A headline and sub-head in WalesOnline implies that a helmet could have prevented the death of an elderly cyclist killed in a collision with a van.
The headline and sub-head read: “Cyclist died of 'catastrophic' head injury after being hit by van outside supermarket. Ronald Triggs, 71, wasn't wearing a helmet or high-visibility clothing when he was involved in the crash in Cardiff.”
Grandfather Ronald Triggs was hit by a black Volkswagen Transporter outside Lidl in Colchester Avenue at about 1.30pm on November 24 last year, an inquest heard.
The 71-year-old retired maintenance engineer wasn’t wearing a cycling helmet or high-visibility clothing when he was struck by the van which had been turning right into Colchester Avenue from the Lidl car park.
An inquest held at Pontypridd Coroners’ Court on Thursday heard Helen Jones arrived at the Lidl car park in her black Transporter shortly before 1.30pm on November 24 to collect her son Daniel Jones who had visited a nearby gym.
Giving evidence Mrs Jones, 46, told the court she had been driving for about 25 years, had not been convicted of any motoring offences in the last five years, and had been driving the Transporter for about a year.
The link between helmet use and actual safety for cyclists is a divisive topic, especially when considering their usefulness in crashes involving vehicles and headlines such as this could be seen to put the blame on the victim.
On their website, Cycling UK state: “There are serious doubts about the effectiveness of helmets.
“They are, and can only be, designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not serious traffic collisions.
“Some evidence suggests they may in fact increase the risk of cyclists having falls or collisions in the first place, or suffering neck injuries.”
Current helmet standards only require cycle helmets to withstand the sort of impact that a rider is likely to suffer if they fall from their cycle from a stationary position (about 12 mph).
They are not designed to withstand impacts with faster-moving cars, let alone lorries.
The Guardian have also previously looked at the effect the “fearlessness” of wearing a helmet can have on the way an individual rides.
The studies they quoted found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that helmets encouraged cyclists to take more risks because of the increased security they felt.
Writing a couple of years ago for British Cycling, Chris Boardman, whose mother was killed in a cycling accident with a car wrote: “I understand exactly why people feel so passionately about helmets or hi-vis.
“I understand why people wish to use them. But these actions seek to deal with an effect. I want to focus the debate on the cause, and campaign for things that will really make cycling safe.
“That is why I won’t promote high-vis and helmets – I won’t let the debate be drawn on to a topic that isn’t even in the top 10 things that will really keep people who want to cycle safe.”
In the case of Mr Triggs, senior coroner Graeme Hughes said in his summary that: “Ronald Triggs likely left the pavement opposite the junction almost simultaneously with Mrs Jones commencing her manoeuvre and at a time when his view of her vehicle was obscured by the other vehicle manoeuvring into the Lidl car park on Colchester Avenue in front of Mrs Jones.
“Once Mrs Jones became aware of Mr Triggs’ presence she reacted and braked appropriately.
“That was somewhere between 1.5 and two seconds of becoming aware of Mr Triggs’ presence.”
“It follows from that reaction and braking in that time that it is unlikely that she then could have done anything to avoid the collision.”
A statement given by PC Ian Griffiths, who attended the scene, was summarised to the inquest and in it he commented that Mrs Jones’ view could have been obscured by the silver Honda and possibly by the “A pillars” framing the windscreen of her car.
Mr Hughes accepted the cause of death given by the pathologist as blunt head injury. He recorded a conclusion of death by road traffic collision.
Add new comment
13 comments
Having been knocked off my bike by a car crashing in to the back of me at 50mph and only avoiding serious, if not fatal, head injury due to wearing a quality cycle helmet, I'm inclined to agree with the view that if you don't wear a helmet you've got to accept responsibility for the consequences. Motorists don't, after all, get to choose whether the cyclist they hit is or is not wearing a helmet so why should they be held liable for an injury that was avoidable. No helmet, no sympathy.
I'd rather the motorist focussed on driving responsibly and then it wouldn't matter so much if the cyclist is wearing a helmet or not. Cyclists don't, after all, get to choose whether the driver behind them is concentrating on the road or using their phone, so why should they be held liable for an injury that was avoidable.
Motorists do get to choose what mode of transport to use, so why should they not be held liable for an injury that could have been avoided if they had chosen to use a mode other than a motor car?
What might make it a bit more avoidable would be looking where you are going, so you don't drive into the back of another road user at 50mph...
Anyhoo - you're saying that cyclists ought to wear a helmet just in case a motorist runs into the back of them at 50mph?
What about pedestrians, then? I mean, many pedestrians are killed and injured every year by motorists illegally driving on the pavement, but motorists don't get to choose whether the pedestrian they hit is or is not wearing a helmet so why should they be held liable for an injury that was avoidable.
https://nypost.com/2015/01/17/real-estate-mogul-in-rolls-royce-shot-by-c...
The cyclist didn't, after all, get to choose whether the driver they shot was or was not wearing a bullet-proof vest, so...
(I knew google would quickly turn up such a case - you can rely on Americans to produce any possible permutation of different groups of people shooting each other...had to wade through a few of motorists shooting cyclists and other motorists first though...)
It took her 2s to react to his presence? 2s to react. Get off the road and never drive again.
"handlebarcam .......
Not knowing the details of the incident, I don't want to apportion blame, but if the cyclist's wisdom can be questioned for not wearing a helmet, why aren't we questioning the driver's choice of vehicle?......"
google tells me that the VW Transporter scored a lonely 32% on the pedestian safety part of the EuroNcap test though 4* overall because (of course) has good occupant safety...to make roads safer for people not in vehicles part 1 is improve driving skills and attitudes - but then part 2 is vehicles that are safer for those outside of them in a collision need to be promoted but that simply doesn't happen - maybe headline could read "driver in unsafe vehicle kills cyclist"
I know this road very well, used to live just round the corner and cycle it daily.
Sounds like the collision was at pretty low speed, given the van was at a standing start and the collision occurred a few metres later.
Both cyclist and motorist had their view of the road obscured by the turning car.
Don't think hi-viz would have made any difference as it can't improve visibility through a car!
Impossible to know if a helmet would have helped.
Picture of the junction attached.
Screenshot_20190719-171830.png
What's hi viz got to do with 1330 ? Was it about to thunder?
Presumably they mean colourful rather than hi viz. My jacket only works if you shine a light on it.
In London most of the deaths are caused by cyclists going up the inside of lorry’s . I have actually stopped a few cyclists before they were going to do that stupid move.
I have rode all over Europe,up and down most of the well known climbs and have never worn a helmet . It’s been no issue for me whatsoever. Parents ( I’m one ) just want to wrap there kids up these days ,pads helmets etc . Fuck that . I never had any of that shit when I grew up . You don’t need it . It’s very rare that any ones death would have been saved wearing a helmet . What about if I was wearing armour leggings I would not have broken my leg or if I stayed at home and watch telly i will never get hurt . Life’s a risk and it’s not up to some pedantic arsehole to tell me what I can and can’t do . The tour used to always ride without helmets and most riders would if they had a choice .
But it’s a PC world of arseholes . Who wants to climb alp d huez wearing a hot helmet ? Be honest, nobody.
I have quite a mop of hair and drivers see me easy . I feel safer without a helmet as far as being seen goes . As for going down mountains , I have ax lightness brakes anyone who has used them knows they are not the best stoppers just very very light . So i go downhill with my witts about me and I know there is no point trying to race someone with dura ace brakes etc so I just chill and enjoy the view . Never had a crash on one col . So I make the call it’s my risk .
A pillars.
If only there were a way whereby one could alter ones body position to see better.
Or if only the powers that be hadn't beefed them up to protect car occupants and made the vehicles more dangerous to vulnerable road users, cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists. A classic case of unforeseen consequences which any rational person could have foreseen.
Not knowing the details of the incident, I don't want to apportion blame, but if the cyclist's wisdom can be questioned for not wearing a helmet, why aren't we questioning the driver's choice of vehicle? Did they need an approximately three-tonne van with poor visibility to make that particular journey? It's a choice they're free to make, or maybe circumstances dictated it, but news organizations don't seem to think the same applies to what the cyclist was or wasn't wearing.