A cyclist riding a tricycle has died following a collision involving a lorry near Amesbury in Wiltshire.
Police say that the fatal collision happened on the A303 just to the east of Solstice Park Services shortly after noon yesterday, Monday 23 September.
The victim, who was pronounced dead at the scene, was a 71-year old man from Amesbury and his next-of-kin have been informed.
Wiltshire Police are continuing with their investigation and have issued an appeal urging anyone with information to come forward.
PC Rich Hatch of Wiltshire Police’s Collision Investigation Unit, said: “We want to hear from anyone who either witnessed the collision or who saw the lorry or the cyclist shortly beforehand.
“The cyclist was riding an unusual three-wheeler bike, which may mean people will have noticed him.
“If you saw something, or you have dash cam footage which could assist, then please call us on 101, quoting reference 54190094473.”
Alternatively, anyone with information can contact the charity Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111.
17 thoughts on “Wiltshire cyclist, 71, killed following collision involving lorry”
“The cyclist was riding an
“The cyclist was riding an unusual three-wheeler bike, which may mean people will have noticed him.
Not enough it seems. RIP.
Was a tricycle involved in a
Was a tricycle involved in a collision with a lorry or a cyclist on a tricycle involved in a collision with a driver of a lorry?
alansmurphy wrote:
The article is actually correct; sadly. A man/(tri?)cyclist on a tricycle was involved in a collision with a lorry. He didn’t collide with the driver. The result that cyclist and their machines are in collision with vehicles (& not the drivers) explains the sad results and why a lot of drivers don’t give a sh#t.
Lets say how it probably
Lets say how it probably happened. ‘Cyclist run over by truck driver’
Fair point, there just seems
Fair point, there just seems to e the dehumanising of the vehicle operator which further compounds the dilligaf attitude…
I hope that’s not the guy I
I hope that’s not the guy I saw relatively regularly in the area. Cycled as a means of maintaining mobility after a medical condition left him unable to walk.
My sincere condolences to the
My sincere condolences to the man’s family.
@alansmurphy, a person died and all you’re concerned with is correct grammar? While you are perusing the dictionary, try looking for empathy. I know where you are coming from, we are always depersonalising motor vehicle fatalities and refer to machines not people, but it does the same thing when we make it about semantics and not the people affected.
Philh68 wrote:
No it doesn’t. Language shapes how we see the world, and (IMO – YMMV) the almost constant references to apparently self-driving motor vehicles shapes how the non-cycling population think about cyclists
Phil, as brooksby says, too
Phil, as brooksby says, too much main stream media influence shapes people’s perceptions which in turn leads to more cyclists getting killed.
How many times has a car hit a cyclist or pedestrian rather than focus on the human driving it and the lack of care they showed een conveniently ignored?
alansmurphy wrote:
the same happens for any road incident, be it car, lorry, bus or bicycle that collide. Commonsense tells you there are people using them. What you are expecting from the media is to show partiality and draw conclusions which I suspect is something you’d rather they did not do. The reporting style has been designed to avoid that, to describe the incident without identifying the parties involved or apportioning blame because these matters can go to trial and you don’t want to prejudice the outcome by influencing public opinion. It’s not about convenience or bias at all, but avoiding bias. Reporting of trial outcomes is quite different, the facts have been established by the court and you can use real names when describing the incident that led to the court’s decision. There’s no bias at that point, you’re just reporting a matter of public record.
I guess you dont see the hypocrisy when you refer to “mainstream media” rather than journalists as people who write the reports. And blaming them for the way drivers behave on the road is an absurd conclusion. The stories come after the incidents, not before. If you want the blame put where it belongs, you’re not helping by shooting the messenger.
Philh68 wrote:
It is always* a cyclist who hit a pedestrian, or who jumped a red light, not a bicycle.
It is always* a car which mounted the pavement, not the motorist who drove it there.
It is always* a car which turned on its roof, and very rarely the motorist who lost control of their clearly wild and untamed motor vehicle.
It’s always* a cyclist hit by a bus, not a bicycle hit by a bus.
(*Disclaimer – not always)
(The MSM jibe is silly, BTW, and not comparable – it is generally understood that “mainstream media” is a shorthand used by people who do not want to have to cut-and-paste an explicit list of newspapers or television stations or of named journalists only for someone to shout “Ha! Your argument is completely invalid because you missed off xxxx!”)
RIP, but the A303 just east
RIP, but the A303 just east of Solstice Park Services is a high speed dual carriageway road, with a fair climb when heading east. Not one I would consider cycling on personally.
Jem PT wrote:
You’re having a laugh surely? Don’t blame someone for getting hit for cycling on a road they are legally entitled to cycle on.
Htc wrote:
I regularly do a detour to avoid it – when I’m driving.
It’s a complete bloody racetrack, particularly in that section as people MGIF to join the queue a few cars further along going past Stonehenge. And if you’re heading east drivers tend to floor it as it goes back to NSL.
I guess it’s all about what personal risk assessment you make, but I wouldn’t ride, entitled or not, on a road full of lorries doing 60mph and an outside lane running at 80mph+
kil0ran wrote:
I hear what you’re saying. I’ve used the A303 a lot over the years. The dual carriageway sections are used by fast flowing traffic. I don’t mind driving along it in my car or on my motorbike, but there’s no way you’d catch me riding it on one of my bikes. It may be legal to do so, but that doesn’t make it safe. The A303 carries heavy traffic volumes and vehicles using it will be driving it 60-70mph. Even if someone passes you with a decent gap, which many don’t, they’ll be coming past quite legally at 60-70mph (and possibly more illegally). No thanks.
My condolences to the family of the person killed. I lost family mebers recently and I understand how devastating this can be.
All this schematics, I don’t
All this schematics, I don’t think anyone ‘disagrees’ with the principals here of bias wording and reporting, but you’re preaching to the converted on road.cc
Perhaps there should be a ‘Bias Reporting of the Day’ column to keep everyone happy.
My condolences to the family
My condolences to the family and friends of the elderly gentleman involved in this particular incident.
Not to make light of the numerous fatal and serious road traffic collisions that are reported each and every week in my local news for Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, but it is surprising how many people are killed and injured when the car collides with another object. To be charitable, maybe this is seen as a more neutral reporting of incidents still under investigation or avoiding victim blaming to upset families, however from both headlines and story there is a consistent narrative that it was the car what done it.