Cyclist, 69, is critical after road crash in Blackburn

Cyclist, 69, is critical after road crash in Blackburn

Cyclist, 69, is critical after road crash in Blackburn

First published in News
Last updated
Blackburn Citizen: Photograph of the Author by , Crime reporter

A CYCLIST is in a critical condition after being knocked off his bike.

The crash, which involved a Suzuki Swift, happened in Preston Old Road, Blackburn, near the entrance to Witton Park as the 69-year-old cyclist headed towards the town centre.

Police said he suffered serious head injuries and was taken to the Royal Preston Hospital.

Specially trained officers were supporting the injured man’s family yesterday. Police said they were not able to confirm whether or not he was wearing a helmet.

The driver stopped at the scene. No arrests have been made. Sgt John Jennings-Wharton said the circum-stances of the crash were not known.

Coun Michael Lee, of the Beardwood with Lammack ward, said: “The popularity of cycling has picked up a lot and there are lots more people out and about on bikes.

“I think drivers need to be more alert for cyclists, but equally sometimes cyclists need to be more alert to cars too. The problem is, if you are a cyclist, you invariably come off worse than the motorist.

“One of the problems is we never designed the roads for cars and cyclists to be together. If there is something that can be learned from this accident we will have a look at it.”

Sgt Jennings-Wharton appealed for anybody with information which happened around 12.15pm on Sunday, to get in touch.

He said: “Witton Park was busy with people on Sunday enjoying the fine weather.

“Both the Suzuki Swift and the pedal cycle were travelling towards Blackburn town centre from the Pleasington area and I urge anyone who saw either the car or the pedal cyclist at that time in the area of the collision to contact police.”

Anybody with information should call police on 101 quoting log number 0783 of June 1.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:26am Tue 3 Jun 14

yyy's1 says...

Of course drivers should be more alert and cyclist should ride in a more responsible manner, they shouldn't be allowed to ride on the pavements for example.
Oh! and by the way they should all be insured and should have some form of identification on their bicycles.
Of course drivers should be more alert and cyclist should ride in a more responsible manner, they shouldn't be allowed to ride on the pavements for example. Oh! and by the way they should all be insured and should have some form of identification on their bicycles. yyy's1
  • Score: -7

11:27am Tue 3 Jun 14

padihamgirl says...

before i was allowed to drive my car on my own i had to take my driving test unfortunately anyone can go into a cycle shop and ride onto the roads the same day. No helmet no insurance and no test to prove they are safe. Its all very well to say that drivers have to take care but cyclists do as well. It might be a cheap way for children to get to school but i have had to phone a couple of schools over the years because children are not being careful and they think its funny.
Its illegal for children to drive cars so why are they allowed to ride bikes on the roads.
before i was allowed to drive my car on my own i had to take my driving test unfortunately anyone can go into a cycle shop and ride onto the roads the same day. No helmet no insurance and no test to prove they are safe. Its all very well to say that drivers have to take care but cyclists do as well. It might be a cheap way for children to get to school but i have had to phone a couple of schools over the years because children are not being careful and they think its funny. Its illegal for children to drive cars so why are they allowed to ride bikes on the roads. padihamgirl
  • Score: 6

12:03pm Tue 3 Jun 14

JayEss says...

padihamgirl wrote:
before i was allowed to drive my car on my own i had to take my driving test unfortunately anyone can go into a cycle shop and ride onto the roads the same day. No helmet no insurance and no test to prove they are safe. Its all very well to say that drivers have to take care but cyclists do as well. It might be a cheap way for children to get to school but i have had to phone a couple of schools over the years because children are not being careful and they think its funny.
Its illegal for children to drive cars so why are they allowed to ride bikes on the roads.
You seem to be suggesting that a person on a bike is exactly the same as over a tonne of metal powered by an engine. The reason why cars are licenced and controlled is because they are very capable of causing great harm at no danger to the driver. A bike is in no way similar. Just look at this example in the article, the danger was not a bike crashing it was a car hitting the bike. The driver of the car might not be happy with a scratch to their car but the cyclist is in critical condition.
Road safety will not be improved in any significant way by concentrating on cyclists, doing so would be a waste of limited resources.
[quote][p][bold]padihamgirl[/bold] wrote: before i was allowed to drive my car on my own i had to take my driving test unfortunately anyone can go into a cycle shop and ride onto the roads the same day. No helmet no insurance and no test to prove they are safe. Its all very well to say that drivers have to take care but cyclists do as well. It might be a cheap way for children to get to school but i have had to phone a couple of schools over the years because children are not being careful and they think its funny. Its illegal for children to drive cars so why are they allowed to ride bikes on the roads.[/p][/quote]You seem to be suggesting that a person on a bike is exactly the same as over a tonne of metal powered by an engine. The reason why cars are licenced and controlled is because they are very capable of causing great harm at no danger to the driver. A bike is in no way similar. Just look at this example in the article, the danger was not a bike crashing it was a car hitting the bike. The driver of the car might not be happy with a scratch to their car but the cyclist is in critical condition. Road safety will not be improved in any significant way by concentrating on cyclists, doing so would be a waste of limited resources. JayEss
  • Score: 17

12:08pm Tue 3 Jun 14

JayEss says...

yyy's1 wrote:
Of course drivers should be more alert and cyclist should ride in a more responsible manner, they shouldn't be allowed to ride on the pavements for example.
Oh! and by the way they should all be insured and should have some form of identification on their bicycles.
Membership of British Cycling or the CTC provides £2m of liability insurance as part of the annual cost. The fee for annual membership is about £40 which demonstrates the level of risk associated with cycling.
Do you have identification displayed when out for a walk? What about insurance? People on bikes should be thought of as 'pedestrian plus' and not as 'car minus'.
[quote][p][bold]yyy's1[/bold] wrote: Of course drivers should be more alert and cyclist should ride in a more responsible manner, they shouldn't be allowed to ride on the pavements for example. Oh! and by the way they should all be insured and should have some form of identification on their bicycles.[/p][/quote]Membership of British Cycling or the CTC provides £2m of liability insurance as part of the annual cost. The fee for annual membership is about £40 which demonstrates the level of risk associated with cycling. Do you have identification displayed when out for a walk? What about insurance? People on bikes should be thought of as 'pedestrian plus' and not as 'car minus'. JayEss
  • Score: 16

12:30pm Tue 3 Jun 14

padihamgirl says...

JayEss wrote:
padihamgirl wrote:
before i was allowed to drive my car on my own i had to take my driving test unfortunately anyone can go into a cycle shop and ride onto the roads the same day. No helmet no insurance and no test to prove they are safe. Its all very well to say that drivers have to take care but cyclists do as well. It might be a cheap way for children to get to school but i have had to phone a couple of schools over the years because children are not being careful and they think its funny.
Its illegal for children to drive cars so why are they allowed to ride bikes on the roads.
You seem to be suggesting that a person on a bike is exactly the same as over a tonne of metal powered by an engine. The reason why cars are licenced and controlled is because they are very capable of causing great harm at no danger to the driver. A bike is in no way similar. Just look at this example in the article, the danger was not a bike crashing it was a car hitting the bike. The driver of the car might not be happy with a scratch to their car but the cyclist is in critical condition.
Road safety will not be improved in any significant way by concentrating on cyclists, doing so would be a waste of limited resources.
i always check that cyclists are not coming down the side of me when i turn left unfortunately i have had plenty of cyclists who have been turning right and they have given no signals at all and i have had to break so as not to hit them.. I am not saying that a bike is the same as a car but if they are going to be on the roads they have to have some training so as to keep everyone safe and insurance for when they are at fault. Children have no road sense they have to learn it. I think that if someone wants to ride a bike on the road, adult or child, they have to take some form of test so that they can be safe. I have been driving for over 25 years and fortunately i have never had an accident but when you see large groups of cyclists riding three or four abreast and no helmet then obviously they are not driving safely
[quote][p][bold]JayEss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]padihamgirl[/bold] wrote: before i was allowed to drive my car on my own i had to take my driving test unfortunately anyone can go into a cycle shop and ride onto the roads the same day. No helmet no insurance and no test to prove they are safe. Its all very well to say that drivers have to take care but cyclists do as well. It might be a cheap way for children to get to school but i have had to phone a couple of schools over the years because children are not being careful and they think its funny. Its illegal for children to drive cars so why are they allowed to ride bikes on the roads.[/p][/quote]You seem to be suggesting that a person on a bike is exactly the same as over a tonne of metal powered by an engine. The reason why cars are licenced and controlled is because they are very capable of causing great harm at no danger to the driver. A bike is in no way similar. Just look at this example in the article, the danger was not a bike crashing it was a car hitting the bike. The driver of the car might not be happy with a scratch to their car but the cyclist is in critical condition. Road safety will not be improved in any significant way by concentrating on cyclists, doing so would be a waste of limited resources.[/p][/quote]i always check that cyclists are not coming down the side of me when i turn left unfortunately i have had plenty of cyclists who have been turning right and they have given no signals at all and i have had to break so as not to hit them.. I am not saying that a bike is the same as a car but if they are going to be on the roads they have to have some training so as to keep everyone safe and insurance for when they are at fault. Children have no road sense they have to learn it. I think that if someone wants to ride a bike on the road, adult or child, they have to take some form of test so that they can be safe. I have been driving for over 25 years and fortunately i have never had an accident but when you see large groups of cyclists riding three or four abreast and no helmet then obviously they are not driving safely padihamgirl
  • Score: 5

12:51pm Tue 3 Jun 14

shytalk says...

How much room should you give cyclists when you pass them? Many people will not be able to answer that question so perhaps it is time to re test drivers every 5 yrs. Given the number of car drivers that pass me when i am riding a push pike who seem to think it is millimeters i would like to see it happen.
How much room should you give cyclists when you pass them? Many people will not be able to answer that question so perhaps it is time to re test drivers every 5 yrs. Given the number of car drivers that pass me when i am riding a push pike who seem to think it is millimeters i would like to see it happen. shytalk
  • Score: 15

1:08pm Tue 3 Jun 14

frank says...

someone passing a cyclist should give at least 6 feet-falling off room.
some of the 'better' drivers barely give 6 inches.
all club cyclists and a lot of commuters are insured.
how do you suggest identification which is visible and big enough to read is attached to a bike?
i'm a cyclist and i totally agree with not allowing cyclists on pavements.
pity the holier than though motorists don't listen to themselves for a change and leave the pavement free for pedestrians, quite why they think it's acceptable to block a pavement and force pedestrians in to the road i can never understand.
double yellow lines aren't for decoration and don't mean park on the pavement.
lets hope this poor bloke recovers.
someone passing a cyclist should give at least 6 feet-falling off room. some of the 'better' drivers barely give 6 inches. all club cyclists and a lot of commuters are insured. how do you suggest identification which is visible and big enough to read is attached to a bike? i'm a cyclist and i totally agree with not allowing cyclists on pavements. pity the holier than though motorists don't listen to themselves for a change and leave the pavement free for pedestrians, quite why they think it's acceptable to block a pavement and force pedestrians in to the road i can never understand. double yellow lines aren't for decoration and don't mean park on the pavement. lets hope this poor bloke recovers. frank
  • Score: 21

1:25pm Tue 3 Jun 14

A Darener says...

"pity the holier than though motorists don't listen to themselves for a change and leave the pavement free for pedestrians,"
On the other hand pedestrians should leave the roads free for the motorist ( and cyclists) by using a recognised crossing and not just wandering out in the road without looking.
"pity the holier than though motorists don't listen to themselves for a change and leave the pavement free for pedestrians," On the other hand pedestrians should leave the roads free for the motorist ( and cyclists) by using a recognised crossing and not just wandering out in the road without looking. A Darener
  • Score: 10

2:17pm Tue 3 Jun 14

yyy's1 says...

In answer to Jay Ess both the British cycling group and CTC are voluntary organisations. If the cyclist who knocks someone down or is the cause of an accident we are in luck, if not the innocent suffer again.
I don't know how many members British cycling have but the CTC claim to have 70,000.
That seems a lot but when I read another article which suggested over three million people cycle at least three times a week you get some sense of how many people are not insured .
As for the childish argument of people walking being insured, it must be obvious to anyone, even those with the brain the size of a pea, that a lot more damage will be caused by someone riding a bicycle at twenty miles an hour compared with someone walking at about two and a half miles an hour.
In answer to Jay Ess both the British cycling group and CTC are voluntary organisations. If the cyclist who knocks someone down or is the cause of an accident we are in luck, if not the innocent suffer again. I don't know how many members British cycling have but the CTC claim to have 70,000. That seems a lot but when I read another article which suggested over three million people cycle at least three times a week you get some sense of how many people are not insured . As for the childish argument of people walking being insured, it must be obvious to anyone, even those with the brain the size of a pea, that a lot more damage will be caused by someone riding a bicycle at twenty miles an hour compared with someone walking at about two and a half miles an hour. yyy's1
  • Score: -4

4:52pm Tue 3 Jun 14

yyy's1 says...

MY LAST COMMENT SHOULD HAVE READ; If the cyclist who knocks someone down or is the cause of an accident is a member of the British cycling group or the CTC we are in luck, if not the innocent suffer again.
Apologies.
MY LAST COMMENT SHOULD HAVE READ; If the cyclist who knocks someone down or is the cause of an accident is a member of the British cycling group or the CTC we are in luck, if not the innocent suffer again. Apologies. yyy's1
  • Score: -3

5:20pm Tue 3 Jun 14

JayEss says...

yyy's1 wrote:
In answer to Jay Ess both the British cycling group and CTC are voluntary organisations. If the cyclist who knocks someone down or is the cause of an accident we are in luck, if not the innocent suffer again.
I don't know how many members British cycling have but the CTC claim to have 70,000.
That seems a lot but when I read another article which suggested over three million people cycle at least three times a week you get some sense of how many people are not insured .
As for the childish argument of people walking being insured, it must be obvious to anyone, even those with the brain the size of a pea, that a lot more damage will be caused by someone riding a bicycle at twenty miles an hour compared with someone walking at about two and a half miles an hour.
Well as people on bikes do not cause huge accidents or collisions your concerns are unfounded and your point moot.
Any resources spent trying to improve cyclists behaviour will be resources which have not improved road safety at all.
Bad behaviour by people on bikes might well be annoying but it really isn't causing any danger in the general scheme of things.
[quote][p][bold]yyy's1[/bold] wrote: In answer to Jay Ess both the British cycling group and CTC are voluntary organisations. If the cyclist who knocks someone down or is the cause of an accident we are in luck, if not the innocent suffer again. I don't know how many members British cycling have but the CTC claim to have 70,000. That seems a lot but when I read another article which suggested over three million people cycle at least three times a week you get some sense of how many people are not insured . As for the childish argument of people walking being insured, it must be obvious to anyone, even those with the brain the size of a pea, that a lot more damage will be caused by someone riding a bicycle at twenty miles an hour compared with someone walking at about two and a half miles an hour.[/p][/quote]Well as people on bikes do not cause huge accidents or collisions your concerns are unfounded and your point moot. Any resources spent trying to improve cyclists behaviour will be resources which have not improved road safety at all. Bad behaviour by people on bikes might well be annoying but it really isn't causing any danger in the general scheme of things. JayEss
  • Score: 5

5:24pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Benpupdog says...

Cyclists should pay road tax and insurance like all the other legal road users.
Cyclists should pay road tax and insurance like all the other legal road users. Benpupdog
  • Score: -5

5:43pm Tue 3 Jun 14

onsidecobra says...

Would you believe I was hit by a cyclist on Blackpool prom last year and before riding off he gave me a mouthful of abuse and told me to be more aware. I am now VERY aware.
Would you believe I was hit by a cyclist on Blackpool prom last year and before riding off he gave me a mouthful of abuse and told me to be more aware. I am now VERY aware. onsidecobra
  • Score: 7

7:25pm Tue 3 Jun 14

JayEss says...

Benpupdog wrote:
Cyclists should pay road tax and insurance like all the other legal road users.
Why?
People on bikes do not damage the road surface.
They do not cause pollution.
They do not cause harm or danger of any value.
They do not use up valuable space.
They don't kill people.
They aren't noisy.
They keep people fit so reduce the burden on the NHS.

People pay zero for a tax disc if they drive a small car, why would a bike cost more than that?
Why would you need insurance when the risk of harm is so low?
[quote][p][bold]Benpupdog[/bold] wrote: Cyclists should pay road tax and insurance like all the other legal road users.[/p][/quote]Why? People on bikes do not damage the road surface. They do not cause pollution. They do not cause harm or danger of any value. They do not use up valuable space. They don't kill people. They aren't noisy. They keep people fit so reduce the burden on the NHS. People pay zero for a tax disc if they drive a small car, why would a bike cost more than that? Why would you need insurance when the risk of harm is so low? JayEss
  • Score: 5

8:47pm Tue 3 Jun 14

child44 says...

A Darener wrote:
"pity the holier than though motorists don't listen to themselves for a change and leave the pavement free for pedestrians,"
On the other hand pedestrians should leave the roads free for the motorist ( and cyclists) by using a recognised crossing and not just wandering out in the road without looking.
Country lanes where there are neither pavements not crossings...? Idiot.
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: "pity the holier than though motorists don't listen to themselves for a change and leave the pavement free for pedestrians," On the other hand pedestrians should leave the roads free for the motorist ( and cyclists) by using a recognised crossing and not just wandering out in the road without looking.[/p][/quote]Country lanes where there are neither pavements not crossings...? Idiot. child44
  • Score: -4

8:58pm Tue 3 Jun 14

child44 says...

yyy's1 wrote:
In answer to Jay Ess both the British cycling group and CTC are voluntary organisations. If the cyclist who knocks someone down or is the cause of an accident we are in luck, if not the innocent suffer again.
I don't know how many members British cycling have but the CTC claim to have 70,000.
That seems a lot but when I read another article which suggested over three million people cycle at least three times a week you get some sense of how many people are not insured .
As for the childish argument of people walking being insured, it must be obvious to anyone, even those with the brain the size of a pea, that a lot more damage will be caused by someone riding a bicycle at twenty miles an hour compared with someone walking at about two and a half miles an hour.
Your first comment is ignorant and ill-informed and undermines your later comments. But I agree that cyclists should have 3rd party insurance when riding on the roads.
The point about pedestrians being insured is the carnage they can cause by walking/running out into the road without looking and causing accidents.
It's illegal for cyclists to ride on pavements.
It's totally impractical for a cyclist to have "some sort of identification on their bicycles". Are you seriously suggesting a numberplate?
[quote][p][bold]yyy's1[/bold] wrote: In answer to Jay Ess both the British cycling group and CTC are voluntary organisations. If the cyclist who knocks someone down or is the cause of an accident we are in luck, if not the innocent suffer again. I don't know how many members British cycling have but the CTC claim to have 70,000. That seems a lot but when I read another article which suggested over three million people cycle at least three times a week you get some sense of how many people are not insured . As for the childish argument of people walking being insured, it must be obvious to anyone, even those with the brain the size of a pea, that a lot more damage will be caused by someone riding a bicycle at twenty miles an hour compared with someone walking at about two and a half miles an hour.[/p][/quote]Your first comment is ignorant and ill-informed and undermines your later comments. But I agree that cyclists should have 3rd party insurance when riding on the roads. The point about pedestrians being insured is the carnage they can cause by walking/running out into the road without looking and causing accidents. It's illegal for cyclists to ride on pavements. It's totally impractical for a cyclist to have "some sort of identification on their bicycles". Are you seriously suggesting a numberplate? child44
  • Score: 7

9:02pm Tue 3 Jun 14

child44 says...

Benpupdog wrote:
Cyclists should pay road tax and insurance like all the other legal road users.
There is no such thing as 'road tax'. Funding for the roads comes out of general taxation. And in any case, there are plenty of vehicles which are exempt form VED (Vehicle Excise Duty, which is probably what you meant by 'road tax') because of their low emissions.
I agree that cyclist should have insurance though.
[quote][p][bold]Benpupdog[/bold] wrote: Cyclists should pay road tax and insurance like all the other legal road users.[/p][/quote]There is no such thing as 'road tax'. Funding for the roads comes out of general taxation. And in any case, there are plenty of vehicles which are exempt form VED (Vehicle Excise Duty, which is probably what you meant by 'road tax') because of their low emissions. I agree that cyclist should have insurance though. child44
  • Score: 5

9:04pm Tue 3 Jun 14

child44 says...

I'd like to see all cyclists banned from roads in the UK for one month. Lets see just how safe the roads are with no cyclists on them and just how much carnage motorists actually cause when they've nobody else to blame.
I'd like to see all cyclists banned from roads in the UK for one month. Lets see just how safe the roads are with no cyclists on them and just how much carnage motorists actually cause when they've nobody else to blame. child44
  • Score: 5

8:13am Wed 4 Jun 14

A Darener says...

child44 wrote:
A Darener wrote:
"pity the holier than though motorists don't listen to themselves for a change and leave the pavement free for pedestrians,"
On the other hand pedestrians should leave the roads free for the motorist ( and cyclists) by using a recognised crossing and not just wandering out in the road without looking.
Country lanes where there are neither pavements not crossings...? Idiot.
Not many pedestrians hit on country roads, they are usually more aware of their surroundings and take more care. It is the idiots in towns that think they own the right to just walk out in front of traffic. Especially in front of cyclists because they cannot hear them coming. Especially with their headphones or mobiles going full blast.
[quote][p][bold]child44[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: "pity the holier than though motorists don't listen to themselves for a change and leave the pavement free for pedestrians," On the other hand pedestrians should leave the roads free for the motorist ( and cyclists) by using a recognised crossing and not just wandering out in the road without looking.[/p][/quote]Country lanes where there are neither pavements not crossings...? Idiot.[/p][/quote]Not many pedestrians hit on country roads, they are usually more aware of their surroundings and take more care. It is the idiots in towns that think they own the right to just walk out in front of traffic. Especially in front of cyclists because they cannot hear them coming. Especially with their headphones or mobiles going full blast. A Darener
  • Score: 7

2:09pm Thu 5 Jun 14

velocityowl says...

There are good and bad drivers and cyclists. Why the need to harangue either? Both need to be aware of what is going on around them. A number of drivers frequently don't bother to indicate when necessary, they frequently open doors in front of other traffic, both cars and cyclist. Cyclists can often be found riding in pairs and again don't indicate. We all need to improve on our road safety skills. One death is one too many.
There are good and bad drivers and cyclists. Why the need to harangue either? Both need to be aware of what is going on around them. A number of drivers frequently don't bother to indicate when necessary, they frequently open doors in front of other traffic, both cars and cyclist. Cyclists can often be found riding in pairs and again don't indicate. We all need to improve on our road safety skills. One death is one too many. velocityowl
  • Score: 0

11:26am Fri 6 Jun 14

Dangle84 says...

the cyclist not wearing a helmet, which in my opinion should be made a legal requirement , the ambulance took over 35 mins to get to the scene...I can only presume this is due to cut backs.
Something needs to be done about cut backs in emergency service,.
Condolences to the family .
the cyclist not wearing a helmet, which in my opinion should be made a legal requirement , the ambulance took over 35 mins to get to the scene...I can only presume this is due to cut backs. Something needs to be done about cut backs in emergency service,. Condolences to the family . Dangle84
  • Score: 3

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