A coroner has said that a woman who died after falling from her bike as she tried to avoid a collision with a lorry on a roundabout may not have been aware of the vehicle until it was too late because she might have been distracted by music being played through her iPhone.
Keen cyclist Emily Norton, 38, entered a roundabout without looking right at the same time as a DAF HGV lorry was exiting the roundabout and may have panicked trying to avoid a collision, Hull Coroners’ Court heard.
Ms Norton, who had a 16-year-old daughter, had her earphones in and was “riding purposefully” before she wobbled at the nearside of the lorry and fell fracturing her skull and spinal cord. She fell on the verge and died instantly without hitting the lorry. She was not wearing a helmet at the time.
Despite resuscitation being given immediately her eyes were dilated and she never showed signs of a pulse. The lorry driver did not stop and said he had never “felt, heard or saw” the cyclist.
East Riding of Yorkshire Coroner Paul Marks ruled listening to music could have been a distraction and contributed to her misjudgment. He also said her injuries may have been lessened if she had worn a helmet.
Rule 148 of the Highway Code, which falls within the General Advice section which “should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders” advises road users to “avoid distractions when driving or riding such as … loud music (this may mask other sounds.”
Use of a cycle helmet, while recommended in the Highway Code, is not compulsory for cyclists in the United Kingdom, unlike in certain other jurisdictions including Ms Norton’s native New Zealand.
Ms Norton, a hairdresser, who took up cycling two years ago, cycled regularly before work and knew the road around her home well. She normally wore a helmet and had earphones in playing music and was cycling along Flatgate in Howden, part of the A63 which becomes Hull Road.
Initially she was on a cycle path and then on the road. She was seen to enter the roundabout at speed as she rode at the side of the lorry and the wobble as the road began to narrow.
Her brother Hans Hargroves confirmed in a written statement to the inquest that his sister had normally listened to music and used a cycling app on her phone.
He said she had bought the bike around two years ago and, as far as he was aware, kept it maintained.
“She would cycle most days before work and was competent and knew the local area,” he said. “She has lived in Howden all her life and knew the junction. She would listen to music and have a cycle app.
“I am told at the time she was not wearing a helmet,” he added. “I cannot understand why she did not wear it that day. We later found it in the house. She was a stickler for safety.”
The incident happened around 7.40am on June 23 as Ms Norton was on her way home from an early morning ride.
Turners lorry driver Alexander Lamb of Featherstone told the inquest he was only using the road because the Selby bypass was closed. He said: “As I approached the roundabout, I paused to look for traffic to the right. As I went I saw nothing. I checked my mirrors.
“The first I knew about it was when the police called me and asked me to stop. A motorcycle policemen told me what happened. I couldn’t believe it happened. I didn’t hear anything, feel anything or see anything. If I had seen anything I would have stopped and tried to help.”
Eyewitness Martin Ward, of Howden said: “From what I saw she did not appear to look left or right as she entered the roundabout.
“The cyclist kept in a straight line. The wagon kept in a straight line. I saw the cyclist lift in the air and go on to the verge. The way the road is they were converging. In my opinion the wagon driver did not do anything wrong.”
PC Sally Acomb said a full accident investigation had taken place and the lorry driver was not facing any charges. A police accident investigator found the cycle had a defective from brake which touch the handlebar – which could have been a manufacturing fault – as the cable outer was cut short. The cycle also had no front reflector and a loose bell on the handlebars which was missing a bolt.
The 18 speed Carrera racing cycle was found in its lowest gear with the chain still in place. Ms Norton’s headphones were picked up at the scene.
Coroner Paul Marks told the inquest he found that Ms Norton went on to the roundabout without looking right and was seemingly unaware of the HGV. He said “It seems likely when she realised she would come into conflict with the lorry she made some input to the steering and activated the brakes.”
He said because of a fitting defect in the front brake caused by the cable being too short, she may have applied the rear brake causing a skid, adding that at no point did witnesses see the two vehicles make contact.
He continued: “I cannot determine if she was on her iPhone listening with earphone at the time, but if she had been, it could have caused a distraction and could have contributed to the cause of the accident.”
He said the fact she was not wearing a helmet may have meant she had suffered worse injuries, but made no criticism of her decision.
Professor Marks concluded: “I accept this was an entirely avoidable incident and the cause of the events that lead-up to the accident rest entirely with the cyclist. No charges have been brought against the HGV driver and he has been totally exonerated.”
He recorded a verdict of accidental death.























49 thoughts on “Listening to music on iPhone may have led to cyclist’s death, says coroner”
It sounds like the lorry
It sounds like the lorry driver wasn’t to blame, but how many drivers have their stereo volume mentioned after an incident? None.
Bit of victim blaming from that perspective.
Plasterer’s Radio wrote:
It strikes me that the victim was to blame, and the headphones might have been a factor. It was just a very unfortunate result.
Maybe I shouldn’t, but I rely on my hearing quite a bit when on the bike. I’ve noticed this because I’ve recently begun riding a motorcycle, and I’ve had to force myself to look around much more instead of automatically thinking ‘I can’t hear something therefore nothing’s there’ – maybe we all need to work on that basis when cycling regardless of quality of hearing or use of headphones?
I can’t really find any way
I can’t really find any way to blame the lorry driver here. The cyclist seemed to have been in lala land and had a perfectly avoidable accident. The physical injuries seem to be one of those roll of dice things, do it again you only get bruised pride.
The defective vehicle bit is a load of crap though, as is nonsense about not having a bell and front reflector.
Got to be careful out there –
Got to be careful out there – keep your head on a swivel. Car radios do make noise, but not at the expense of plugging out all other noise as headphones or earbuds do. If you must listen to music, try bone conducting headphones FFS.
easilydistracte wrote:
That’s not always the case. In my experience some car stereos make so much noise they blot out all other sounds even for people outside the vehicle. I can hear some of them well enough to identify the track being played, from my living room as they pull up outside.
Also, the lorry driver wasn’t to blame, I’m sure, but I’d say some of the blame lies with the system that decreed cyclists and HGVs have to share use of this roundabout.
Edit – the poor woman may have made an error, but it shouldn’t have ended in such tragedy.
easilydistracte wrote:
Maybe, but combined with the sound proofing and the glazing, it pretty much eliminates most of the sounds from around the car.
ktache wrote:
Depends whether you are one of these idiots who likes to be heard 5 streets away.
People are actually taught not to have their radio/music too loud as they need to hear their engine but some drivers don’t care.
easilydistracte wrote:
No its been proven that car windows block everything out more effectively than earphones. Even with no car stereo.
listening is no substitute for looking.
on busy roads the noise is fairly constan regardless of the exact positions of the individual vehicles.
and there are also near silent electric cars and bicycles. Look before any manouvres don’t assume quiet = safe.
Terrible incident
Terrible incident 🙁 Condolences to any family members that may end up seeing the article.
(My thoughts on contributing factors are purely out of wanting to avoid a similar end myself and not apportioning blame.) Out of all the things mentioned, the one that sounds most likely to have contributed (from my otherwise completely ignorant-of-the-details perspective) is a defective front brake which could be pulled to the bars. Either the cable slipped from the anchor bolt in the crash, or the cyclist was riding with a seriously compromised ability to stop in an emergency, which may have been a factor, and could have been at least partially Halfrauds’ fault, eg if they didn’t tighten the cable anchor bolt properly and it slipped under force of emergency braking. I don’t get what they mean about the inner cable being cut short – perhaps they are saying that the bars couldn’t be turned fully without the front brake cable getting snagged on other cables. I suppose in a crash this could lead to the inner being pulled through the pinch bolt.
I suppose it’s possible that the music might have made a difference, but it seems hard to tell from the information above – it isn’t even that clear how the paths of the lorry and cyclist looked.
The bike was found to be in
The bike was found to be in it’s lowest gear, doesn’t quite fit with entering the roundabout at speed!
cbrndc wrote:
Unless what is meant was it was in the smallest ring on the cassette.
There seems to be a lot of
There seems to be a lot of conjecture and assumptions here, all blaming the person who cannot defend themself, accidental death is one thing but to blame (essentially) the victim based on what she may have done seems wrong to me.
I can look to my right or left without turning my head, I don’t see how the witness can say she didn’t look. Do regular cyclists really just roll through roundabouts without looking?
There is something weird about this, from the driver, too:
“As I approached the roundabout, I paused to look for traffic to the right. As I went I saw nothing. I checked my mirrors.”
She was on his left, what has what’s on his right got to do with anything? It sounds to me like he’s admitting not looking left, or even ahead where he is going if he didn’t see her at all.
Apparently, she entered the roundabout at speed but was in the lowest gear. That doesn’t add up.
Looks like it happened here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.7489426,-0.8529808,3a,75y,74.7h,75.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syDfQ8aLt0arX_ANrCACsrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
She would have to look practically behind herself to give way to the road that runs parallel up to the roundabout.
I can only hope the inquest has helped the family somehow.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
You give way to the right on UK roundabouts so you look right.
Obviously you look in front of you on the approach but once you are at the entrance you concentrate on what is coming to the right of you so you can get on the roundabout.
You only give a quick glance left to check your exit is clear however once you are on the roundabout anything to the left of you still on the roundabout is now in front of you. On larger roundabouts and even smaller roundabouts with tall barriers on them, it is not always possible to see your exit.
There is a roundabout I cycle round which TFL advises me to get off and walk because the tall barriers on it mean you cannot see anything to the left of you. However the roundabout is smaller and easier to navigate than the one at the end of my road. The barriers also ensure drivers including buses go slower around that roundabout than the one at the end of my road.
The headphones in this case don’t really have anything to do with it. It is because she didn’t look right she didn’t see the HGV.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Here’s a working link:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9jCcjYVwQC2
Look at the first exit and where the lines are painted – motorists are encouraged to stay to the left of the lane. And for the following 400 metres or so, the centre of the lane is occupied by diagonal lines forcing motorists over to the kerb.
These road layouts are intended to make oncoming collisions less likely but they have the unfortunate side effect of pushing motorists towards the kerb, where cyclists are likely to be.
There’s absolutely loads of space on that roundabout for a fully protected left turn lane, but instead the council spent money on white paint that “protects” motorists. If money had been spent differently, this lady’s mistake would never have occurred.
it’s a narrative verdict and,
it’s a narrative verdict and, shockingly, the text in the Daily Mail article is a bit clearer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4000838/Cycling-mother-one-died-trying-avoid-collision-lorry-distracted-listening-music-earphones-caused-accident.html
She’d had that bike for 2
She’d had that bike for 2 years and supposedly kept it in check so the faulty brake thing can’t have been that faulty.
I’d also take the lowest gear thing with a bit of trepidation. Lowest gear overall or lowest gear in big ring or was ‘lowest gear’ just the small ring?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
That did occur to me but bear in mind that this was the statement of the crash investigator who should know the difference between the lowest gear and the smallest ring on the cassette. This is probably a crash investigator who’s knowledge fall a little short when making statements about bicycles. Very worrying.
Tragic, of course, but this
Tragic, of course, but this just underscores how foolish it is to be wearing headphones whilst cycling. All senses need to be fully engaged with the immediate environment, which should be bloody obvious to anyone who’s ever ridden a bike in any kind of traffic.
I am all for agitating for the rights of cyclists, but some among us are still out there doing fundamentally stupid things (just like car drivers) for which there can be no defence.
downesdesign wrote:
Your comment is distinguished from the routine, usual, ignorant commentary by a confident, implied assumption that you have anything on which to base your condemnation of the dead woman. Please, if you are capable of it, try to disprove and prove your ideas before you implicitly attack someone that died.
Ush wrote:
Too right: @downesdesign – where’s the bit about the earphones causing the accident again?
Maybe my reading comprehension isn’t as sharp as yours, but all I made out of what I read is a coroner hasn’t got a scooby what went on, and some earphones were found.
downesdesign wrote:
Presumably you ride naked so you can detect the wind and air pressure on your body, and feel the spray of rain, to give you a real sense of road conditions? You sanctimonious twat.
downesdesign wrote:
Lot of balls. Wearing headphones doesn’t mean you ‘aren’t engaged with the immediate environment’. The sort of mindless dribble that gets passed around for common sense these days.
I wear earbuds on solo training rides and I guarantee you I’m way sharper than the majority of riders on the road who get geared up and go through the motions. For a start, you can still hear traffic and other riders, but that doesn’t matter, even deaf people can bikes safely. What matters is how you read the road ahead and behind mostly, ie. looking out for the mistakes that drivers might make. Majority of cyclists getting left hooked, doored, riding into the side of a car are not wearing headphones. Also controlling traffic, with an eyeball over the shoulder or moving into primary position, so they don’t get tempted to overtake on certain stretches. These are skills that are helmets, high vis, or riding without headphones cannot help with and are what actually get riders from A to B safely every day.
It’s the mindless lot who think that gear = safety that need a reality check. You’re a bug out there, hardly matters what a bug wears. What matters how smart the bug negotiates its journey.
downesdesign wrote:
I have to admit that I cycle with my headphones in all the time and theses are the reasons for this:
I do not believe that any of the above reasons that I wear earphones stop me from being fully engaged with my immediate environment. You could argue that listening to satnav directions is distracting but I do not believe that it is more distracting than being lost and concentrating on looking for signs and reading them instead of looking for traffic situation.
We do not know why the person in this instance was wearing headphones, so while it is worth discussing these points to try and learn from the incident lets not jump to conclusions.
I don’t entirely understand
I don’t entirely understand what happened.
Cyclist rides onto roundabout without looking. Doesn’t see a lorry “exiting” the roundabout (by which I presume is meant that it was already on the roundabout coming from her right).
Cyclist panics, “something” happens (brakes lock up?), she comes off with enough force to kill her but didn’t come into contact with the lorry.
Is that about right?
(I’ll pass over what possible relevance there is of her having a loose bell and no front reflector).
brooksby wrote:
Yeah: cue loads of guesswork and predictable headlines from the likes of the Daily Heil.
brooksby wrote:
Yep.
She got killed because she didn’t look. A lorry is not exactly hard to see.
What some people – car drivers, small van drivers, cyclists and pedestrians – forget is that lorries often take up two lanes when turning including exiting. Good HGV drivers delibrately take the centre of the two lanes to help prevent other road users undertaking them.
The thing about the earbuds is because some people – pedestrians, runners and cyclists turn up their music to tune out some of their environment and don’t react quickly when someone comes behind them it is automatically assumed everyone who uses them does the same.
Earbuds do not block out all
Earbuds do not block out all noise as has been mentioned. Extremely loud volume may mask vehicle noise but then that’s down to a lack of sensibility of the user.
If I don’t use my Bluetooth ear buds when out on a ride then as soon as I hit 12mph+ all I hear is feckin wind noise that’s so loud it masks approaching vehicle sounds. That’s probably due to living in a flat, windy county and having large ears that stick out a bit.
When I put my earbuds in and have low to moderate background music I actually hear more around me as the earbuds eliminate the wind noise almost entirely and I pick up approaching vehicle noise earlier.
Used sensibly and carefully earbuds can be ok but you have to be disciplined regarding their use.
RIP cyclist.
Tragic, can’t understand why
Tragic, can’t understand why there is so much emphasis on the run up to the fall and so little about why a fall of this type should end up being fatal. Was the street furniture involved in anyway, tall kerbs? Etc etc
awful and tragic to die just falling off RIP
classic victim blaming… how
classic victim blaming… how far they can go to praise the petrol consuming vehicles?
tsarouxaz wrote:
So if I go out now and ride across a junction without looking, get hit, I’m blameless?
Cyclists can’t have this attitude either. Yes, you can be a ‘victim’ in an accident but you can also be a victim of yourself. Everyone has a lapse of attention, probably multiple throughout the day, but the timing of them results in nothing in the vast, vast majority of cases. I was messing about with my cycle computer the other day and nearly rode into the back of a parked car. I’d hardly be in the right to start claiming the car shouldn’t have been parked there.
I know it’s not a popular
I know it’s not a popular viewpoint, but guess what, sometimes even cyclists can make poor decisions. In my opinion, riding on a busy road, with no lid, wearing headphones, on a poorly set up / maintained bike, is a poor decision or three.
The article above suggests
The article above suggests that the coroner makes a lot of assumptions about the actions of the cyclist which may have contributed towards her death. The report does not make any mention of similar assumptions to be made about the driver of the other vehicle involved e.g. was the driver looking at sat. nav.? or maybe a map? distracted by something in the cab? looking out for other road users?
Never mind all the red herrings – bell, reflector, assembly fault on a bicycle regularly used for two years – where was the lorry in it’s approach before the incident and why didn’t the driver see the cyclist? The lorry was either already on the roundabout or was approaching alongside the cyclist – but that information appears to have been omitted from the article above. Surely this information was available to the coroner and surely the question must be asked – why did the driver not see the cyclist in his approach to the roundabout? This seems relevant to me.
The corner seems very sure in
The corner seems very sure in his assumptions doesn’t he…
Sounds as though the poor woman took a ‘silly tumble’ at low speed, and just landed awkwardly and twister her neck.
RIP
Agree with the comments, the
Agree with the comments, the coroner is speculating quite unhelpfully about helmets and headphones contributing here. Yes it sounds like the cyclist made a tragic mistake but there doesn’t seem to be enough detail about the build up to the accident or physical interaction with the street funiture or lorry itself to understand the sequence of events.
Anyone who’s riden ‘at speed’ knows the wind noise can blot out noise more than headphones can anyway.
Without the evidence to show that headphones and (lack of) helmet contributed, the conjecture about helmets and headphones do seem add further ‘victim blaming ‘ which may not be warranted.
Professor Marks concluded: ‘I
Professor Marks concluded: ‘I accept this was an entirely avoidable incident and the cause of the events that lead up to the accident rest entirely with the cyclist.
Having now read other reporting of the coroner’s report it would appear that the lorry and the cyclist were entering the roundabout from the same direction. The coroner’s comment above would suggest that the lorry arrived at the roundabout first and the cyclist passed up the nearside of it; if the cyclist was in front of the lorry approaching the roundabout, even if they arrived at the same time then surely the coroner’s comment above is incorrect and the driver of the lorry must be expected to have seen her. I’m struggling to get my head around the lack of consideration given to the position of both the lorry and the cyclist approaching the roundabout prior to the incident.
I don’t listen to surrounding
I don’t listen to surrounding when I riding, its pointless
I use 6th sense to detecting surrounding, like an animal instinct
Its hard to explains, 90% of time, I able to detect “what” is behind me or from side way and that enough for me to avoid it
Surely the problem is that
Surely the problem is that she didn’t look before entering the roundabout? Hearing is very much a secondary sense when cycling/driving and plenty of people manage to do either activity safely whilst being hearing impaired. Is the coroner implying that deaf people shouldn’t be able to get a driving license or be allowed to ride a bike?
I listen to Podcasts using
I listen to Podcasts using basic apple earphones and can easily hear a Lorry or car behind me … sounds like someone trying to justify an idea never proved.
downesdesign wrote:
Except that when car drivers do stupid things they usually don’t die as a consequence (often someone else does, though).
To me it rather underscores how foolish it is to design roads this way. Where a small error leads to death.
Personally I don’t use headphones on the bike because of the potential distraction/loss of concentration (rather than the need to hear). It pisses me off because I really _want_ to (to the degree that I sometimes walk just so I can), and drivers have no such compunction about their extensive in-car (audio and visual) entertainment systems.
The fact that the roads as they are require such a level of concentration just in order to not die, is kind of the problem with them.
Why do these people feel the
Why do these people feel the need to stick the knife in….
What has been confirmed…
– There was no evidence the lorry hit the cyclist
– the lorry had right of way and from all accounts was driving within acceptable speeds and awareness
– For whatever reason, the cyclist failed to give way to the lorry until already on the roundabout, and in an attempt to stop, fell from the bike.
Everything else is just guess work. Its not needed.
Everyone has heard the anti
Everyone has heard the anti helmet rant a million times already. Considering the poor woman was killed, are people really arguing that wearing a helmet would somehow have made things worse?
I’ll continue to be one of the ‘utterly stupid and easily led’ thanks.
A helmet would clearly have
A helmet would clearly have helped, stop being silly guys.
Very sad that a fall caused such injuries. Condolences to the family, it is very sad.
gunswick wrote:
Clearly? Would she be wearing it around her neck?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Clearly? Would she be wearing it around her neck?— gunswick
Avon & Somerset police are having one of their regular pop-up shops in Bristol city centre. There’s a poster in the window of a stylised figure wearing a cycle helmet and with their arm in a sling, saying something about wear a helmet to protect you from injury. Part of me wants to go in and ask them how a helmet protects from a broken arm…
hawkinspeter wrote:
Clearly? Would she be wearing it around her neck?— gunswick
Behave yourself, you nasty cynic. Gunswick said ‘clearly’ in a road.cc webpage comment. That does it for me; how much evidence do you need?
gunswick wrote:
Its not being silly – its based on engineering principles and an understanding of physics.
A helmet may have prevented the fractured skull (although I doubt it, an impact of sufficient force to break heads is outside of the design parameters of cycle helmets), but the wearer would probably still suffer life threatening head injuries in the form of brain haemorrage and/or concussion. But lets for now just accept any head injury would have been survivable.
As for the severed spinal cord, a helmet would only increase the amount of rotational force applied to the pivot point (I’m taking an educated guess from the reports that this would be about where the neck meets the shoulder). Now if we assume the average head is about 6 inches diameter just above the ears (where a helmet would sit,and the most likely point of contact with the ground), and that point is about 8 inches vertically above the shoulder, then you have a two sides of a right angled triangle (a=3 -i.e. half the head diameter, b=8) which means the your head would have to rotate 20 degrees for the outer edge to be in line with your spine. Make your head effectively another inch wider on either side by a helmet (a=4, b=8, angle A= 26.6 deg) so thats an additional 7 degrees of rotation on top of whatever the angle of impact was.
PS Handy angle calculator in case you want to check my working out:
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm
Since the angle and force of impact was already enough to sever the spinal cord, the additional rotation in this case is academic. Whatever the circumstances leading up to the incident were, the outcome in this particular scenario would likely be the same with or without a helmet.
So I’m calling a score draw on the helmet debate and hoping that’s the end of it. Lets not forget a family has lost a loved one.
The simple answer is “we just
The simple answer is “we just don’t know” it may have helped, it may not.
My personal take on what the coroner said about helmets was in relation to the skull fracture.
Just been listening to radio 5 and they have been discussing this case re headphones. It was quite interesting to hear other people’s views.
If she had a fractured skull,
If she had a fractured skull, surely a helmet may of been of some use in this particular accident?
I get people may not want to wear helmets, I can’t say I wear one ‘all’ the time, tbh I think I’ve only come off twice on a road bike, one of those times being a blow-out and the other a comedy can’t unclip to fall off. In general though I do wear one but it’s a bit like insurance, a waste of money most years.
If you’re not wearing on because you somehow think cyclists just don’t suffer head injuries you’re a bit daft though. Even an ultra-hard bastard like BMXer Mat Hoffman rode full kitted up most times. There’s no shame in it. Maybe it’s all about not flattening your hair or something?
Having had a big accident
Having had a big accident with a car in recent weeks, resulting with a helmet with a big dent in it and my head being practically the only bit of me un-injured, I couldn’t be more thankful to have been wearing one. Quote all the statistics and hypothetical scenarios you like.