Elderly Cyclist Killed Crossing M32 Slip Road

[Bristolian]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/cyclist-80s-dies-after-m32-10820407

An 80 year old cyclist was killed in a collision with a car driver yesterday (17 Feb 2026) morning whilst crossing the on slip ramp (Jct 1 / A4174 & M32). Details are scarce at this point in time but my thoughts are with the deceased's family and friends. The road was closed for most of the day and Police are asking for dash cam footage and eye witness statements.

The crossing here was slightly redesigned recently as part of the construction of a new, segregated cycle & footway and is far from ideal. There have been a number of complaints about the layout and the green painted surface on the cycle path - it's flippin' slippery when wet. Additionally, drivers heading up onto the motorway from the A4174 have their view of the crossing partially blocked by temporary road signs. From an elderly cyclists point of view, the cycle way actually runs parallel to the slip road approach for about 10m meaning you have to be able to look around 180 degrees (not always easy for the elderly) on the approach to the lights to see if there's any traffic coming.

 

[wiggydiggy]

I HATE crossing sliproads and will actively avoid them anytime I can. I was looking at the junction and it does at least have a light controlled crossing, is that still there after the re-design?

Also its the sliproad onto the motorway, I find people are more concerned with putting their foot down onto the motorway than considering someone that might be trying to cross it.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/GkMXYQGHjU45iCPy8

 

[Drago]

I dislike this PC reporting.

The collision was done unto him, and he was the victim. He himself was not in collision with anything.

 

[mjr]

I dislike this PC reporting.

The collision was done unto him, and he was the victim. He himself was not in collision with anything.

This reporting isn't politically correct, or any sort of correct. They should follow the road collision reporting guidelines. https://RC-rg.com

I wonder if this will trigger any sort of improvements in slip road crossings and how long it will take. I cross two on my most -used route, but both are bidirectional beg button crossings adjacent to the roundabout. There are "uncontrolled" (aka rush and pray) crossings at other junctions but I rarely ride them and primary cycle routes have been diverted to avoid them.

 

[Gwylan]

I dislike this PC reporting.

The collision was done unto him, and he was the victim. He himself was not in collision with anything.

Agree it wasn't a collision.
He was hit by a heavier, faster moving object.
How old was the driver of the vehicle that was involved?

 

[matticus]

Agree it wasn't a collision.
He was hit by a heavier, faster moving object.
How old was the driver of the vehicle that was involved?

If you read mjr's link (or go straight to this: https://www.rc-rg.com/_files/ugd/c05c10_52e505e930eb4836900c640a447c7ee0.pdf ) it's jammed full of "collision".

It's a perfectly good word for many/most situations.

 

[matticus]

Here's another rc-rg suggested wording:

Police are appealing for witnesses after a Seat
Ibiza being driven by a teenage boy, collided
with a tree.

Presumably the tree was stationary.

 

[Boopop]

Hope someone installs a ghost bike there, with loved ones' permission. RIP.

 

[Drago]

If you read mjr's link (or go straight to this: https://www.rc-rg.com/_files/ugd/c05c10_52e505e930eb4836900c640a447c7ee0.pdf ) it's jammed full of "collision".

It's a perfectly good word for many/most situations.

I've no issue with the word collision.

My issue is with the phrase "was in collision with".

He wasnt in collision with anything. Something else collided with him. It was done unto him.

 

[matticus]

My issue is with the phrase "was in collision with".

A collision involves two or more things. the CO prefix is a very standard thing in English (dunno where it's from originally, sorry!). It does not mean that one of the things is DOING any more than the others - although of course that may be the case.
Cohere
Cooperate
coalesce
coauthor

Take 5 slightly different phrases:
- They were in a collision
- They collided
- A collided with B
- B was in a collision with A
- B collided with A
ALL MEAN THE SAME THING. If you wanted to mean something else - like the car/tree example above - you would use a different word: "The teenager drove into the stationary tree."

The WITH is pretty important too:"A danced with B" "B danced with A" both mean the same. "A forced B to dance" would mean something different.

Finally, here's the pure definition. If you have a citation that shows another meaning, hit me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision
a collision is any event in which two or more bodies exert forces on each other in a relatively short time.

 

[Drago]

With respect Mr M, that's pedantry.

We all know exacftly what I mean. The old boy didn't die because he himself walked, ran or sprinted into something.

No, it because a motor vehicle smacked into the poor feller, and the neutral wording in the story suggest he was an equal and willing participant in the coming together of two physical masses.

 

[Seevio]

This crossing was on my commute at the time I joined CC. Although there was (and probably still is) a light controlled crossing on the slip road, many cyclists didn't bother pushing the button as it was often quicker to wait for a gap in the traffic. When the lights did change, I can't recall ever seeing a vehicle shooting the red.

I haven't seen any reports of the details of the collision so I can't blame either party at this stage. It's tragic either way.

 

[Bristolian]

I HATE crossing sliproads and will actively avoid them anytime I can. I was looking at the junction and it does at least have a light controlled crossing, is that still there after the re-design?

Also its the sliproad onto the motorway, I find people are more concerned with putting their foot down onto the motorway than considering someone that might be trying to cross it.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/GkMXYQGHjU45iCPy8

Yes, the light controlled crossing is still there. In fact the image you linked to was taken during the recent works and even the temporary NSL signs are still there (unless they've been removed since Monday's incident). The crossing itself is exactly as you see it in Google street view but the bike lane approach has changed in that it more closely follows the sweep of the road rather than coming at it at an angle. The change isn't much, but it makes observation of vehicles coming from behind you rather difficult unless you have the neck rotational capabilities of an owl.

 

[Bristolian]

With respect Mr M, that's pedantry.

We all know exacftly what I mean. The old boy didn't die because he himself walked, ran or sprinted into something.

No, it because a motor vehicle smacked into the poor feller, and the neutral wording in the story suggest he was an equal and willing participant in the coming together of two physical masses.

I can see both your and @matticus' views on this.

The neutral wording of the press article is most likely because the police didn't have all the facts and couldn't therefore apportion blame at the time they briefed the reporter. Sadly, hardly anything else has been reported locally about this tragic event, except for an outpouring of sympathy for the cyclist's family and friends (and the usual victim blaming by keyboard warriors) on social media.

 

[wiggydiggy]

Yes, the light controlled crossing is still there. In fact the image you linked to was taken during the recent works and even the temporary NSL signs are still there (unless they've been removed since Monday's incident). The crossing itself is exactly as you see it in Google street view but the bike lane approach has changed in that it more closely follows the sweep of the road rather than coming at it at an angle. The change isn't much, but it makes observation of vehicles coming from behind you rather difficult unless you have the neck rotational capabilities of an owl.

It'd be interesting to know if the deceased used the lights, or if the person driving went through a red. Not blaming the person for not using them of course if they didn't, it's not obligatory. Though if the driver was green, and they cycled out in front of them, was the driver going too fast to react?

A sad situation all around.

This is a similar on ramp I cycle across infrequently.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/KWCvLkzT837eZHvCA

They actually closed the footpath on the other side as a safety measure a few years back, but its a dangerous road to try and cross. It's the main junction a lot of local people wanting to use the M6 will join at so is busy most of the time. 40mph limit and no light controls. I only cycle over it at weekends, and early at that, so it's quieter.

This one I don't think I've ever cycled over, 50mph approach limit. Double lanes, three lanes on the opposite side and uphill there as well so no real ability to try and get some speed up. That sign BTW 33 casualties in 5 years has been there at least 10 years so god knows what the rate is now.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/6peWhLpYYXdJeksy6

Sorry bit of a moan there, still RIP for the fella that died.