- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Police tape (CC licensed by freefotouk on Flickr)Cyclist killed in lorry collision on A40 in Oxfordshire
Police are appealing for witnesses after a cyclist was killed in a collision with a lorry on the A40 Witney bypass in Oxfordshire early yesterday morning.
The fatal crash happened at 3.55am yesterday morning on the westbound carriageway close to the junction of the A415 Standlake Road.
The cyclist, a 23-year-old man, was pronounced dead at the scene and Thames Valley Police said his next-of-kin are being supported by specially trained officers.
They added that the driver of the Renault articulated lorry involved remained at the scene and that no arrests had been made.
Investigating officer PC Julia Stroud of the force’s Serious Collision Investigation Unit, which is based in Bicester, said: “Tragically a man died following a collision and we are investigating the circumstances.
“I would like to speak to anyone who was travelling on the A40 near Witney on Friday at around time of the collision.
“If you believe you saw the lorry or cyclist, or have any dash-cam footage please come forward.”
Anyone who saw the collision or has information is requested to call Thames Valley Police on 101 quoting reference 43180393923 or make an online report.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- SamSeed 2 hours 40 min ago
My 6KU, replaced everything but the front chainring over the past 5 years.
- froze 4 hours 37 min ago
This was a very good listing of bikes for under 1,000....
- Hirsute 7 hours 58 min ago
Radar tells me their closing speed, if they are slowing and how far away. Then I decide to say a prayer. The change of light pattern is incidental.
- lonpfrb 8 hours 18 min ago
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent. Of course, enforcement is another thing..
- lonpfrb 8 hours 44 min ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- don simon fbpe 9 hours 59 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 10 hours 40 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 11 hours 19 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 12 hours 16 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
Add new comment
21 comments
I wonder whether the cyclist thought “The bypass is the most direct route (after all, that’s what they’re built as!) and it’s stupid o’clock in the morning so there won’t be much motor traffic about...”
There seems to be an element of “No cyclist should ride on there in the day cos it’s far too busy and dangerous, but they shouldn’t ride on there at night either cos there’s not much traffic so the drivers don’t pay as much attention “ to some of the comments on this story...
There's a local TT route on a dual carriageway where I live, which I've ridden a few times. Perhaps the road in question is a local TT route and they were doing a recce?
At 03.55 in the morning ... really ..... ?
Maybe the Police should publish the blood alcohol levels of the persons involved.
Depending on the particular road, cycling on a dual carriageway isn't illegal (unless covered by a local by-law). There's a number of reasons why the cyclist may have been there at that time. They took a wrong turn, which is easy to do in the dark, or following satnav directions (again, easy to be directed onto such a road). Maybe the alternative routes are like the roads around where I live (scotland) and littered with millions of potholes or covered in tractor mud so they were sticking to the dual carriageway as they are largely smooth pieces of tarmac as they are better maintained. Or it could have been icy, and the dual carriageway was more likely to have been gritted. Or maybe it was the direct route home. Or, just maybe they figured it was safe(r) given the time of night and lack of traffic and with a number of bright rear lights you'd be easily seen. Whatever the reason, being on the dual carriageway shouldn't be seen as a mitigating factor in the accident - though I'll wager it will be factored in (sigh). Assuming they had lights on then the lorry drive is the sole party to blame IMO. Always sad to read news of the death of a fellow cyclist on our roads, particularly at this time of year. Thoughts go out to the family/friends of the cyclist.
Obviously I don't know who is at fault in this accident but why does somebody cycle on a dual carriageway in the middle of the night? When I am back in Newark I could go a number of places by cycling on the A1 but I prefer to live a little longer. In my region cyclists are often killed in road accidents but it is rare to read details or find out who was at fault, which always leave me wondering if I am particularly at risk or if it is cyclists making mistakes.
I'm more concerned about how a driver on a two lane road could run over a cyclist at a time when there was little other traffic to distract them. This is probably what plod are looking for too.
RIP brother.
I was surprised at the sentencing for the M1 J14 minibus crash that the driver who caused the obstruction was given a much harsher sentence than the driver who actually caused the crash. Sure, the stationary lorry driver was drunk, but what if it had been a medical episode or heavy traffic that had caused the vehicle to stop? In my view, the driver who caused the crash was equally (or maybe more) to blame for being distracted by his phone. There seems to be an acceptance that if something unexpected is in the road ahead, then this can be used to mitigate culpability. When it’s really a gross failure of hazard perception.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/m1-crash-lorry-driver-jail-p...
I'd like to think that the drink driving skewed the responsibility and the verdict. Had the stopped driver had a heart attack, it would be difficult to apportion any blame to them (unless medical history told us that there was a likelyhood and therefore they shouldn't have been driving).
It's difficult tho say that one outcome in one case would be the same under different circumstances. That's part of the beauty of UK law.
Do you drive? Everyone who I know who does will take to the major roads or motorway when it's the most direct route, you do know that people in motorvehicles are killed and seriously injured on these routes including children in motors right?
Do you question the validity of those in motors route choice post death/sewrious injury, if not why not? What about pedestrians, what about a women who is raped on x street at x time of night, do you victim blame them too?
Please let's see your stats for risk because in my 35 years of road riding since a young teen, the times when I've been struck/hurt have been on single carriageways in built up areas. I cycle on bypass roads/major trunk roads and dual carriageways regularly, sometimes it's not pleasant (same for urban cycling) but so far actually being struck has not happened and close passes are generally not as frequent because there is more space more often. Sure it's anecdotal but you've not come up with anything except conjecture and your own way of doing things.
If you strike someone with your motorvehicle or make them feel fear of harm, then it's careless driving at best, you must account for everything when you operate a machine, that it's well known in the hands of humans these machines kill over a million people globally, makes this way of thinking the barest minimum. Sadly governments, plod, CPS, judges and even large swathes of joe public don't think that should be so, hence why we have so many wrecked lives that could be avoided so easily!
Well you could just go on the general statistics about fault, which demonstrate it's more often the driver who makes the fatal mistake.
Besides, how many of those cyclists would have been killed had the car not been present? It's clearly the car that brings the danger. The main mistake is often that of the driver in choosing a dangerous mode of transport and thus rendering mistakes more likely to be fatal, whoever made them. Or it's the authorities in incentivising people to make that dangerous choice.
It sounds to me like you are making visible the thought-process behind victim-blaming. I mean, you are almost saying it explcitly - "I hope it was the cyclists making mistakes because then I can suppress my anxiety by convincing myself that I _never_ make any mistakes".
3.55 am ..... there's a lot more to this than the original report tells .... i'd wait a bit before commenting ....
While accepting that there is a lot more to be learned regarding the circumstances, I'm sympathising with the lorry driver as I know he'll be dragged through the courts to satisfy the blood-lust of the family and society at large even though he had no control over the outcome of the accident; and I'm living proof of this.
Only a couple of months ago in Oxfordshire I was ran over by a driver at 50mph while on my bike and the police couldn't have given a monkeys, and even pushed for non-prosecution, because I was not killed by the impact on the car's bonnet/windscreen or run over by 44 tonne lorry when I was thrown across the path of oncoming traffic.
Why should this driver be prosecuted for making no more of a mistake than the driver who ran me over? Revenge pure an simple, and that's no basis for a justice system.
what is your tedious agenda? Your copy pasta comments are getting really boring now.
Perhaps you were at fault for your “accident” and that was why your driver was prosecuted?
In a word, justice. This driver is no more cupable for the outcome of this accident than the driver who ran me over. We all know life is unfair, but that is because the justice system makes it so. Hope the day never comes when you need justice and find it wanting.
You have no idea of the circumstances to make that statement.
Besides which, you advocate a race to the bottom rather than raising standards to a uniform level across England/Wales.
I don't advocate either the lowering or raising of standards, just that there simply be a uniform standard and not the current two tier justice system we have. Whether the government chooses to lower or raise standards is for it to decide, but until then I'll happily act as a witness and living proof for any driver that there is no cause and effect when it comes to an accident and outcome.
That seems to make sense to you, but judging by the various reponses here, it doesn't make nay sense to anyone else.
You have no idea what happened in this incident.
Since we have no way of knowing whether the driver who you claim knocked you over, or the driver in this case, are in any way to blame, we cannot judge whether you deserve justice. But as has been pointed out several times, bleating on about something endlessly and demanding justice for your perceived slight is hardly likely to endear you to people.
If you have come to the realisation that life isn't fair, then it might be best to shut up about it, 'cos we already know.
Blame isn't the question, it's holding the driver accountable for something that is not under his control. An accident does not necessarily end in death, so why should this driver be treated any differently from one in which the cyclist/victim/other party survives. Justice isn't justice unless all are treated equally, and on balance this driver is not likely to be treated equally. Even in like-for-like incidents where one victim dies and one survives one will get charged with causing death and the other charged with doing something dumb.
As for endearing myself to people, not interested. So feel free to ignore my posts.
Not only that but on a duel carriage way that doesn’t really go anywhere you would want to cycle. At least not at that time in the morning and that doesn’t have a better route parallel. Whilst the lorry driver should have been looking, and as I said on the comments of the Oxford Mail blaming the cyclist with no other evidence is victim blaming, but there is much more to this than a simple cyclist hit by a driver.
Nobody will come forward as it appears nobody sees cyclists anyway. My mate got run over and bounced off a windscreen and the woman that did it claimed he came out of nowhere and the person behind her also claimed to have seen nothing. Cyclists appear to have mastered teleportation.
Rip another cyclist. Nice end to year for his family.