The husband of a woman who was killed when she was thrown from her bicycle just moments after taking a selfie has suggested that the government should introduce a mandatory helmet law.
The London Evening Standard reports how on August 19, New Zealand born Carmen Greenway was cycling home from The Crown in St Margaret’s with her mother Sherry Bennett and two friends when her bike hit a “rough” patch in the road.
Her husband, Rufus, said: “She’d been taking selfies and had one hand on the bars. It was bumpy and she just jack-knifed the bars, threw herself off the bike and fractured her skull. It wasn’t the cycling that killed her, it was a tragic mistake. She was close to home, relaxed and having a lovely time.”
Bennett said she had been riding right behind her daughter and described the incident as “just one of those unbelievable accidents.”
She was rushed to intensive care at St Mary’s Hospital in Paddington where she died six days later after going into cardiac arrest. Her funeral was held last month.
“It is worrying to hear that she had been taking selfies,” said Rufus. “We all think ‘it will never happen to me’, but the reality is that an accident can happen to anyone at any time – regardless of how experienced a cyclist you may be.”
Pointing to mandatory helmet laws in New Zealand, he added: “With London becoming a cycling city there are only going to be more cyclists, therefore perhaps the government should make a stronger case for saying if you want to get on a bike you need a proficiency test and you need to wear a helmet.”
Carmen Greenway took up cycling competitively 18 months ago and both Rufus and their eldest son Finlay, 13, are members of the Twickenham Cycling Club. Rufus was on the group ride during which Ralph Brazier was thrown from his bike and killed after hitting a pothole in March.
A spokesman for Headway, the brain injury charity which campaigns for mandatory helmet laws, said:
“The evidence is clear that helmets protect the brain and save lives. We are calling for a change in the law for children to wear helmets and we would like to see more done to encourage everyone to wear helmets.
“The evidence from Australian and New Zealand is that the number of head and brain injuries from cycling has reduced while cycling has never been more popular.”
This is however disputed. While contributing to a 2015 senate inquiry into the country’s mandatory helmet laws, research journalist Chris Gillham said that data published over the past 25 years had consistently shown a substantial and permanent decline in the proportion of Australians cycling.
Add new comment
44 comments
had she been drinking in the pub? was she drunk in charge of a vehicle?
there is already a law that covers drunk in charge - and unlike speeding, it includes bikes.
A sad incident that could almost certainly have been avoided by not drinking and riding.
Condolences to the husband.
Idiots, doing idiot things, because they're idiots. Move along.
My late mother-in-law tripped over the wheel of a wheel chair and banged the back of her head. She died from a massive haematoma as a consequence of the fall.
More 'Proof' that pedestrians should wear helmets.
When NZ made helmets compulsory the number of riders went down from 250,000 to 150,00, but the injury rate nearly doubled. Look at this graph.
https://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/ (link is external)
When helmets were mandated in Australia wearing rates went up from about a third to nearly 100%. The head injury rate went up slightly.
You can find all the evidence in cyclehelmets.org.
New Zealand and Australia are the two countries where helmet laws were first introduced and are a very good choice to show that these laws do not work.
Helmet user here, but support people's choice of whether or not to wear one. Very sympathetic to the husband's feelings, but cycling back from the pub, taking selfies on a poor road surface? Maybe the anger/grief is misdirected here...
This +1
Sad news for the family. Serves her right just maybe?
SStill can't see why helmets should be compulsory any more than seat belts . Your choice.
Wow you're all heart aren't you...
Seatbelts are righly compulsory because they can lead to other people being killed.
OK, I'm intrigued. Please give me an example of someone, outside the car, being killed due to someone inside not wearing a seat-belt.
What about someone who is not the driver inside the car getting killed due to the actions (or inactions) of the driver ? Not sure if that was his intention (it's how I read it) but that fits in with mattsccm comment doesn't it ?
OK, I'm intrigued. Please give me an example of someone, outside the car, being killed due to someone inside not wearing a seat-belt.[/quote]
They may have it back to front.
Four members of the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety (all seat belt proponents) had an article published in the statistical journal Significance about this. It could be called the corollary to the steering wheel spike effect.
They wrote,
“the clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.”
By their figures, when seat belts were made compulsory, cyclist deaths went up by 38, which is 13% and pedestrian deaths by 150, 8%. KSI figures went up similarly.
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/03/24/the-biggest-lie/
Yep, straightforward statistical demonstration of risk-compensation leading to unintended consequences. The difference between seatbelts and helmets, is that the victim of the unintended consequences is most likely to be the user. Risk compensation meets marginal safety gains gets you the graphs most of us have seen in the New Zealand and Australia data.
Its sad that he has to bear a loss, but it doesnt provide any evidence that a helmet helps.
australia and new Zeland are not the best cycling country examples...they are simply ones he is familiar with and who support his wish to exert control where the truth is people have accidents and die sometimes.
Pages