A cyclist has died after he was in collision with a van on a busy dual carriageway near Tamworth at about 4:40pm on Tuesday May 5.
The crash happened on the westbound A5, just before the slip road to Glascote Island (Marlborough Way) under the pedestrian bridge.
Two rapid response vehicles, an ambulance, a paramedic area support officer and the Warwickshire and Northamptonshire Air Ambulance, which was carrying two doctors were sent to the scene.
A West Midlands Ambulance Service spokesman said: “On arrival, ambulance staff found a middle aged man who had been riding a bicycle who had suffered massive multiple injuries.
“Tragically, it very quickly became apparent that there was nothing that could be done to save him and he was confirmed dead at the scene."
Any witnesses are urged to call Staffordshire Police on 101 quoting incident 508 of 5 May.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
24 thoughts on “Cyclist dead after collision with van near Tamworth”
I’m very sorry this poor chap
I’m very sorry this poor chap died and I hope nobody will think I’m blaming him, but personally, I will never, ever cycle on a road like that. I’ll take the less convenient, slower and more circuitous route every time. It just isn’t worth the risk.
https://goo.gl/maps/lM0v9
My own feeling is that motorists moving at near-motorway speeds on roads like that aren’t expecting to see someone on a bicycle doing 20mph. I’ve witnessed it on the A50 between Stoke and Derby. At 70mph, lone cyclists are approached very, very quickly and I can see how these kinds of accidents may happen.
I think on high speed dual carriageways like this, cycling should be banned.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
My
We don’t know the circumstances, but I have on a few occasions ended up on roads like these because I lost the alternative. For example Wrexham bypass, or the A40 approaching Monmouth from north and south. If I know a road such as the A40 Cheltenham to Gloucester I avoid it, I know the alternatives. Sometimes you end up on these roads because that is where the road signs tell you to go.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
I
Or perhaps they we provide segregated cycle paths adjacent to all roads with speed limits above 40 mph
RedfishUK
Or perhaps they we provide segregated cycle paths adjacent to all roads with speed limits above 40 mph— Peowpeowpeowlasers
A huge tragedy for the family, and sympathies to them.
So many roads are been turned into virtual m-ways like this though without any parallel provision for people either on foot or bike. This https://goo.gl/maps/imwYI is a streetview link to the A1231 though Washington. A 70mph DC. The cycle infra is narrow bits of path cutting across the slips. I have seen people use it as in places there is no alternative. This is not some rural DC, but in the urban middle of a new town.
Something needs to be done.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:I
At the same time, it also needs to be a legal requirement to build parallel (and good quality) or a protected lane for each new or upgraded road like this.
I probably wouldn’t choose to
I probably wouldn’t choose to ride on a road like that either, but I think the above is the wrong comment here. It does come across as victim-blaming, when there’s nothing to indicate that the victim was at fault for getting run over.
RIP fella.
RIP fella.
Another shocking cyclist
Another shocking cyclist death. It is very very saddening to read so regularly about cyclists having ‘collisions’ with faster moving vehicles weighing in at a ton or more. After all, a % of the cyclists mindset is often that their travels (for whatever reason), brings enjoyable health, social and environmental benefits. The rewards for this altrustic mindset are deeply unjust. I’ve been cycling since the late fifties and in my experience people on bicycles have always been treated as second class road users.
The vast majority of this road killing, (a national disgrace of cycling and pedestrian deaths and injuries) is only reported locally, so for many, when it happens – it IS shocking, but only an occasional ‘incident’.
Thanks to Road cc we (in the sticks who are interested), now know what’s going on.
I think it would be useful if, (for the likes of me) a collation of shocking reports could be easily printed in one go. Those of us that wish to do so could then go round to all our local party candidates, councillors and the like etc. and push comprehensive printouts of this national disgrace through their letterboxes.
tuber wrote:Another shocking
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/reference/uk-cycling-fatalities-2015/
Plenty more useful stuff on Bez’s website too.
Thank you, grim reading but
Thank you, grim reading but something I plan to analyse. Whoever my MP turns out to be today, he’s going to be receiving some stats.
Maybe if he wasn’t told so
Maybe if he wasn’t told so often that a helmet can save your life, he wouldn’t have chosen that road.
There, the asshole trifecta is complete.
Circumstances unknown but
Circumstances unknown but this is such a waste of life.
Yes personally I would avoid a road like this -the only difference between a motorway and a dual carriage way is 1 lane -but doesn’t mean to say riding on a country lane is safer, I really don’t have the stats to back up either way, just gut feel.
My theory is long straight roads lead to driver distraction and excessive speed.
I do think there should be a review of riding on busy roads like this but the risk is a message is sent that cycling is not safe, don’t do it.
It annoys me when new roadlayouts continue to ignore cycling needs. I’ve just witnessed this near me, the new layout makes cycling more dangerous, we are so behind europe.
Simmo72 wrote:… a road like
The big difference to me seems to be that a motorway will have a hard shoulder, and so would in fact be safe because you would be 2m away from all other vehicles by sticking to the left side of the shoulder.
70mph isn’t that fast. If,
70mph isn’t [i]that[/i] fast. If, whilst travelling at or below 70mph, you can’t see something the size of a person and a bike with sufficient time to take evasive action then you shouldn’t be driving.
The default response shouldn’t be to question the cyclist’s decision to ride along the road (unless we know they were doing something reckless). The default response should be “what was happening in that motorist’s vehicle that enabled them to collide with something the size of a person?”
danthomascyclist wrote:
The
Further to this point, if a deer or a wild boar ran into the road then what? At what point does a driver cede responsibility for what they hit?
What is the HW code comment, drive to the conditions?
mrmo wrote:danthomascyclist
Even then the two aren’t really comparable, as deer and the like tend to run perpendicular to traffic and appear very suddenly. You don’t have time to react because it just appears and it’s right on you. It’s not like the cyclist will have emerged from the undergrowth and shot into traffic across the carriageway. No, if the driver was approaching at, say 70mph, and the cyclist was doing 20mph then he’s closing at 50mph, which equates to doing about 22.5m per second. I have fairly average eyesight and I can see something the size of a person several hundred metres away, so in this case we can reasonably imagine the driver would have had about 10 seconds to spot the cyclist and do something about it, like move into another lane, or maybe slow the hell down. There’s really no excuse.
vonhelmet wrote:mrmo
Even then the two aren’t really comparable, as deer and the like tend to run perpendicular to traffic and appear very suddenly. You don’t have time to react because it just appears and it’s right on you. It’s not like the cyclist will have emerged from the undergrowth and shot into traffic across the carriageway. No, if the driver was approaching at, say 70mph, and the cyclist was doing 20mph then he’s closing at 50mph, which equates to doing about 22.5m per second. I have fairly average eyesight and I can see something the size of a person several hundred metres away, so in this case we can reasonably imagine the driver would have had about 10 seconds to spot the cyclist and do something about it, like move into another lane, or maybe slow the hell down. There’s really no excuse.— danthomascyclist
Very well put. it’s sad to say but if this case even makes it before a jury, this type of reasoning with beyond the wit of the prosecution and even if they did the jury of motors would just shrug their shoulders and think nothing of a driver not having their eyes on the road for a period of 10 seconds.
Now named as Paul Maguire.
Now named as Paul Maguire. RIP.
https://beyondthekerbcasebook.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/paul-maguire/
Sad to hear of this cyclist’s
Sad to hear of this cyclist’s death but there is nothing wrong per se with cycling on fast roads and dual carriageways are probably safer than single-carriage A roads. I’ve cycled on them occasionally for 40 years and never had a problem, which I can’t say about country roads to be honest even though I prefer them. In many cases you can’t avoid them if you want to go any distance and certain routes can become very circuitous without using them for a bit or at the least you have to get over them crossing a busy roundabout. I use the A10 sometimes and occasionally the A428 and numerous other smaller ones that are usually only busy in the rush hour. I have to admit to not being brave enough to go up the A14 but I don’t like going on that road even in a car. Quite frankly, I feel no safer doing 70mph in a car than 20mph on a bike on such roads but sometimes they are a necessity and banning cycling on them would be disastrous for getting around in many areas. You can get close passes in the country as well and I mainly cycle in town or country lanes for preference, I don’t go searching out A roads for fun just when I want speed.
When a cyclists plans a route
When a cyclists plans a route from A to B they should have the same right as any other road user to expect that any selected legal route is safe to use. New routes and wrong turns have frequently landed me on roads that I don’t want to be on. It shouldn’t be that way.
RIP whoever the cyclist is. There but for the grace of god go I…
I use a duel A road on my
I use a duel A road on my commute, I find it safer than pot holed roads, slow moving traffic with parked cars, oh and junctions allowing other drivers to flash drivers in and out, no pleasure in that. Currently only one drunk driver has been my worry on the Leeds outer ring road.
RIP rider.
Quote:My own feeling is that
On straight single carriageways people do more than 70, they do more than that on twisty ones too.
Shockingly sad. I’ve seen
Shockingly sad. I’ve seen several people riding a bike on that section of the A5 I suspect people use it for cycling to work lots of distribution centres round their. From the description sounds potentially like someone was coming off of the A5 as the cyclist was crossing the slip road.
On motorways and dual
On motorways and dual carriageways:
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/idiots/