West Mercia Police have appealed for witnesses after a cyclist was killed yesterday following a collision with a lorry in Worcestershire.
The fatal crash happened at approximately 8.45am on Thursday 31 March on Hanbury Road as the cyclist and a white DAF lorry both headed towards Stoke Prior.
The bike rider, a man in his sixties, was pronounced dead at the scene, say police.
Anyone with information is requested to contact police on 101 or the charity Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111.
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.
"you can’t pass a law saying it’s illegal not to have a speedometer if you’re going to go above the speed limit." I don't think this would be a good idea, nor even speed limits (and presumably mandatory speedometers everywhere) ... ... but is there any theoretical legal impediment to that? Or even simply enacting a law that cyclists are not permitted to ride faster on roads than the motor vehicle speed limit (or some other limit) and leaving it up to cyclists how they go about complying with that? (Not a lawyer not a legal theorist though...)
What has KE to do with it? If you are hit by a large object you don't absorb all its KE. Being hit by a car is no better than being hit by a bus at the same speed. What matters is how much acceleration you experience.
@Robert Hardy 20mph isn't as fast as you seem to think, this 57-year-old-not-that-fit rider can easily achieve it on the flat in still conditions and most averagely fit people can on a decent bike. The argument that it wouldn't be a problem to impose speed limits on cyclists because those who can achieve 20mph already have speedometers is an entirely specious one, firstly as I've said a huge number of people can achieve 20mph, not just Garmin-obsessed racers, and secondly you would have to make speedometers compulsory for everyone on a bike, you can't pass a law saying it's illegal not to have a speedometer if you're going to go above the speed limit. How many cycling incidents are caused by supposedly excessive speed? It wasn't a factor in this case, the cyclist would still have hit her if he'd been doing 15mph or even 10mph. Charlie Alliston was under the car speed limit. It's a non-issue and only of interest to those seeking yet another stick with which to beat cyclists.
(Usual reference to speed being the major issue as kinetic energy goes up with the square of velocity / much greater braking distances required etc)
@mdavidford steady on - an 80kg cyclist on a 20kg bike would only need to be doing a little over 89mph to have the same kinetic energy as a 2 ton car at 20mph. So same ballpark, really...
Yes, although it may be telling us as much about decision fixation as it is about the impact of such statements. By asking them about their plans before viewing the adverts, they primed those who said they would consider an SUV to ignore or rationalise away information that pointed against that decision. Ideally, they would have had additional cohorts that were not asked in advance and therefore not committed to a position, for comparison.
"in --substantial-- slight excess of a speed limit considered to offer reasonable safety to vulnerable road users *from two tonne metal boxes*." FTFY
I think we have forgotten that cars do way more damage and we still haven’t got a comprehensive-lasting solution to deal with dangerous drivers
What's wrong with that? Most of the best comments here are silly ones. More often than not involving squirrels.
6 thoughts on “Witness appeal after cyclist killed in Worcestershire”
RIP.
RIP.
Now I’m going to put my pedants hat on, the whole phrasology of the article is following the usual victim blaming process before the investigation has really started “following a collision with a lorry”. This very phrase implies that he collided with the lorry. If a cycling website can’t use neutral phrasing what chance has the rest of the press got.
Gus T wrote:
For goodness sake! What on earth are you on about?
Pedant indeed.
Condolences to the poor chap’s family & friends.
The phrase “collided with a
The phrase “collided with a lorry” does contain assumptions and implications.
If you disagree, consider this:
A car collides with a wall. Would it make equal sense to say the wall collided with the car? Would any reporter phrase it that way round?
I think Gus is right. The implication is that the cyclist ran into the lorry, and the report contains no other reason to suppose that the lorry did not run into the cyclist. The distinction is more than pedantry.
@felixcat I would submit this
@felixcat I would submit this is not the place for you to raise pedantic issues of interpretation, especially when you’re misquoting things. Start a thread in the forum if you must please. Thoughts go to the family and friends.
fukawitribe wrote:
I have explained why I don’t think the question is of pedantry. The wording does have an implication of blame in the accident which is unwarranted.
I did not quote anything, let alone misquote. Perhaps you refer to the example I use to illustrate my point. I deliberately chose an example which could not refer to the incident which killed the cyclist. I wanted to avoid any possible misinterpretation or ambiguity.
I notice you repeat your nod towards the conventional expression of sympathy to the family and friends. My mother died very recently and I must say I find these messages very little consolation, even when they are from those who knew my mother. I would find them utterly irrelevant when from unknown internet commenters.
felixcat wrote:
..