Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Hit-and-run driver moved unconscious cyclist off road before fleeing scene

"It's beyond scary because she could have been paralysed – she is terrified that she was unconscious because she was so helpless"...

A driver who collided with a cyclist — seriously injuring the woman in her 30s — then allegedly shouted at the unconscious rider before "dragging her to the side of the road" and fleeing the scene.

The victim needed six hours of hospital treatment after being hit by the driver in Oxfordshire, on Pulpit Hill between Sparsholt and Childrey on Sunday 25 September, with Thames Valley Police confirming no arrests have been made.

A friend of the rider said it is "quite unbelievable" that the driver of the Vauxhall Vivaro van was spotted by a couple walking nearby moving the unconscious rider. The driver then left the scene, prompting Thames Valley Police to appeal for any other witnesses to come forward.

"It is quite unbelievable," Paul Hayward told the Oxford Mail. "Unbelievable in the sense that not only did he hit her but then he moved her body away from the middle of the road, left her and drove off.

"It's beyond scary because she could have been paralysed – she is terrified that she was unconscious because she was so helpless."

The friend of the cyclist said a couple walking nearby recalled seeing the driver "shouting" at the woman before "dragging her to the side of the road". The couple then called an ambulance.

"She was going down a single-track road and the driver was coming up and I don't know if they didn't see her but they hit her head on," Mr Hayward said.

"It's really difficult as a cyclist to be fully on the grass verge so she would have been out a little bit but the driver didn't stop or slow down — her bike is completely totalled."

Her friend explained the rider suffered "horrific" cuts and "looks like she has been for a couple of [boxing] rounds" but is otherwise "doing fine".

"She needs to wait a few weeks to see if there is a bleed on the brain as sometimes it doesn't show up straight away," he said.

"But remarkably, despite the bike being destroyed, she's fine. She's terrified that she was unconscious and helpless. It's just unbelievable. It's bad enough to hit a deer or animal and not do something about it, but to leave a person?

"You always think it won’t happen to you but seeing what has happened to my friend has really drummed it home how helpless you are as a cyclist. I haven't cycled for a week because of it and I don't know when my friend will go out again – it's going to be a big thing."

Anyone with information or dash cam footage is asked to contact Thames Valley Police, quoting the reference number 43220430762.

Dan joined road.cc in 2020, and spent most of his first year (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. At the start of 2022 he took on the role of news editor. Before joining road.cc, Dan wrote about various sports, including football and boxing for the Daily Express, and covered the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Part of the generation inspired by the 2012 Olympics, Dan has been 'enjoying' life on two wheels ever since and spends his weekends making bonk-induced trips to the petrol stations of the south of England.

Add new comment

27 comments

Avatar
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP | 1 year ago
7 likes

Horrible story. Hopefully the witnesses got a number plate. 

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP | 1 year ago
2 likes

Given that the police are appealing for the driver to come forward, either they didn't get the numberplate, it's a clone, or the registered owner is refusing to identify the driver.

https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/news/thames-valley/news/2022/septembe...

Avatar
brooksby replied to HoarseMann | 1 year ago
11 likes

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if the keeper refuses to confirm who was driving their vehicle then they should have to face any possible charges in lieu of their Unknown Driver.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to brooksby | 1 year ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if the keeper refuses to confirm who was driving their vehicle then they should have to face any possible charges in lieu of their Unknown Driver.

What if the keeper provides the details, but the named driver says "wasn't me guv"

Avatar
brooksby replied to wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
6 likes
wycombewheeler wrote:
brooksby wrote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if the keeper refuses to confirm who was driving their vehicle then they should have to face any possible charges in lieu of their Unknown Driver.

What if the keeper provides the details, but the named driver says "wasn't me guv"

Get them both?

Avatar
wtjs replied to wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
11 likes

What if the keeper provides the details, but the named driver says "wasn't me guv"

The police give up, citing 'insufficient resources' and 'insufficient evidence'

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to HoarseMann | 1 year ago
4 likes
HoarseMann wrote:

Given that the police are appealing for the driver to come forward, either they didn't get the numberplate, it's a clone, or the registered owner is refusing to identify the driver.

https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/news/thames-valley/news/2022/septembe...

well I'm sure that appeal will bear fruit. We are only talking about a driver that hit a cyclist, then moved their body out of the way and left them rather than calling an ambulance, I'm sure they will be quick to come forward.

It's a shame the witnesses didn't get the licence plate, they should easily be able to identify if the driver is question was t registered keeper.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to HoarseMann | 1 year ago
5 likes

It's the new strategy called "self-check-in" - rather than having the police locate and collect all the criminals they're now asked to bring themselves in.  Handy for these under-resourced and unquiet times.

Unfortunately there aren't enough police to process all the evidence collected by members of the public (video reporting) either so they're hoping the criminals will turn up with evidence supporting their own confessions too.  However since the CPS often doesn't think it'll get a conviction many of them will have to discharge themselves.  It's hoped they'll send the victim witness a NFA note on their way out to save the police having to keep them up-to-date too.

Avatar
notMyRealName | 1 year ago
15 likes

Thank goodness there were witnesses who were able to call an ambulance. That's awful and terrifying. Best wishes to the rider involved and I hope she can heal physically and mentally. 

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to notMyRealName | 1 year ago
9 likes

Definitely. No witnesses and it might have been hours before help was called depending on how obvious she was at the side of the road. 

Avatar
xtrand | 1 year ago
7 likes

You cannot trust Thames Valley Police to investigate this for you.

You need to ensure that they check ANPR cameras around the area and this needs to be done within 90 days according to https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/autom...

 

Avatar
lesterama | 1 year ago
18 likes

Find this appalling creature and give him serious jail time.

Avatar
brooksby replied to lesterama | 1 year ago
8 likes

Unfortunately, this appalling creature has probably told themselves that they were being a Good Guy by moving that injured person off the road.  In their head, they're a bit of a hero.  I would wager that, anyway.

Avatar
Morgoth985 replied to brooksby | 1 year ago
10 likes

I would love to be able to say "surely nobody could be such a scumbag as to think that being a scumbag did not constitute scumbaggery" but sadly the outright scumbaggishness of society precludes this.  

Avatar
joe9090 replied to brooksby | 1 year ago
0 likes

Massively and very unnecessarily speculative

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to joe9090 | 1 year ago
15 likes
joe9090 wrote:

Massively and very unnecessarily speculative

 

Fair enough, can we just called them:

 

Vile

Callous

Dangerous

Heartless

Scum

Avatar
brooksby replied to joe9090 | 1 year ago
10 likes
joe9090 wrote:

Massively and very unnecessarily speculative

Speculative? Yes.

Massively and unnecessarily?  Not so much...  TBH I thought I sounded like I was giving them too much benefit of the doubt, joe.

Avatar
NOtotheEU replied to brooksby | 1 year ago
4 likes
brooksby wrote:
joe9090 wrote:

Massively and very unnecessarily speculative

Speculative? Yes.

Massively and unnecessarily?  Not so much...  TBH I thought I sounded like I was giving them too much benefit of the doubt, joe.

I think you showed remarkable restraint. You could have said a lot worse and it would have been wholly justified.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to brooksby | 1 year ago
10 likes
brooksby wrote:

Unfortunately, this appalling creature has probably told themselves that they were being a Good Guy by moving that injured person off the road.  In their head, they're a bit of a hero.  I would wager that, anyway.

I'd go much further. This driver shouted at the unconcious cyclist, as if it was the cyclist's fault that some inconvenience had been caused to the driver... and then moved the body out of their way as if it was roadkill.

Whoever did this needs to be removed from society.

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to ChrisB200SX | 1 year ago
12 likes

From the account given, it was a head-on collision on a single track road. So the driver probably does think the cyclist was at fault for not launching themselves into the adjacent field to enable the approaching Superior Vehicle™ to proceed unhindered.

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to OnYerBike | 1 year ago
2 likes
OnYerBike wrote:

From the account given, it was a head-on collision on a single track road. So the driver probably does think the cyclist was at fault for not launching themselves into the adjacent field to enable the approaching Superior Vehicle™ to proceed unhindered.

that's my guess. Some variety of - came from nowhere! Bloody cyclists in the middle of the road! Et.c to justify being a complete cnut of a human being. 

Avatar
jaysa replied to OnYerBike | 1 year ago
9 likes

Had a delivery van drive me off the road years ago on a narrow road in Priddy in the Mendips. I expected him to at least move a bit left or slow down, but no, he just came at me deliberately at 35mph.  Can still remember him looking me in the eyes. Fortunately there was rough turf to my left. Kept the bike upright for a bit and then splatted. Truly there are psychopaths in some vehicles ...

Avatar
NOtotheEU replied to jaysa | 1 year ago
12 likes

Had a van nearly hit me and the car in the right lane today as they squeezed between us. They had been beeping me as I was in primary even though I was keeping up with other vehicles in front of me and then drove straight into traffic nearly hitting multiple cars already on the roundabout. Obviously it had no tax or MOT.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to NOtotheEU | 1 year ago
1 like

I see you decided the island rather then the broken glass filled "cycle path" through the center. I did the latter once so applaud your decision. As I'm normally going up Graveley hill when going that route,  I will normally be in the centre lane at that junction as anyone in the left is normally already speeding up to get to motorway speeds before they join it.

Edit: Just realised that is Gravelly hill you are coming down. Never understood why they never installed lights on that exit like they did with all the others as it is a struggle getting out. 

Avatar
NOtotheEU replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 1 year ago
0 likes

It was actually Slade Road I was joining the roundabout from but I have been nearly hit a few times by drivers coming out from Gravelly Hill. Given how busy it is though i don't usually have any problems on there although with no traffic lights I imagine it would be a nightmare.

Avatar
wtjs replied to NOtotheEU | 1 year ago
0 likes

Obviously it had no tax or MOT

Except that GF56 HXM was taxed and was covered by a valid MOT on the day of the offence against you. It's too late to do anything about the time when the vehicle was almost certainly on the road between MOT fails on 11.3.22 and 3.10.22 (previous MOT expired 22.3.22). It's likely the mileage was 'corrected' for the later MOTs to make it look as if it hadn't been driven, but they corrected it too closely

Avatar
NOtotheEU replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
2 likes
wtjs wrote:

Obviously it had no tax or MOT

Except that GF56 HXM was taxed and was covered by a valid MOT on the day of the offence against you. It's too late to do anything about the time when the vehicle was almost certainly on the road between MOT fails on 11.3.22 and 3.10.22 (previous MOT expired 22.3.22). It's likely the mileage was 'corrected' for the later MOTs to make it look as if it hadn't been driven, but they corrected it too closely

That's very strange. I checked on Tuesday evening and it was showing no tax or MOT but today it is saying that it was MOT'd on Monday and taxed on the previous Friday if I'm reading it right. I thought you couldn't tax a vehicle without an MOT. Seems pretty dodgy to me.

Latest Comments