Witness appeal after cyclist hurt in crash in Curdridge

Witness appeal after cyclist hurt in crash

Witness appeal after cyclist hurt in crash

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

POLICE are appealing for witnesses after a cyclist sustained head injuries in a crash on a Hampshire road.

He was taken to hospital following the collision involving the cyclist and two cars, which happened on Curdridge Lane, in Curdridge.

The 43-year-old man remains in a serious but stable condition.

The incident happened when a blue Mitsubishi Space Star and the cyclist travelling from Waltham Chase towards Botley collided with a grey Ford Focus travelling in the opposite direction on the road opposite Woodman's Farm.

Both the car drivers were treated in hospital for minor injuries and later discharged after the collision, which happened just before 7.45am on Wednesday .

PC Faye Cappleman, from the Roads Policing Unit said: “I'm very keen to hear from anyone who may have seen either one of these vehicles or the cyclist travelling beforehand, or who may have witnessed the collision.

“I'm aware that this road is a popular cut through for traffic accessing the back of Botley and many drivers may have been on their morning commute.

“I'm appealing for anyone with any information to contact police.

“I am very grateful for people's patience and understanding whilst we were on scene investigating this incident as the road was closed for some time.”

Anyone with any information is asked to call PC Cappleman at Fratton Roads Policing Unit on 101, quoting Operation Attina.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:01pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic, this is WHY you DON'T pass cyclists too close and why you MUST wait until it's safe to overtake, using the other lane, even if the cyclist is curb hugging.
Sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic, this is WHY you DON'T pass cyclists too close and why you MUST wait until it's safe to overtake, using the other lane, even if the cyclist is curb hugging. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

9:18am Sat 19 Jul 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic, this is WHY you DON'T pass cyclists too close and why you MUST wait until it's safe to overtake, using the other lane, even if the cyclist is curb hugging.
Oh yes, it MUST be the motorists fault, and given you're a ginger moron who wasn't even there, clearly you know exactly what happened.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic, this is WHY you DON'T pass cyclists too close and why you MUST wait until it's safe to overtake, using the other lane, even if the cyclist is curb hugging.[/p][/quote]Oh yes, it MUST be the motorists fault, and given you're a ginger moron who wasn't even there, clearly you know exactly what happened. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 1

10:17am Sat 19 Jul 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic, this is WHY you DON'T pass cyclists too close and why you MUST wait until it's safe to overtake, using the other lane, even if the cyclist is curb hugging.
Oh yes, it MUST be the motorists fault, and given you're a ginger moron who wasn't even there, clearly you know exactly what happened.
It's a straight road, no junctions where the cyclist could have pulled out from and one of the cars was going the same direction as the cyclist, sounds straight forward to figure out what might have happened really but even so, I said "SOUNDS LIKE", not anything akin to "It was this or that", so I wasn't blaming anyone, just providing my theory gained from the available facts including the fact that there are motorists who get far too close to cyclists when passing them AND don't look far enough ahead.
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic, this is WHY you DON'T pass cyclists too close and why you MUST wait until it's safe to overtake, using the other lane, even if the cyclist is curb hugging.[/p][/quote]Oh yes, it MUST be the motorists fault, and given you're a ginger moron who wasn't even there, clearly you know exactly what happened.[/p][/quote]It's a straight road, no junctions where the cyclist could have pulled out from and one of the cars was going the same direction as the cyclist, sounds straight forward to figure out what might have happened really but even so, I said "SOUNDS LIKE", not anything akin to "It was this or that", so I wasn't blaming anyone, just providing my theory gained from the available facts including the fact that there are motorists who get far too close to cyclists when passing them AND don't look far enough ahead. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

1:44pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic, this is WHY you DON'T pass cyclists too close and why you MUST wait until it's safe to overtake, using the other lane, even if the cyclist is curb hugging.
Oh yes, it MUST be the motorists fault, and given you're a ginger moron who wasn't even there, clearly you know exactly what happened.
It's a straight road, no junctions where the cyclist could have pulled out from and one of the cars was going the same direction as the cyclist, sounds straight forward to figure out what might have happened really but even so, I said "SOUNDS LIKE", not anything akin to "It was this or that", so I wasn't blaming anyone, just providing my theory gained from the available facts including the fact that there are motorists who get far too close to cyclists when passing them AND don't look far enough ahead.
Your 'theory' gained from a quick look at Google Earth, just like the one you provided as proof that HGVs could exceed the speed limit through Beaulieu village ?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic, this is WHY you DON'T pass cyclists too close and why you MUST wait until it's safe to overtake, using the other lane, even if the cyclist is curb hugging.[/p][/quote]Oh yes, it MUST be the motorists fault, and given you're a ginger moron who wasn't even there, clearly you know exactly what happened.[/p][/quote]It's a straight road, no junctions where the cyclist could have pulled out from and one of the cars was going the same direction as the cyclist, sounds straight forward to figure out what might have happened really but even so, I said "SOUNDS LIKE", not anything akin to "It was this or that", so I wasn't blaming anyone, just providing my theory gained from the available facts including the fact that there are motorists who get far too close to cyclists when passing them AND don't look far enough ahead.[/p][/quote]Your 'theory' gained from a quick look at Google Earth, just like the one you provided as proof that HGVs could exceed the speed limit through Beaulieu village ? Torchie1
  • Score: -2

2:53pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic, this is WHY you DON'T pass cyclists too close and why you MUST wait until it's safe to overtake, using the other lane, even if the cyclist is curb hugging.
Oh yes, it MUST be the motorists fault, and given you're a ginger moron who wasn't even there, clearly you know exactly what happened.
It's a straight road, no junctions where the cyclist could have pulled out from and one of the cars was going the same direction as the cyclist, sounds straight forward to figure out what might have happened really but even so, I said "SOUNDS LIKE", not anything akin to "It was this or that", so I wasn't blaming anyone, just providing my theory gained from the available facts including the fact that there are motorists who get far too close to cyclists when passing them AND don't look far enough ahead.
Your 'theory' gained from a quick look at Google Earth, just like the one you provided as proof that HGVs could exceed the speed limit through Beaulieu village ?
I said on the roads LEADING to Beaulieu, I even said the trucks would HAVE to slow down as they entered the village but obviously you ignored that bit.
Anyway, no, I got to my theory from knowing what motorists can be like on country roads, that Curdridge Lane becomes a 40 limit as it passes Woodman's Farm, the cyclist and space star were heading towards Botley(no junctions until further along from where the collission happened) and the fact that an ONCOMING vehicle was also involved, so it all points to a cr@ppy overtake attempt.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic, this is WHY you DON'T pass cyclists too close and why you MUST wait until it's safe to overtake, using the other lane, even if the cyclist is curb hugging.[/p][/quote]Oh yes, it MUST be the motorists fault, and given you're a ginger moron who wasn't even there, clearly you know exactly what happened.[/p][/quote]It's a straight road, no junctions where the cyclist could have pulled out from and one of the cars was going the same direction as the cyclist, sounds straight forward to figure out what might have happened really but even so, I said "SOUNDS LIKE", not anything akin to "It was this or that", so I wasn't blaming anyone, just providing my theory gained from the available facts including the fact that there are motorists who get far too close to cyclists when passing them AND don't look far enough ahead.[/p][/quote]Your 'theory' gained from a quick look at Google Earth, just like the one you provided as proof that HGVs could exceed the speed limit through Beaulieu village ?[/p][/quote]I said on the roads LEADING to Beaulieu, I even said the trucks would HAVE to slow down as they entered the village but obviously you ignored that bit. Anyway, no, I got to my theory from knowing what motorists can be like on country roads, that Curdridge Lane becomes a 40 limit as it passes Woodman's Farm, the cyclist and space star were heading towards Botley(no junctions until further along from where the collission happened) and the fact that an ONCOMING vehicle was also involved, so it all points to a cr@ppy overtake attempt. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

5:49pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Zexagon says...

Why don't you get a job with the police accident investigation team. You could work from home
Why don't you get a job with the police accident investigation team. You could work from home Zexagon
  • Score: -1

7:29pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Zexagon wrote:
Why don't you get a job with the police accident investigation team. You could work from home
Just because you and torchie REFUSE to admit ANY possibility that the motorist could be at fault in a collission between a car and cyclist, despite facts and figures showing that 90% of the time, the motorist is at fault.
[quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: Why don't you get a job with the police accident investigation team. You could work from home[/p][/quote]Just because you and torchie REFUSE to admit ANY possibility that the motorist could be at fault in a collission between a car and cyclist, despite facts and figures showing that 90% of the time, the motorist is at fault. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

9:19am Sun 20 Jul 14

Hieronymus says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic, this is WHY you DON'T pass cyclists too close and why you MUST wait until it's safe to overtake, using the other lane, even if the cyclist is curb hugging.
Oh yes, it MUST be the motorists fault, and given you're a ginger moron who wasn't even there, clearly you know exactly what happened.
To be fair, Ginger Cyclist said 'sounds like' not 'must be' the motorists fault. Cyclists are undoubtedly to blame for some collisions with cars but more often it is the driver's fault - as this report shows, http://www.worthingr
evolutions.org.uk/si
tes/worthingrevoluti
ons.org.uk/files/PPR
445.pdf . See page 34.
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic, this is WHY you DON'T pass cyclists too close and why you MUST wait until it's safe to overtake, using the other lane, even if the cyclist is curb hugging.[/p][/quote]Oh yes, it MUST be the motorists fault, and given you're a ginger moron who wasn't even there, clearly you know exactly what happened.[/p][/quote]To be fair, Ginger Cyclist said 'sounds like' not 'must be' the motorists fault. Cyclists are undoubtedly to blame for some collisions with cars but more often it is the driver's fault - as this report shows, http://www.worthingr evolutions.org.uk/si tes/worthingrevoluti ons.org.uk/files/PPR 445.pdf . See page 34. Hieronymus
  • Score: 2

9:29am Sun 20 Jul 14

Hieronymus says...

Not that easy to paste that last link. Try Googling 'Collisions involving pedal cycles on Britain's roads. Worthing revolutions'.
Not that easy to paste that last link. Try Googling 'Collisions involving pedal cycles on Britain's roads. Worthing revolutions'. Hieronymus
  • Score: 0

10:09am Sun 20 Jul 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
Why don't you get a job with the police accident investigation team. You could work from home
Just because you and torchie REFUSE to admit ANY possibility that the motorist could be at fault in a collission between a car and cyclist, despite facts and figures showing that 90% of the time, the motorist is at fault.
90% of the time? Ok, let's pretend you didn't just make that up. Show me you admitting to any of the remaining 10%.

All of which is irrelevant, because your post is a straw man. Zexagon and torchie do not refuse to admit any possibility, they simply don't indulge in your magic 8 ball mentality of pretending to have special insight into causes of road accidents, based purely on their own choice of transport.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: Why don't you get a job with the police accident investigation team. You could work from home[/p][/quote]Just because you and torchie REFUSE to admit ANY possibility that the motorist could be at fault in a collission between a car and cyclist, despite facts and figures showing that 90% of the time, the motorist is at fault.[/p][/quote]90% of the time? Ok, let's pretend you didn't just make that up. Show me you admitting to any of the remaining 10%. All of which is irrelevant, because your post is a straw man. Zexagon and torchie do not refuse to admit any possibility, they simply don't indulge in your magic 8 ball mentality of pretending to have special insight into causes of road accidents, based purely on their own choice of transport. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: -2

11:14am Sun 20 Jul 14

Hieronymus says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
Why don't you get a job with the police accident investigation team. You could work from home
Just because you and torchie REFUSE to admit ANY possibility that the motorist could be at fault in a collission between a car and cyclist, despite facts and figures showing that 90% of the time, the motorist is at fault.
90% of the time? Ok, let's pretend you didn't just make that up. Show me you admitting to any of the remaining 10%.

All of which is irrelevant, because your post is a straw man. Zexagon and torchie do not refuse to admit any possibility, they simply don't indulge in your magic 8 ball mentality of pretending to have special insight into causes of road accidents, based purely on their own choice of transport.
Yours was the straw man post. You pretend what Ginger Cyclist posted amounted to saying 'it MUST the motorist's fault'. He actually said 'sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic' (by implication executed a car driver).
However, Ginger Cyclist's figure of 90% of car / cycle collisions being the fault of the car driver is an exaggeration. The above in depth study shows they are actually only a little more likely overall to be the fault of the car driver.
Of course none of us know the causes of this particular accident.
All too often forum debate about cycling is polarized into a Cyclists v Motorists series of rants. In reality, most drivers and cyclists are safe and considerate road users whilst regular adult cyclists are actually very slightly more likely to own a car than non cyclists in the same age range.
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: Why don't you get a job with the police accident investigation team. You could work from home[/p][/quote]Just because you and torchie REFUSE to admit ANY possibility that the motorist could be at fault in a collission between a car and cyclist, despite facts and figures showing that 90% of the time, the motorist is at fault.[/p][/quote]90% of the time? Ok, let's pretend you didn't just make that up. Show me you admitting to any of the remaining 10%. All of which is irrelevant, because your post is a straw man. Zexagon and torchie do not refuse to admit any possibility, they simply don't indulge in your magic 8 ball mentality of pretending to have special insight into causes of road accidents, based purely on their own choice of transport.[/p][/quote]Yours was the straw man post. You pretend what Ginger Cyclist posted amounted to saying 'it MUST the motorist's fault'. He actually said 'sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic' (by implication executed a car driver). However, Ginger Cyclist's figure of 90% of car / cycle collisions being the fault of the car driver is an exaggeration. The above in depth study shows they are actually only a little more likely overall to be the fault of the car driver. Of course none of us know the causes of this particular accident. All too often forum debate about cycling is polarized into a Cyclists v Motorists series of rants. In reality, most drivers and cyclists are safe and considerate road users whilst regular adult cyclists are actually very slightly more likely to own a car than non cyclists in the same age range. Hieronymus
  • Score: 2

5:29pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Hieronymus wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
Why don't you get a job with the police accident investigation team. You could work from home
Just because you and torchie REFUSE to admit ANY possibility that the motorist could be at fault in a collission between a car and cyclist, despite facts and figures showing that 90% of the time, the motorist is at fault.
90% of the time? Ok, let's pretend you didn't just make that up. Show me you admitting to any of the remaining 10%.

All of which is irrelevant, because your post is a straw man. Zexagon and torchie do not refuse to admit any possibility, they simply don't indulge in your magic 8 ball mentality of pretending to have special insight into causes of road accidents, based purely on their own choice of transport.
Yours was the straw man post. You pretend what Ginger Cyclist posted amounted to saying 'it MUST the motorist's fault'. He actually said 'sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic' (by implication executed a car driver).
However, Ginger Cyclist's figure of 90% of car / cycle collisions being the fault of the car driver is an exaggeration. The above in depth study shows they are actually only a little more likely overall to be the fault of the car driver.
Of course none of us know the causes of this particular accident.
All too often forum debate about cycling is polarized into a Cyclists v Motorists series of rants. In reality, most drivers and cyclists are safe and considerate road users whilst regular adult cyclists are actually very slightly more likely to own a car than non cyclists in the same age range.
You finished white knighting now?

My post isn't a straw man, because ginger cyclist is well known for making exactly those comments.
[quote][p][bold]Hieronymus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: Why don't you get a job with the police accident investigation team. You could work from home[/p][/quote]Just because you and torchie REFUSE to admit ANY possibility that the motorist could be at fault in a collission between a car and cyclist, despite facts and figures showing that 90% of the time, the motorist is at fault.[/p][/quote]90% of the time? Ok, let's pretend you didn't just make that up. Show me you admitting to any of the remaining 10%. All of which is irrelevant, because your post is a straw man. Zexagon and torchie do not refuse to admit any possibility, they simply don't indulge in your magic 8 ball mentality of pretending to have special insight into causes of road accidents, based purely on their own choice of transport.[/p][/quote]Yours was the straw man post. You pretend what Ginger Cyclist posted amounted to saying 'it MUST the motorist's fault'. He actually said 'sounds like a poorly executed overtake into oncoming traffic' (by implication executed a car driver). However, Ginger Cyclist's figure of 90% of car / cycle collisions being the fault of the car driver is an exaggeration. The above in depth study shows they are actually only a little more likely overall to be the fault of the car driver. Of course none of us know the causes of this particular accident. All too often forum debate about cycling is polarized into a Cyclists v Motorists series of rants. In reality, most drivers and cyclists are safe and considerate road users whilst regular adult cyclists are actually very slightly more likely to own a car than non cyclists in the same age range.[/p][/quote]You finished white knighting now? My post isn't a straw man, because ginger cyclist is well known for making exactly those comments. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: -3

9:09pm Sun 20 Jul 14

Hieronymus says...

Straw man; 'a sham argument set up to be defeated*', for example exaggerating what an opponent has said because this is easier to defeat than what they actually said.
White Knight; 'a person who comes to someone's aid*'.
Whose aid am I coming to? Not Ginger Cyclist and not you. You're nearly as bad as each other when it comes to one sided ranting.
* See Oxford Dictionaries.
Straw man; 'a sham argument set up to be defeated*', for example exaggerating what an opponent has said because this is easier to defeat than what they actually said. White Knight; 'a person who comes to someone's aid*'. Whose aid am I coming to? Not Ginger Cyclist and not you. You're nearly as bad as each other when it comes to one sided ranting. * See Oxford Dictionaries. Hieronymus
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree