run into the first (back) one on his run-up to overtake? Did he massively misjudge things and try to squeeze back in between them? Did he cut it short as he tried to come into the lane?
Unfortunately, all have led to the death of this cyclist, but – not in any way to defend the lorry driver – you can see how there are so many different scenarios, and how they put a different spin in events…