UPDATE: Pedestrian killed in Poole hit and run crash named as Chris Colegate

Bournemouth Echo: Pedestrian killed in hit-and-run named as Chris Colegate Pedestrian killed in hit-and-run named as Chris Colegate

A PENSIONER has died after a hit-and-run crash in Poole.

He has been named locally as Chris Colegate.

On Monday, his grieving family urged the driver of the car to come forward.

The 69-year-old was knocked down at the junction of Darby’s Lane and Heath Avenue before being taken by ambulance to Poole Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Police cordoned off the junction after the crash happened at around 7.15pm on Friday and are trying to find out which vehicle was involved and who the driver was.

The pensioner has not been formally identified. But friends and neighbours paid tribute, saying he had served in the Royal Navy before becoming a welder.

Friends at the Oakdale Conser-vative club on Darby’s Lane said he left behind a wife and two daughters.

They said he walked with two sticks after a serious motorbike accident and was a regular at the club.

Douglas Cave, 75, who has known the victim since he was a teenager, said: “We are all very upset as he was very well-known around here.

“He was probably on his way to the club because he would always come at around that time on a Friday.

“I saw a lump in the road and the whole area was cordoned off on Friday, but I didn’t know it was him at first. “It is so sad because I’ve known him since he was a teenager and he was incapacitated because of a serious motorbike accident.”

One friend who wished to remain anonymous said: “He was an absolutely lovely man and always smiled and waved whenever I saw him. He was a regular at the Conservative club, everyone knew him.”

Gwen Albert, 84, who lives on Darby’s Lane, said: “It sounds like a really horrible and tragic accident. The junction is particularly difficult because often people don’t look both ways and there are cars blocking the view.

“I’ve seen two accidents whilst I’ve lived here. I’m so sad to hear the news.”

Chief Inspector Tracey Baker, of Dorset Police “urged” the driver of the vehicle involved to come forward.

"We are also urgently trying to locate any witnesses to the collision,” she said.

“Officers are investigating how the man came to be injured.

“Anyone who saw an elderly man walking in the area or anyone with information should contact Dorset Police on 101.”

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:46pm Fri 13 Dec 13

BIGTONE says...

Yet another runner.
I am beginning to wonder if all these people who do not stop don't have insurance due to the exorbitant cost of policies now and they are taking a chance.
Yet another runner. I am beginning to wonder if all these people who do not stop don't have insurance due to the exorbitant cost of policies now and they are taking a chance. BIGTONE

8:59am Sat 14 Dec 13

blakieboy7 says...

It could also be stolen with the driver not holding a license or insurance? Who knows. Either way, whoever it is is a totally heartless, uncaring low life and that is a fact
It could also be stolen with the driver not holding a license or insurance? Who knows. Either way, whoever it is is a totally heartless, uncaring low life and that is a fact blakieboy7

10:08am Sat 14 Dec 13

shaft says...

With the amount of cameras in the area this person will be caught then maybe traced back to earlier movements. Could this be a result of another Friday evening drink driver who deserves to be ban lose their job and receive 6 months. Hand your self in before. KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK.
With the amount of cameras in the area this person will be caught then maybe traced back to earlier movements. Could this be a result of another Friday evening drink driver who deserves to be ban lose their job and receive 6 months. Hand your self in before. KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK. shaft

12:55pm Sat 14 Dec 13

retry69 says...

My sincere thoughts are with the family and friends of the gentleman. RIP
My sincere thoughts are with the family and friends of the gentleman. RIP retry69

1:41pm Sat 14 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

So sad.

I think we can safely presume the driver was behind the wheel illegally and for probably more than one reason. Any amount of roadside cameras will not traceably detect these most dangerous sort of drivers, they are effectively off the high-tech radar - time for a rethink?
So sad. I think we can safely presume the driver was behind the wheel illegally and for probably more than one reason. Any amount of roadside cameras will not traceably detect these most dangerous sort of drivers, they are effectively off the high-tech radar - time for a rethink? muscliffman

2:48pm Sat 14 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

muscliffman wrote:
So sad.

I think we can safely presume the driver was behind the wheel illegally and for probably more than one reason. Any amount of roadside cameras will not traceably detect these most dangerous sort of drivers, they are effectively off the high-tech radar - time for a rethink?
From the negative thumbs my comment has attracted (at time of this second post) I can only presume four people wish to defend the completely illegal 'hit and run' drivers who cause this sort of incident - and prefer not to consider options that might improve the ways they can be caught before causing this type of 'accident'.

Quite extraordinary!!
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: So sad. I think we can safely presume the driver was behind the wheel illegally and for probably more than one reason. Any amount of roadside cameras will not traceably detect these most dangerous sort of drivers, they are effectively off the high-tech radar - time for a rethink?[/p][/quote]From the negative thumbs my comment has attracted (at time of this second post) I can only presume four people wish to defend the completely illegal 'hit and run' drivers who cause this sort of incident - and prefer not to consider options that might improve the ways they can be caught before causing this type of 'accident'. Quite extraordinary!! muscliffman

5:14pm Sat 14 Dec 13

pinkladyjay says...

Rip my friend.... a wonderful man. X
Rip my friend.... a wonderful man. X pinkladyjay

7:33pm Sat 14 Dec 13

fireflier says...

Come on ... all the insurance companies who have a single-sided claim from Poole area for front-end car repair ...or any body shop that gets a car in which they think could have hit a pedestrian. Time you picked the phone up and asked Traffic police to 'Come have a look at this one, please!'

Likewise if anyone sees a car with front or wing impact marks, or neighbours car that has just shown up damaged, take the registration and phone it in for investigation.

The driver who can smash into someone then drive off without any thought doesn't deserve to be shielded by anyone. OWN UP and FACE UP!
Come on ... all the insurance companies who have a single-sided claim from Poole area for front-end car repair ...or any body shop that gets a car in which they think could have hit a pedestrian. Time you picked the phone up and asked Traffic police to 'Come have a look at this one, please!' Likewise if anyone sees a car with front or wing impact marks, or neighbours car that has just shown up damaged, take the registration and phone it in for investigation. The driver who can smash into someone then drive off without any thought doesn't deserve to be shielded by anyone. OWN UP and FACE UP! fireflier

8:32pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Huey says...

Some really good comments on this story. All I can add is FIND THE DRIVER ASAP please...
Some really good comments on this story. All I can add is FIND THE DRIVER ASAP please... Huey

9:33am Sun 15 Dec 13

BIGTONE says...

Now the driver is in deep mire.
See how an act of selfish actions can dramatically escalate.
You better come forward now or it will get much,much worse.

RIP OAP.
Now the driver is in deep mire. See how an act of selfish actions can dramatically escalate. You better come forward now or it will get much,much worse. RIP OAP. BIGTONE

9:36am Sun 15 Dec 13

winton50 says...

muscliffman wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
So sad.

I think we can safely presume the driver was behind the wheel illegally and for probably more than one reason. Any amount of roadside cameras will not traceably detect these most dangerous sort of drivers, they are effectively off the high-tech radar - time for a rethink?
From the negative thumbs my comment has attracted (at time of this second post) I can only presume four people wish to defend the completely illegal 'hit and run' drivers who cause this sort of incident - and prefer not to consider options that might improve the ways they can be caught before causing this type of 'accident'.

Quite extraordinary!!
No - the reason you have attracted negative comments is because:

You make assumptions based on no facts whatsoever. You have nothing to suggest the driver is illegal at all. So we can't safely assume anything.

You are incorrect in your assertion that roadside cameras don't detect illegal drivers. Roadside cameras do detect uninsured and un MOT'd cars and as EVIDENCE shows someone in an uninsured car is much more likely to be a driver who doesn't have a licence

You then manage to shoehorn your hobby horse of removing speed cameras into a story about the death of a pensioner where there is no suggestion that a roadside camera or excessive speed were involved.

I think when we are investigating road traffic incidents we are better off leaving it to the police who generally go on evidence and fact rather than 'safe assumptions'
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: So sad. I think we can safely presume the driver was behind the wheel illegally and for probably more than one reason. Any amount of roadside cameras will not traceably detect these most dangerous sort of drivers, they are effectively off the high-tech radar - time for a rethink?[/p][/quote]From the negative thumbs my comment has attracted (at time of this second post) I can only presume four people wish to defend the completely illegal 'hit and run' drivers who cause this sort of incident - and prefer not to consider options that might improve the ways they can be caught before causing this type of 'accident'. Quite extraordinary!![/p][/quote]No - the reason you have attracted negative comments is because: You make assumptions based on no facts whatsoever. You have nothing to suggest the driver is illegal at all. So we can't safely assume anything. You are incorrect in your assertion that roadside cameras don't detect illegal drivers. Roadside cameras do detect uninsured and un MOT'd cars and as EVIDENCE shows someone in an uninsured car is much more likely to be a driver who doesn't have a licence You then manage to shoehorn your hobby horse of removing speed cameras into a story about the death of a pensioner where there is no suggestion that a roadside camera or excessive speed were involved. I think when we are investigating road traffic incidents we are better off leaving it to the police who generally go on evidence and fact rather than 'safe assumptions' winton50

8:50pm Sun 15 Dec 13

TheDistrict says...

winton50 wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
So sad.

I think we can safely presume the driver was behind the wheel illegally and for probably more than one reason. Any amount of roadside cameras will not traceably detect these most dangerous sort of drivers, they are effectively off the high-tech radar - time for a rethink?
From the negative thumbs my comment has attracted (at time of this second post) I can only presume four people wish to defend the completely illegal 'hit and run' drivers who cause this sort of incident - and prefer not to consider options that might improve the ways they can be caught before causing this type of 'accident'.

Quite extraordinary!!
No - the reason you have attracted negative comments is because:

You make assumptions based on no facts whatsoever. You have nothing to suggest the driver is illegal at all. So we can't safely assume anything.

You are incorrect in your assertion that roadside cameras don't detect illegal drivers. Roadside cameras do detect uninsured and un MOT'd cars and as EVIDENCE shows someone in an uninsured car is much more likely to be a driver who doesn't have a licence

You then manage to shoehorn your hobby horse of removing speed cameras into a story about the death of a pensioner where there is no suggestion that a roadside camera or excessive speed were involved.

I think when we are investigating road traffic incidents we are better off leaving it to the police who generally go on evidence and fact rather than 'safe assumptions'
Totally agree
[quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: So sad. I think we can safely presume the driver was behind the wheel illegally and for probably more than one reason. Any amount of roadside cameras will not traceably detect these most dangerous sort of drivers, they are effectively off the high-tech radar - time for a rethink?[/p][/quote]From the negative thumbs my comment has attracted (at time of this second post) I can only presume four people wish to defend the completely illegal 'hit and run' drivers who cause this sort of incident - and prefer not to consider options that might improve the ways they can be caught before causing this type of 'accident'. Quite extraordinary!![/p][/quote]No - the reason you have attracted negative comments is because: You make assumptions based on no facts whatsoever. You have nothing to suggest the driver is illegal at all. So we can't safely assume anything. You are incorrect in your assertion that roadside cameras don't detect illegal drivers. Roadside cameras do detect uninsured and un MOT'd cars and as EVIDENCE shows someone in an uninsured car is much more likely to be a driver who doesn't have a licence You then manage to shoehorn your hobby horse of removing speed cameras into a story about the death of a pensioner where there is no suggestion that a roadside camera or excessive speed were involved. I think when we are investigating road traffic incidents we are better off leaving it to the police who generally go on evidence and fact rather than 'safe assumptions'[/p][/quote]Totally agree TheDistrict

9:42pm Sun 15 Dec 13

Baysider says...

winton50 wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
So sad.

I think we can safely presume the driver was behind the wheel illegally and for probably more than one reason. Any amount of roadside cameras will not traceably detect these most dangerous sort of drivers, they are effectively off the high-tech radar - time for a rethink?
From the negative thumbs my comment has attracted (at time of this second post) I can only presume four people wish to defend the completely illegal 'hit and run' drivers who cause this sort of incident - and prefer not to consider options that might improve the ways they can be caught before causing this type of 'accident'.

Quite extraordinary!!
No - the reason you have attracted negative comments is because:

You make assumptions based on no facts whatsoever. You have nothing to suggest the driver is illegal at all. So we can't safely assume anything.

You are incorrect in your assertion that roadside cameras don't detect illegal drivers. Roadside cameras do detect uninsured and un MOT'd cars and as EVIDENCE shows someone in an uninsured car is much more likely to be a driver who doesn't have a licence

You then manage to shoehorn your hobby horse of removing speed cameras into a story about the death of a pensioner where there is no suggestion that a roadside camera or excessive speed were involved.

I think when we are investigating road traffic incidents we are better off leaving it to the police who generally go on evidence and fact rather than 'safe assumptions'
Well said but sadly I doubt it'll make him think twice before he does it again. Very sad that once again some Echo readers use the death of an person to push their own agenda, even before the facts have properly emerged.
[quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: So sad. I think we can safely presume the driver was behind the wheel illegally and for probably more than one reason. Any amount of roadside cameras will not traceably detect these most dangerous sort of drivers, they are effectively off the high-tech radar - time for a rethink?[/p][/quote]From the negative thumbs my comment has attracted (at time of this second post) I can only presume four people wish to defend the completely illegal 'hit and run' drivers who cause this sort of incident - and prefer not to consider options that might improve the ways they can be caught before causing this type of 'accident'. Quite extraordinary!![/p][/quote]No - the reason you have attracted negative comments is because: You make assumptions based on no facts whatsoever. You have nothing to suggest the driver is illegal at all. So we can't safely assume anything. You are incorrect in your assertion that roadside cameras don't detect illegal drivers. Roadside cameras do detect uninsured and un MOT'd cars and as EVIDENCE shows someone in an uninsured car is much more likely to be a driver who doesn't have a licence You then manage to shoehorn your hobby horse of removing speed cameras into a story about the death of a pensioner where there is no suggestion that a roadside camera or excessive speed were involved. I think when we are investigating road traffic incidents we are better off leaving it to the police who generally go on evidence and fact rather than 'safe assumptions'[/p][/quote]Well said but sadly I doubt it'll make him think twice before he does it again. Very sad that once again some Echo readers use the death of an person to push their own agenda, even before the facts have properly emerged. Baysider

8:37am Mon 16 Dec 13

AlexTLF says...

muscliffman wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
So sad.

I think we can safely presume the driver was behind the wheel illegally and for probably more than one reason. Any amount of roadside cameras will not traceably detect these most dangerous sort of drivers, they are effectively off the high-tech radar - time for a rethink?
From the negative thumbs my comment has attracted (at time of this second post) I can only presume four people wish to defend the completely illegal 'hit and run' drivers who cause this sort of incident - and prefer not to consider options that might improve the ways they can be caught before causing this type of 'accident'.

Quite extraordinary!!
or perhaps it's because you appear to do a lot of 'presuming'
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: So sad. I think we can safely presume the driver was behind the wheel illegally and for probably more than one reason. Any amount of roadside cameras will not traceably detect these most dangerous sort of drivers, they are effectively off the high-tech radar - time for a rethink?[/p][/quote]From the negative thumbs my comment has attracted (at time of this second post) I can only presume four people wish to defend the completely illegal 'hit and run' drivers who cause this sort of incident - and prefer not to consider options that might improve the ways they can be caught before causing this type of 'accident'. Quite extraordinary!![/p][/quote]or perhaps it's because you appear to do a lot of 'presuming' AlexTLF

10:12am Mon 16 Dec 13

Kev Aitch says...

Rest in peace Chris.
A true gent
Rest in peace Chris. A true gent Kev Aitch

7:26pm Mon 16 Dec 13

The Barrel says...

Absolutely horrified to hear of this tragic event. As a daughter of a mother killed by a drunk driver I can have every sympathy with this gentlemans' family at this truly devastating time. Now I know we don't know whether the perpetrator was under the influence of drink or drugs, or the vehicle was defect in some way either mechanically or legally, or just whether the driver purely panicked. But FOR GODS SAKE, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. CAUSED THE END OF AN INNOCENT MANS LIFE AND BROUGHT IRREPAIRABLE HEARTACHE TO HIS FAMILY. YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO CONSCIENCE FOR YOUR ACTIONS AND ARE A "GUTLESS WHIMP". GROW A PAIR AND OWN UP. DO SOMETHING RIGHT FOR ONCE. IF YOU ARE BIG ENOUGH TO DO THE CRIME, YOU ARE BIG ENOUGH TO TAKE THE TIME AND PUNISHMENT. PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE DESPICABLE.
Absolutely horrified to hear of this tragic event. As a daughter of a mother killed by a drunk driver I can have every sympathy with this gentlemans' family at this truly devastating time. Now I know we don't know whether the perpetrator was under the influence of drink or drugs, or the vehicle was defect in some way either mechanically or legally, or just whether the driver purely panicked. But FOR GODS SAKE, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. CAUSED THE END OF AN INNOCENT MANS LIFE AND BROUGHT IRREPAIRABLE HEARTACHE TO HIS FAMILY. YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO CONSCIENCE FOR YOUR ACTIONS AND ARE A "GUTLESS WHIMP". GROW A PAIR AND OWN UP. DO SOMETHING RIGHT FOR ONCE. IF YOU ARE BIG ENOUGH TO DO THE CRIME, YOU ARE BIG ENOUGH TO TAKE THE TIME AND PUNISHMENT. PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE DESPICABLE. The Barrel

11:24pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Nolz333 says...

A genuinely kind soul taken at a time he was always fond of. RIP Chris. The old New Inn girls are thinking of your family at this sad time. God Bless x
A genuinely kind soul taken at a time he was always fond of. RIP Chris. The old New Inn girls are thinking of your family at this sad time. God Bless x Nolz333

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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