Man in 'critical condition' after collision in South Ham, Basingstoke (From Basingstoke Gazette)
When news happens, text BAZ and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Man in 'critical condition' after collision in South Ham, Basingstoke
5:49pm Tuesday 16th October 2012 in Local By Chris Gregory
A PEDESTRIAN is fighting for his life after a serious collision near a Basingstoke roundabout.
The incident occurred in Winchester Road, near the Brighton Hill roundabout, at around 7.40pm on Sunday, October 14.
A Chrysler Grand Voyager was in collision with a 40-year-old man from Basingstoke as he walked on Winchester Road.
He suffered a significant head injury which was not initially thought to be life-threatening.
However, his condition worsened on Sunday night and was transferred from Basingstoke hospital to Southampton General Hospital, where he remains in a critical condition.
The car driver, a 36-year-old woman from Basingstoke, was not injured. No arrests have been made.
Sergeant Nigel Burt, from the Whitchurch Roads Policing Unit, said: “Our investigation is focused on piecing together the exact circumstances leading up to this collision.
“I would like to hear from anyone who saw either the vehicle or the pedestrian leading up to it. In particular, I’d like to hear from anyone who was using either the nearby pub or fuel garage around that time on Sunday evening and who may be able to assist with our enquiries.”
Anyone with information can contact Whitchurch Roads Policing Unit, quoting Operation Welham, on 101 or Crimestoppers on 101.
Comments(17)
Best_Name_Ever
says...
7:31am Wed 17 Oct 12
robertspet8
says...
2:01pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Best_Name_Ever wrote:Andy has not expressed himself very well and has confused you. What he meant to say is that The Gazette is applyng double standards by not mentioning helmets when a pedestrian is involved in an accident when it would have if the accident involved a cyclist. Even in translation it is still a very poor comment don't you think?
I understand this victim to be a pedestrian, not a cyclist. Probably why nothing was mentioned about the victim wearing a helmet. I doubt very much that the Basingstoke Gazette has a great conspiracy against the cyclists of Basingstoke.
From what I can gather from the article, the pedestrian was walking on the road, not the pavement, in the dark near to Homebase. Strange as there is a perfectly good pavement along that road.
Ding
says...
4:41pm Wed 17 Oct 12
robertspet8 wrote:I still see no logic to the post. Pedestrians aren't expected to wear helmets, cyclists are.
Best_Name_Ever wrote:Andy has not expressed himself very well and has confused you. What he meant to say is that The Gazette is applyng double standards by not mentioning helmets when a pedestrian is involved in an accident when it would have if the accident involved a cyclist. Even in translation it is still a very poor comment don't you think?
I understand this victim to be a pedestrian, not a cyclist. Probably why nothing was mentioned about the victim wearing a helmet. I doubt very much that the Basingstoke Gazette has a great conspiracy against the cyclists of Basingstoke.
From what I can gather from the article, the pedestrian was walking on the road, not the pavement, in the dark near to Homebase. Strange as there is a perfectly good pavement along that road.
Also, i'm not so sure he was walking 'in the road'.
LesFrèresCrucy
says...
10:19pm Wed 17 Oct 12
Ding
says...
7:11am Thu 18 Oct 12
Buster Preciation
says...
10:53am Thu 18 Oct 12
Ding wrote:You need to speak to Mrs Baker from Oakley.
I expect a cyclist to wear a helmet, the same as i expect a runner to wear trainers. It's not the law but it's an expectation.
Ding
says...
10:57am Thu 18 Oct 12
Buster Preciation wrote:Very good point!
Ding wrote:You need to speak to Mrs Baker from Oakley.
I expect a cyclist to wear a helmet, the same as i expect a runner to wear trainers. It's not the law but it's an expectation.
RgPostcode
says...
5:00am Fri 19 Oct 12
robertspet8 wrote:You have no knowledge of Basingstoke
Best_Name_Ever wrote:Andy has not expressed himself very well and has confused you. What he meant to say is that The Gazette is applyng double standards by not mentioning helmets when a pedestrian is involved in an accident when it would have if the accident involved a cyclist. Even in translation it is still a very poor comment don't you think?
I understand this victim to be a pedestrian, not a cyclist. Probably why nothing was mentioned about the victim wearing a helmet. I doubt very much that the Basingstoke Gazette has a great conspiracy against the cyclists of Basingstoke.
From what I can gather from the article, the pedestrian was walking on the road, not the pavement, in the dark near to Homebase. Strange as there is a perfectly good pavement along that road.
He would of been by the Camrose.... it's a very large path and that section of Winchester Road is the A30.
*Key Words = SOUTH HAM
not the Berg Estate.
robertspet8
says...
2:48pm Fri 19 Oct 12
robertspet8
says...
3:11pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Also, i'm not so sure he was walking 'in the road.'
You are right, there was no logic to the AndrewRH's comment - I think it was a poor attempt at humour.
I am also unsure that the pedestrian was walking in the road except that the article does state, '...as he walked on Winchester Road.' If the car had mounted the pavement I think there would have been mention and maybe even an arrest of the driver.
robertspet8
says...
3:17pm Fri 19 Oct 12
No, would not 'of' been by the Camrose but he could 'have' been by the Camrose.
privateryan65
says...
3:45pm Fri 19 Oct 12
privateryan65
says...
3:46pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Sam_Walker123456
says...
3:58pm Fri 19 Oct 12
robertspet8 wrote:I think you make your fair share of grammatical howlers Bob but you are right that the headline could be wrong. The reporters hardly ever write their own headlines. The headline writers are often office bound and could even be based in Southampton whereas the reporters are on the ground in Basingstoke. RG is splitting hairs about Berg/South Ham and you are being pedantic about his grammar. Both of you show each other a bit of respect and make some allowances for shortcomings..
RgPostcode says...'He would of been by the Camrose..' No, would not 'of' been by the Camrose but he could 'have' been by the Camrose.
Sam_Walker123456
says...
4:00pm Fri 19 Oct 12
privateryan65 wrote:Dear Pot,
These comment pages really are hilarious. Instead of valid comments you all just pick apart each others views like pathetic children....please carry on I love it!!! hahaha
Thank you I will.
Love from
Kettle
****
ResidentPerson
says...
10:24pm Fri 19 Oct 12
AndrewRH says...
7:55pm Tue 16 Oct 12
Strangely, this paper has not included a comment about people wearing helmets as it often does when the victim is a person on a bicycle.
Double standard?