A 28-year-old male cyclist was last night killed by a bus transporting members of the media between two Olympic venues. The cyclist has been named this afternoon as Dan Harris from Wanstead.
The fatal incident took place at 7.33pm at the junction of the Eastway and the A12 East Cross Route, a little to the west of where the latter swings south to form the Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach Road.
That junction is close to the northwestern corner of the Olympic Park, where the Main Press Centre is located, and it is understood that the bus was heading from there to the ExCel Arena at the Royal Docks.
A Metropolitan police spokesman said a man in his mid-60s was arrested just outside the Olympic Park at 9.28pm on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
A date for a postmortem examination is yet to be fixed.
A Reddit user who claimed to have been a witness to the incident wrote an account online, which he has since taken down.
He said:
As I was cycling home from work tonight a guy, maybe in his late 20's, was cycling level with me and as we approached a bus he went inside while I held back. The lights changed as he was in the buses blind spot and as he was attempting to go straight the bus turned left. He didn't really have anywhere to go and no time to do anything anyway…
It is so dangerous out there guys. But for a single choice that poor guy would have made it home tonight. Don't skip at lights when they look clear, don't try to squeeze past heavy vehicles to save a few seconds. Never be afraid to live your life to the fullest, but be careful and be aware of the dangers around you. Be safe everyone.
Meanwhile Bradley Wiggins stoked the helmet debate a little more by saying at a press conference when he heard of the tragedy:
"Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on.
"You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on. You have lights on. Once there are laws passed for cyclists then you are protected and you can say, ‘well, I have done everything to be safe."
"It is dangerous and London is a busy city. There is a lot of traffic. I think we have to help ourselves sometimes."
Many interpreted Wiggins' comments as being his being supportive of compulsory helmet laws, but he took to Twitter this afternoon to clarify them, saying: "Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest. I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I [sic] involved In an accident. I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought."
On Sky Sports News at lunchtime, world champion Mark Cavendish was asked whether he believed helmets should be made compulsory. He declined to provide a straight answer to that question, but outlined that he certainly wouldn't ride without one.
Cavendish however repeated comments he made earlier this year that the UK should consider implemeting no-fault liability for road traffic incidents involving vulnerable users such as cyclists, similar to rules in some continental countries, and also said ""We've got to increase the infrastructure for cyclists."
The collision is being investigated by the Met's Police's road death investigation unit.
81 thoughts on “Cyclist killed by Olympic bus: witness accounts and Wiggins’s input”
Stagecoach are doing most of
Stagecoach are doing most of the team and media buses. So I’m guessing that would be right.
Sad story, just heard Lineker reading it out, declared dead on the scene around 7.45 🙁
Thoughts with the family at
Thoughts with the family at this time. RIP 🙁
BBC News report this morning
BBC News report this morning showed a clip of Wiggins being asked about the incident and whether he thought it was safe to ride around London.
He respondend by stating that he thinks helmet wearing should be compulsary under law and that use of iPod’s/phones while cycling made illegal.
Expect the Daily Fail to jump on this now that Wiggins has got involved even though from the sound of it the poor cyclist in question was dragged under the bus and a helmet would probably have made little difference.
He respondend by stating that
He respondend by stating that he thinks helmet wearing should be compulsary under law and that use of iPod’s/phones while cycling made illegal.
Gosh, that tarnishes my opinion of Wiggo. Then again, I love him for his legs, not his brains.
I am slightly concerned that
I am slightly concerned that this thread includes a witness statement which may prejudice any fair investigation of this incident. Were a trial be in progress then I imagine that this would count as contempt of court and make the owners of this site liable to criminal prosecution.
I suggest you remove it and stick to reportable basic facts.
andybwhite wrote:I am
Hi Andy
Until there are any criminal charges there is nothing to worry about re. contempt of court.
Sarah Barth wrote:
Hi
Sarah, you are wrong.
Criminal proceedings become active as soon as someone has been arrested (which the driver has) and reporting restrictions then apply.
This witness statement if read by a witness could be considered as prejudicial to that witnesses testament to the incident.
There’s two ways to look at
There’s two ways to look at Wiggo’s comments.
1) Common sense – Cycling can be dangerous and cyclists should do everything to keep themselves safe including the use of lights in the dark (which is mandatory), high-vis clothing and wearing safety gear like helmets. Once we do everything to keep ourselves safe then the responsibility is on motorists etc.
2) Damaging ‘the cause’ – Making helmets compulsary would re-enforce the image of cycling as dangerous and put people off riding, likewise if motorists see a cyclist in a helmet they may feel that they can pass closer and generally not worry as much about safety.
Putting aside the fact that cycling is dangerous in London I still think that Wiggins has a common sense point. Helmet’s can help keep you safe, why wouldn’t you wear one?
drheaton wrote:
Putting aside
gosh, you still haven’t figured that one out? Right. How about: the same reason you don’t wear a helmet when walking or driving?
There’s still a risk of head injury when walking or driving as well, a helmet may keep you safe then. You don’t wear one because the perceived disadvantages of inconvenience, cost, discomfort and looking silly outweigh the perceived safety advantage. My perception includes placing a great deal of importance on the convenience of cycling short journeys (vastly lessened if I have to cart bike stuff around after arriving), looking normal, and being suspicious of the safety benefits, so on short journeys I don’t.
What’s hard to understand about that? You might not agree, but surely you can understand that the decision is not based on a binary thought process. Why don’t you wear elbow pads? Full motorcycle leathers? They could help…
nuclear coffee wrote:drheaton
Firstly, calm the f#*k down, secondly, you’re wrong.
You cycle along busy roads surrounded by traffic, if you’re driving you’re in a vehicle which has to be extensively crash tested and pass certain safety tests to ensure that if you are involved in ANY kind of collision you are safe. Amongst other things there are airbags within cars to lessen the impact of a crash and people in cars are legally obliged to wear seatbelts. Basically, every precaution has to be taken BY LAW to ensure the safety of those in the car. The use of any and all reasonable precaution’s to protect the driver is enshrined in law, your point of ‘oh let’s make drivers wear helmets just in case’ is pointless and you’re extending a sensible argument to absurd levels because it’s suits your ‘helmets are the devil’ stance.
Again, you’re entirely missing the point, the reason helmets are not worn while driving is that there are sufficient other protections in place. Adding a helmet would not improve the safety of the driver in any way because of all the other elements. And before you even say it, this does not apply to cyclists are there are very limited (or no) other protections in place to protect them in the instance of a cyclist/vehicle accident.
Furthermore, the risk of a vehicle on pedestrian collision is low due to the safety measures in place (pedestrian crossings, bridges over motorways, subways etc) which mean that every reasonable precaution has been taken to ensure that no pedestrian needs to come into contact with a car at speed.
Yes, they could help and if someone wants to wear them then they should. The argument about helmets though is that the most severe (and easily protected) injuries are generally head injuries. A helment won’t protect you if you get dragged under a bus but if you get knocked off and hit a wall/car/lamp post/floor head first it will protect you from the worst of the damage. Brain injuries can also be the longest lasting and in some cases are permanent. Convenience is something you value highly, that’s fair enough, I value my life and my ability to function more so I wear a helmet.
Helmets really do not help in
Helmets really do not help in collisions with third parties. They are not designed to and they simply don’t so please don’t trot out the myth that a substantial part of your injury would be prevented. They will protect you in low speed accidents not involving another vehicle. Compulsory use of helmets in other countries has not saved lives it has only reduced bicycle use and thereby increased the bigger health risks associated with a less active lifestyle
Despite all your infrastructure that protects pedestrians there are still a couple of thousand killed every year by motor vehicles. In fact 200 are killed on the pavements alone. Compulsory pedestrian helmet use would help in many of these cases. After all being a pedestrian is not a high energy sport and a more substantial helmet could easily be worn, no real need for air vents for example.
drheaton wrote:
Firstly, calm
I’m just going to let the colossal stupidity of that statement stand for itself. Your definition of ‘sufficient’ is different from mine and neither of us have a completely objective basis for deciding ‘sufficient’, but one of us is too imbecilic to understand that. Please understand I don’t call someone an imbecile lightly, even on the internet, so that’s quite an honour you’ve won.
Now watch me win this argument by going down a waterslide.
.
.
drheaton wrote:Helmet’s can
Can you provide evidence to prove that?
Helmets do not “keep you safe”, nor do they provide any kind of protection in oblique, rotational, or even linear impacts. It is merely the illusion of safety they provide.
Very sad story on the day of
Very sad story on the day of a triumph.Eyewitness account isnt a contempt as there are no proceedings yet and no one can guess the outcome.Very useful reminder not to pass inside heavy vehicles at junctions,and for all drivers to check their mirrors.
Would have been handy for Brad to say that cyclists and traffic need to be separated by barriers but I guess he was doing his best on the spot to protect cycling from criticism.
Why on Earth did Wiggins have
Why on Earth did Wiggins have to say that? That poor bloke was crushed under a bus and Bradley has to mention helmets?
Utterly terrifying account from the witness. Well done for trying to comfort the victim. I’m not sure I would be the composed.
Such a sad thing to happen.
Coleman wrote:That poor bloke
It’s the culture he’s grown up in – blame the victim.
A helmet won’t stop you getting crushed by a bus! Better driver training, better enforcement and, most importantly, a sea change in drivers’ attitudes towards vulnerable road users. THAT is what Bradley should be arguing for.
It has been demonstrated (among other things) that helmet compulsion doesn’t work and that wearers may indulge in risk compensation.
Did a helmet ‘save’ this cyclist? No.
From this article by Joe Dunckley.
Shall we press charges
Shall we press charges against Brad and his kids for riding helmetless during his recent celebrations?
Crass, stupid comments from Wiggins.
I cycled along Eastway past
I cycled along Eastway past the Media centre and the whole road layout there has been compromised to accommodate the media centre traffic. Eastway was 1-way with contra flow cycling but I think canal bridge not suitable for coaches & buses, so they have had to create 2-way with narrow lanes to get out.
Stagecoach does have the contract for Games Family coaches/buses, so it is likely to be Stagecoach driver if not Stagecoach bus/coach.
The description is of the 180 degree full lock hairpin turn to join the A12 Westbound – the Junction is East of where the A12 turns South to join A102(M)there is a VERY confusing junction arrangement with 2 Games lanes which suddenly appear as you cycle East on Eastway, a direction originally contra-flow to all motorised traffic, but a seriously compromised arrangement has been put in place to get the intensive flow of coaches 7 buses through the media centre/games family ‘bus station’ and car park access at this point.
To head straight on safely here you should be cycling in the offside Games lane and the nearside lane was I think (but not clearly) signed for the left turn on to the A12.
Should really get a camera so I could have recorded my route through. On Eastbound pass I think I had to make coach driver turning right (up same slip road from other direction) aware of my presence with theoretical priority to go forwards here.
Only picture I took was the daft bollard – too busy staying alive perhaps to take pictures of road layout – and if I had been I’d probably have been chased as a terrorist.
NB First has contract for
NB First has contract for public bus shuttles but buses from far & wide and drivers from all bus operators contracted to First.
How exactly is a helmet
How exactly is a helmet supposed to help if you’re dragged under a bus?
Being crushed by commercial and construction vehicles kills a disproportionately high number of cyclists, certainly in London. It’s massive internal organ damage that kills them, as horrific as that sounds.
Next time a pedestrian is killed by a car can the BBC get hold of Paula Radcliffe and ask her about the need for people out walking to wear Hi-Viz and body armour?
thereandbackagain wrote:
Next
Cannot agree more.
On a side note, I’ve decided to travel myself to the olympic park recently and found the whole route quite dangerous. I wrote an account of my experience here: http://montonero.co.uk/cycling-to-the-greenest-olympics-ever
But nothing new there, really: lack of infrastructure is appalling.
A helmet wouldn’t have saved
A helmet wouldn’t have saved him. Not cycling alongside the bus might have (if the witness is correct).
Every day in London I see red light jumpers and cyclists undertaking lorries or trying to push past at the lights when they are only going to be overtaken seconds later and they would be safer to stay behind.
I’m really unsure of how we improve things. As cyclists we have the same rights on the road as other vehicles and yet we are not, as a group, as disciplined as other drivers and many take ridiculous risks when they are at most risk of injury/death.
The problems are evident, solutions not so much. 😐
Jamrock wrote:As cyclists we
Not as disciplined as drivers? You’re pulling my leg!
Yes I know there are cyclists who don’t look before pulling out etc but the DfT says cyclists are not at fault in 93% of incidents.
We don’t charge around in 2 ton box at speed talking on the mobile/reading maps/staring at the pratnav (which often obscures the windscreen), taking manoeuvres that risk others’ lives as well as their own. I cycle defensively but it doesn’t stop drivers pull moves that put my life at risk. What more can I do?
Simon E wrote:Jamrock
Well said. Of course there is also this nonsense of ‘collective guilt’. I cycle and drive responsibly.
“Not as disciplined as
“Not as disciplined as drivers? You’re pulling my leg!”
I do take your point. What I mean is that maybe 1 in 15 drivers will be in the category you describe but 3 in 10 cyclists fit into the category I describe. However that 1 in 15 is likely to be the person who kills me, not any of the 3 in 10.
I’m guessing Brad didn’t have
I’m guessing Brad didn’t have much info on the incident, and was therefore commenting rather generally about cycling in London rather than this incident, so “wear a helmet” is a valid opinion, although it wouldn’t appear to make the difference in this situation. So so sad.
Agree though that the account is “utterly terrifying”. Wonder if the bus was indicating?
In fairness to Wiggins he
In fairness to Wiggins he probably didn’t have all the facts, didn’t have time to prepare an answer and didn’t really know what was being asked. Assuming the questions was just a ‘someone was killed cycling in London tonight, is London safe to cycle in’ then you can justify his answer of effectively ‘No’ with caveats of being as safe as possible by wearing helmets etc.
Wiggins is basing his opinion
Wiggins is basing his opinion on helmet wearing on his own experiences. He probably sees the benefit of one because he rides at great speed and in groups where coming off is constant danger and has seen that a high speed crash can lead to head injuries
I doubt he rides in rush hour urban traffic at slow speeds on a commute.
This poor fella who died was ran over by a bus and no helmet in the world was going to save him.
Wiggins helmet comments, which he has made before, are unhelpful to those of us who choose to not wear one and only add to my growing feeling that legislation is on the horizon.
I’m continuing to hope for a
I’m continuing to hope for a sea change in public attitudes towards cycling safety. I just sent this to Brian Cookson. If anyone can get it to influential people within the Sky organisation, feel free to forward the link:
http://fiftyyearsandcounting.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/wiggins-speaks-out-27-2/
Colin
Agree with above I to doubt
Agree with above I to doubt Wiggo had been told of the details of the accident.
Wiggo speaking his mind and is nothing I for one support his statement.
As adults we have a choice but c’mon under 16s should have to wear a helmet. That way you grow up and don’t know any different.
My little man who is 3 now rides on two wheels and has had a helmet since I bought him a balance bike at 18 months (pushy dad eh? :-))
Now when he rides a bike it is natural instinct to wear the helmet.
What ever the argument helmets prevent injury and I know from personal experience.
Wow talk about hero to zero
Wow talk about hero to zero Mr. Wiggins comments are his own thoughts/opinions and he is entitled to them however to say what he said (and more importantly When) was at best ill conceived but before I go completely ballistic, one question, how much information was he given before he said all that tosh.
If the witness statement is
If the witness statement is correct, the cyclist was at fault. The bus driver would have had no knowledge of his presence and the rider had put himself into the hazardous situation. It is very sad, but we must not get into the mind-set which says ‘cyclists are NEVER to blame’.
On the subject of helmets, this rider would not have been saved by a helmet and there is no mention of his wearing or not wearing one. If you read the specifications for cycle helmets, they are designed to protect in single vehicle accidents at speed below 10mph. In other words, if you fall off at low speed. In most cases they will not protect you at higher speeds and may well exacerbate the injuries received.
“If the witness statement is
“If the witness statement is correct, the cyclist was at fault. The bus driver would have had no knowledge of his presence and the rider had put himself into the hazardous situation. It is very sad, but we must not get into the mind-set which says ‘cyclists are NEVER to blame’.”
That’s what I was trying to say. Thank you.
Terribly sad news.
I support
Terribly sad news.
I support Wiggins comments. Its all common sense…
If you block out the sounds of the road by wearing headphones or listening to music you give yourself little chance of hearing danger.
If you dont wear a helmet you risk serious head injury.
If you dont wear hi-viz clothing or use dont use lights in the dark you wont be seen easily.
If you jump red lights you could collide with a vehicle / somebody.
sc129806 wrote:Terribly sad
If your hit by a car doing 40 you risk serious head injury , even with a helmet and shouldn’t all cars be bright yellow so the visually impaired can see the more easily? And a for RLJing you might want to try having a word with the van driver who came tearing out of a garage, narrowly missing he front of my car, and tore through a red light a good four or five seconds after they had turned red and vehicles at the other side of the junction was already moving.
The only thing that will reduce he death rate on our roads is for everyone, no matter what their means of propulsion, takes more care and obeys the rules, that’s what they’re there for.
sc129806 wrote:Terribly sad
A lot of these points apply to pedestrians as well, but should no-one ever walk around with headphones or dress in normal clothes in the dark. Isn’t that taking things a bit far? A lot of people die falling down the stairs, probably mainly from head injuries. Should we put on helmets in the morning if we sleep upstairs?
Personally I think when I’m a driver that it’s harder to spot a pedestrian in dark clothes than a bike without lights, of which there are plenty in Cambridge, and so even if people are being foolish and breaking the law you can still see them, just about, if you’re paying attention.
Obviously cyclists should obey the law and not jump red lights and carry lights. The only thing that might be useful and worth making compulsory is having a mirror as all cars have, although I don’t currently have one myself but have thought it might be useful when travelling fast.
Helmets and hi-viz should be a personal decision I think. I wear a helmet and my training clothes have some reflective bits even though nowadays I rarely go out in the dark, but as long as you have functioning lights you should be seen and no driver should have any excuse if they haven’t.
Going down the inside of buses is obviously dangerous and although I’ve probably done it on plenty of occasions in the past I don’t now and in fact avoid routes with buses on them as much as possible along with ‘A’ roads and even busy ‘B’ roads. Luckily this isn’t difficult to do around Cambridge but a lot harder in London I’m sure.
My thoughts go out to the family of the deceased and the witness as well as I’m sure he won’t forget what he’s seen for a very long time, if ever. Statistically, cycling is not a dangerous activity but we all have close calls from time to time, and all of us can make a mistake, car and bus drivers included.
RIP Dan Harris
I think a more useful comment
I think a more useful comment from Wiggins would be to warn cyclists not to ride up the inside of large vehicles.
Brake’s press release on the
Brake’s press release on the incident is interesting – no mention of helmets in its reporting of Wiggo’s comments:
National charity backs Wiggins’ appeal for safer cycling, and calls for safety measures to enable active lifestyles
Olympic gold medallist Bradley Wiggins has called for safer cycling following the tragic death last night of a 28 year old cyclist, who was run over and killed by a coach close to the Olympic Velodrome. Wiggins commented that cycling in the capital can be dangerous, and there needs to be more ‘give-and-take’ between drivers and cyclists. He advised cyclists to do everything they can to keep themselves safe and argued cycle helmets should be mandatory.
Brake, the road safety charity, is campaigning for key measures to protect cyclists and pedestrians, to prevent devastating casualties and make it safer for people to enjoy active, sustainable lifestyles, including:
• Widespread 20mph limits in towns and cities and lower limits on rural roads, to give drivers more time to react and more chance of avoiding collisions
• More traffic-free and segregated cycle paths, especially on key commuter routes and connecting homes and community facilities
• Safe pavements, footpaths and crossings in communities
Julie Townsend, Brake deputy chief executive, says: “We echo Wiggins’ calls for cyclists to do everything they can to protect themselves, but it’s also critical that far more is done to make roads safer for cycling and walking. We are appealing to government and local authorities to give greater priority and investment to enabling people to walk and cycle in their own communities without their lives being endangered. We need more widespread 20mph limits, and safe routes for people choosing these healthy and sustainable forms of transport.
“If we are to encourage more active and sustainable lifestyles, and enable more children and adults to take up sports like cycling and running, we need our streets to be more cyclist and pedestrian friendly.”
Cycling up the inside of a
Cycling up the inside of a large vehicle even while it is at rest is a risky manoeuvre. As the witness statement says, it is safer to keep behind and wait. I feel sympathy for the family of the victim – but if the incident occurred as described then the blame will be shared – to what degree that is so will be decided in court.
A lot of the fatalities involving cyclists and large vehicles occur when the large vehicle makes an unexpected manoeuvre such as cutting across a lane without indicating or when indicating very late. Neither a helmet nor the bodyarmour I wear for BMX racing would give adequate protection in an incident with a large vehicle as decribed in this article. For the moment the witness account may not be considered predjudicial to any court case, but it would probably be advisable to take it down shortly as it is quite possible it will be copied by those less aware of the laws.
I note the coach involved was for transporting members of the media. I wonder if this will have an effect on the reporting, given that there were may have been more witnesses?
I cyclec into the centre of London last night with my wife and neither of us bothered with helmets. I note Wiggo’s son was not wearing a helmet when he rode down the street in Paris alongside his father while celebrating the Tour win. Paris is a busy city and has a higher rate of fatal road accidents than London, so perhaps Wiggo should consider that fact – throw, shouldn’t, glass house, stones – and all that.
I witnessed something very
I witnessed something very similar with a tipper truck in Borough a couple of years back, it was dark, the rider had no lights and the driver had no chance of seeing the rider. The rider was ill adivsed to ride up the inside of a truck turning left.
A helmet wouldn’t have helped, but it wouldn’t of hurt.
In my case lights very possibly could have helped as it was pretty dark and a flashing light may have let the driver know he was there.
Deaths like this are always tragic.
Well for my money if Wiggins
Well for my money if Wiggins argues that helmets should be compulsory (not that this will happen) if it makes more people ride with one that is fine by me. If the resulting debate raises more of the real issues even better.
My life was undoubtedly saved by a cheap Aldi Cycle Helmet last year. Whilst descending at approx 50kph I turned a corner and despite taking avoiding action hit a car, was sent airborne and landed on my head. It did not stop three broken ribs but the sound of scrunching polystyrene was music to my ears. In A and E a surgeon explained what would have happened had I not been wearing it, that is enough for me.
Clearly in this case it would have made no difference, what would do is mirrors or blind side monitoring systems being mandatory on buses and lorries and better education for both riders and drivers to avoid blind side collisions.
In order for the UK to go Dutch we need to reach the levels of cycling enjoyed there accompanied by the necessary infrastructure to make cycling safe and helmets mostly unnecessary but that is a long way off if not never, there is no demonstrable political will to do it as there are no demonstrable votes in it. Sad but true.
If Bradley’s comments open the debate and the conclusions are action or at least discussion of some of the things I mentioned his comments would be worthwhile.
Maybe Wiggo was talking in
Maybe Wiggo was talking in the broader sense?
You guys can be as bad as daily fail etc for seeing a tree in the woods.
“If you dont wear a helmet
“If you dont wear a helmet you risk serious head injury.”
Thing is, the only serious cycling injury I’ve ever had wouldn’t have been prevented by a bike helmet. It would have been prevented by a full-face motorcycle helmet, though. By this logic, then, motorbike helmets should therefore be compulsory for pedal cyclists.
Doctor Fegg wrote:”If you
…and body armour with full elbow coverage and knee protection too – should be extended as a requirement for all pedestrians also given the numbers of accidents. All car drivers and passengers should have to have neck protection as a requirement, as used by MX riders, to prevent neck injuries, as well as motorcycle helmets.
Oh, and smokers should be banned from driving motor vehicles as they have a significantly higher risk of accidents.
Andybwhite – you are
Andybwhite – you are definitely wrong an arrest does not trigger the issue of contempt of court. We do have a free press and they know the rules on this.
A coroner will no doubt perform an inquest and come to a decision as to the cause of death. Evidence in that inquest can be reported on, and depending on the coroner’s finding criminal charges may result. If that happens then we can no longer comment on the evidence in the case. From what I can see unless there’s evidence that this witness testimony is wrong criminal charges are unlikely.
Let’s not be too hard on Waggley Bridins though I presume he was not in possession of the facts. Head injuries are the main cause of cycling fatalities. So although he was wrong in this case, I do think he has a valid point.
I would never stay in that position by any vehicle, in fact I usually overrun the white line ASL or no ASL just so I am seen and can clear the junction faster.
hairyairey wrote:Andybwhite –
Perhaps hairyairy, you should consider the CPS’s take on this. A defendant has been arrested and thus the case is deemed “active”.
Strict Liability Contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981
The strict liability rule may render the publication a contempt regardless of any intent to interfere with the course of justice in the proceedings. Refer to The Law, earlier in this guidance, applies:
to publications (including broadcasts , websites and other online or text-based communication) addressed to the public at large or any section of the public;
which create a substantial risk that the course of public justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. Risk is judged at the time of publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial (‘the fade factor’), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be;
and only applies to legal proceedings that are “active” at the time of the publication.
“Active” is defined in Schedule 1 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and proceedings are active if a summons has been issued or a defendant arrested without warrant. Where a warrant has been issued, ……..
The last two posts don’t add
The last two posts don’t add to the debate at all. Very poorly argued. The risk of head injury when inside a car is negligible due to the body of the car and seatbelt protecting your head. The risk of head injury when walking is higher but not much more likely at all. Risks would ba walking into something, something falling on you and head trauma after collision with vehicle. All fairly unlikely.
The risk of head injury in cycling accident are higher due to element of speed with no other protection, risk of head hitting tarmac esp with head on accidents and height off ground. The lack of driving skills of many drivers and the incidence of potholes. If in 10% of these cases a helmet would prevent or lessen the risk of death or serious injury then there is an arguable case for helmet use.
TechnoTim2012 wrote:The risk
I’m sorry but you’re just plain wrong – head injuries are quite common amongst drivers when the belt tightens, the neck jerks and the head meets the steering wheel
You also only consider head-on & rear-end collisions – side impacts often result in head injuries as the head meets the appropriate side door
In short – tosh!
mad_scot_rider
Ever heard of an airbag?
TechnoTim2012 wrote:The last
How ironic.
About time someone with some
About time someone with some ‘prescence’ stood up and said something regarding wearing helmets.
I’m not saying the helmet laws will change in this country because of this, but I wouldn’t be surprised. I would welcome it btw, as I would regarding headphones whilst riding ..
This is such a fraught
This is such a fraught debate, with accusations of bad science, victim blaming, a bewildering array of “solutions” and personal anecdote. I’m still going to wade in with my opinion though.
I wear a helmet, nearly all of the time. Sometimes I don’t, and I wish that was more of the time. If I’m out on a club run on the fast bike I do. If I’m in a sportive, surrounded by other cyclists, I do. Likewise if I’m commuting, going at a reasonable clip, I do. If I’m pottering down to the local cafe on my Friday bike, I don’t.
When I was at University (quite some time ago now) I saw a friend go from an absolute dead-cert First Class honours student to someone who had trouble speaking, stuck in a wheelchair. She’d been hit by a car, and suffered head injuries. I also heard the screams of a mother and child being crushed under the wheels of an HGV that left-hooked them. I never, ever, want to hear that sound again.
Despite that, I think helmet compulsion for riding on the road is a terrible idea.
Helmets help in some circumstances, in others the evidence is more equivocal. One thing is clear though; helmet compulsion does not improve cycling rates, it can surpress them.
All things being considered for me, this comes down to the sources of, and counters to, risk. And that’s group risk as well as individual risk.
Nothing you wear will save you from an HGV crush injury. A helmet could save you from a life-changing head injury, but they are comparatively rare. Most cyclist deaths are either high-speed impacts on fast roads, or being crushed, from what I’ve seen of the stats.
However, legislating for helmets could prevent lots of people doing something that potentially improves their overall health, and quality of life. Also, if far more people cycled, I think there’d be more overall awareness of how cyclists behave.
The bravest steps, and unfortunately probably the most expensive and politically unacceptable, involve road infrastructure changes, introduction of strict liability and better police and CPS responses to incidents involving people on bikes. That’s people on bikes, not cyclists. We’re not a different species.
At the extreme end of the spectrum you could argue for a driving license that made you go bike -> motorbike -> car and then on to encourage a wider appreciation of the requirements of other road users. I tell you one thing, being a cyclist has made me a much more risk-averse, considerate and safer driver.
There. I’m glad I got that off my chest.
Interesting andybwhite how
Interesting andybwhite how you quote guidance regarding “Strict Liability Contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981” that does not support your point of view at all. Sorry you are still wrong.
Let’s quote correctly from the CPS’s own website shall we?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/contempt_of_court/
“‘Constructive’ or indirect contempt, e.g. the publication of a newspaper article prejudicing a forthcoming trial (this may also be referred to as ‘Strict Liability Contempt’, although publication of such prejudicial matter may also be a contempt at common law). This is known as a civil contempt.” – ie charges have to have been brought.
“Strict Liability Contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981
The strict liability rule may render the publication a contempt regardless of any intent to interfere with the course of justice in the proceedings” – again, charges have to been brought.
I think if you stick to your mistaken view you’ll just look like an idiot.
In fact if you were write newspapers would be struggling for news even more than they are now. This does not mean that newspapers can publish what they like they still have to stick to known facts and not libel people.
hairyairey wrote:Interesting
AND the Guardian have included it in a report too, so reckon we’re on safe ground 🙂
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/aug/02/bradley-wiggins-helmet-cyclist-death
Let’s ban everone from the
Let’s ban everone from the roads everywhere, no matter what form of transport. Then we can all stay at home and be nice and safe – problem sorted.
OldRidgeback wrote:Let’s ban
Let’s just delete this article and pretend the ensuing ‘discussion’ never happened 😉
drheaton wrote:
You cycle
drheaton wrote:
No. No, I don’t. I live in the countryside and prefer to cycle along quiet lanes. When I go into the city, I follow the Sustrans route along little roads and traffic-free paths. Why should I be compelled to wear a helmet?
Awful
RIP
Awful
RIP
Well, this has causd
Well, this has causd controversy hasn’t it?
First – Wiggo’s comments were made in the abstract having no knowledge of this actual accident, so the media in general need to realise that and stop criticising him. It was a horrible position to be put in.
Second, I wear a helmet, always. A very nice good looking one recommended by this site no less. But if people don’t then that’s their choice. Personally, I prefer wearing one, but we are responsible adults here and you take responsibility for your own actions. However, what I would say is that in a crash involving any impact with the head (other than, say, a crush injury from a truck, which let’s face it nothing will protect you from) then helmets increase your chances of being less seriously hurt. A helmet is not designed to “cushion” an impact – it’s designed to break and dissipate the force, which they usually do. They stop that force reaching your skull. They are “sacrificial” in the sense they are supposed to break instead of your skull. Even very low speed impacts to the head can have massive consequences in terms of changing your quality of life. Personally, I prefer to increase my chance of coming off better (it’s nothing more – it increases your chances. Nothing can ever protect you fully from every type of crash)
The third thing i have to say is that I totally agree with Wiggo about ipods/phones etc. I come across far too many people who are oblivious to their surroundings on my daily commute and I have seen too many close calls (and been victim of some) where people wearing headphones, which block out one of the most important senses, do odd things. This is not scientific fact – just my experience – but it seems to me that people wearing headphones become less aware in general of their surroundings. Not hearing makes them less likely to look over their shoulder, and I think this is becasue they don’t hear the danger before they see it, so don’t instictively look for it. Just my opinion – don’t shout at me for it, but it’s one based on years of commuting through London.
Incidentally, wearing headphones in a car is illegal and people can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, so the law already recognises that hearing is an important sense when out on the road.
Paul99 wrote:Well, this has
IME some people are oblivious to their surrounding even without headphones, so I’m not sure that argument holds much water. Due care and attention has little to do with hearing – you’re not disqualified from driving if you’re deaf. Likewise, if you’re a motorcyclist and value your hearing, you wear earplugs.
On some of the faster roads I use, hearing counts for very little – by the time you hear it it’s so close there’s not a fat lot you can do about it anyway. Plus on my usual commuting bike – a recumbent – I get lots of wind noise. The solution’s pretty straightforward – more shoulder checks, or get a mirror – I went for the latter since it’s nigh on impossible to get a good look around on a ‘bent.
Thanks Wiggo, maybe u should
Thanks Wiggo, maybe u should just stick to pedalling, if I want your opinion on my ability to make risk assements of when I will and will not wear my helmet I will ask. What I need to stop writing I see an someone cycling at 10mph, with out full body armour and there are some children about to climb a tree without attending a risk assements course, wait there’s someone running on the road at 12mph without a lid on. Cycling is about freedom and freedom of choice, of all the fatalities from cycling how many involved a vehicle, the majority, so the vehicle is at fault. But the saddest thing is we can forget images like this.
No more pretty girls cruising
No more pretty girls cruising around. Wiggo your a tool.
This is ridiculous.
Some poor
This is ridiculous.
Some poor chap died. There is (from the witness account) no suggestion that a helmet may have helped. Extra caution might have. The driver and passengers are probably also a bit messed up.
Wiggo was asked a general question, likely without knowing the background of the above incident. He said helmets were a good idea, as is taking responsibility for your own actions. He is entitled to his opinion, and I’ve not heard people telling him to be quiet when that opinion coincided with your own.
Cue the same old arguments trotted out yet again. zzzz
notfastenough wrote:Wiggo was
Wrong. He argued in favour of compulsion (changing the law), which is NOT the same thing and has been shown to be counterproductive. If he didn’t know he, and the many organisations campaigning for safer roads, would have been better off not making such an unequivocal statement.
Bradley is entitled to his opinion. Hoeever, he has just won the world’s biggest bicycle race and a fourth Olympic gold medal so his opinion is front page news. It will be seized by those who think a helmet law (an easy ‘fix’) will improve our safety. Far better to listen to experienced campaign groups like RoadPeace, Spokes, CTC et al, all of whom have read, thought and discussed this subject earnestly and at great length for many years.
To the cloth-eared among you, please listen: those of us arguing against compulsion are, for the most part, not trying to insult those who choose to wear one. A knee-jerk reaction (on either side) is a waste of pixels and your time. If you try to listen to the points made you might just be in a better informed position than you were before.
Interesting points made in this article in The Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3495247.ece
Simon E wrote:
Interesting
Preferred this one for a balanced discussion of the issue
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3495439.ece
I am 100% with
I am 100% with thereandbackagain on this, very well expressed.
And KSI rates for walking are slightly higher than for cycling, by distance travelled, so the suggestion about making pedestrians wear helmets, while it sounds ridiculous, is absolutely valid.
If pedestrians should not have to, why should cyclists who are at less risk? Especially when you consider that the injury rate will vary across different types of cycling (sport vs rush-hour commuting vs other transport) and in different environments. Should someone who cycles back-streets to get to the shops on a Sunday morning have to be kitted out like Wiggins?
I don’t think that is really necessary, it is an additional expense and has limited potential to save lives as most of those who I see riding in what I would consider more dangerous conditions seem to wear them anyway.
I conclude from the above and
I conclude from the above and all I have researched on the subject that nobody has a definitive answer as to whether helmets do protect cyclists or not. My own experience is that they do but since there is no way anyone will carry out a study to prove it no one will be convinced either way.
The argument that helmets deter people from cycling seems to be based on the experiences in other countries, cultures and climates so cannot be extrapolated to the UK so are of limited use.
In short neither side can prove any point and it remains entirely up to the rider whether to wear a helmet or not.
What it does do is deflect debate away from much more important cycling issues such as poor driving standards in the UK, lack of driver and cyclist training, lack of mirrors and systems to warn of blind side cyclists on lorries and buses, feeble sentencing by the UK judiciary and the dire lack of segregated bike paths in 99% of UK Towns and cities. If all these latter issues were satisfactorily addressed and resolved the helmet issue would be moot as we would have mimicked the Dutch experience.
Until that day apart from our own wits the helmet debate is the only protection many cyclists have.
Horrible story, but sadly not
Horrible story, but sadly not that surprising.
I also think there have been a lot of foolish kneejerk responses to Wiggins’ comments on this (and other) threads. He didn’t know the specifics of the incident, so he wasn’t by any means saying that a helmet would have helped in this instance. His comments should really be taken in isolation as his view about cycling precautions in general. Even if you disagree with them they are perfectly reasonable (and in the case of not having headphones in, downright obvious) things to say.
Two points.
1)Why is there
Two points.
1)Why is there generally so much emphasis on surviving collisions (cue helmet debate), and so little on avoiding them, as if they were inevitable?
2)Shouldn’t the degree of protection be proportional to the risk? Racing on road, helmet may be appropriate, off-road mountain biking, helmet and armour may make sense. You wouldn’t wear a helmet in a car normally, but would if taking the same car out for a track day.
IMHO how you ride makes a lot more difference than what you wear.
I note the witness took his
I note the witness took his description of the event down. His subsequent comment about wishing to spare the feelings of the victim’s family are worth bearing in mind.
I think it is pretty crap of
I think it is pretty crap of a journalist to have questioned Wiggins on this at that time. I also think it is outrageous that the media have headlined his comments. He was a racing cyclist who had won an Olympic event that day and not a fully-versed expert at a road safety conference. Particularly as, on the video (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/aug/02/bradley-wiggins-helmets-cyclists-video), he does seem rather tired and as he points out:
“… probably a bit too tipsy to start talking about this now…”
He finishes off with:
“..but you know I’m probably the last person to be on the soap box about all that sort of stuff to be honest”
Bloody hell, a poor bloke has
Bloody hell, a poor bloke has lost his life and all we seem to be concerned over is a comment made by Wiggins about helmets.
It’s about time people sat and thought about what they are typing cos at the moment some of the comments already on the forum are crass stupidity.
Have a bit of respect please.
In all the debates over
In all the debates over helmets, you always here about the individual who has had an accident, hit his/her spam against the ground/car and are forever greatful (I admittedly am one of those who came off at over 20 miles per hour and landed on the back of my head after having had a car door opened on me).
I have yet to read anyone say they had an accident, came off their bike and hit their head and feel they came out better for not having worn a helmet.
Either those individuals who have had accidents while not wearing helmets are not enilghtening us to how they were better off or, possibly, those who have come off their bikes and hit their heads are not able to write any longer… :O
The Reddit user who claimed
The Reddit user who claimed to have been a witness to the incident has taken down his description of the incident because he doesn’t want to cause distress for the family of the cyclist. Maybe the text should be removed from this page?
http://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/xiud7/just_sat_down_with_some_poor_bloke_for_his_last/
Wow, I’m wondering how some
Wow, I’m wondering how some people can get on their high horse with so much knee jerking.
There’s a debate to be continued about the efficacy of wearing a helmet but I’m not sure this is the time to have it, when some poor sod has lost his life, and Wiggins feels his views have been distorted.
Thoughts with victims
Thoughts with victims family.
Thoughts to the witness, I hope I never need to show the inner strength you have – when my time comes I hope there is somebody as good as you there for me. You are the true spirit of humanity.
If the facts are accurate at
If the facts are accurate at bicyclinginfo.org… about 600-800 cyclists have been killed each year for the last 20 years in the US in motor vehicle/bicycle accidents; approx. 50-60K injuries occur each year. As a side note: Sadly… we average about 42,000 deaths in motor vehicle accidents.
Most states have motorcycle helmet laws but do not have bicycle helmet laws; although you can find towns or special cases for local governance requiring helmets for bicyclist.
Liability and Fault laws/codes aside… Isn’t the argument for helmets really focused on reducing head injuries/brain trauma in non-fatal accidents?
😕
The negative comments about
The negative comments about Wiggins and about helmet
wearing remind me why I left road cycling uk!. As any motorcycle rider will tell you – ride defensively. If you
don’t you may get away with it most of the time – but at some point there will be a ‘black swan’ event; Where if your lucky you’ll be scared sh**less and not scarred.
Oh yes, don’t wear an Ipod, use a phone or jump the lights – the first two are distractions, the last one is illegal. If cyclists don’t take road craft seriously and take responsibility for their actions then perhaps legislation will be used. What you prefer ?.
As for helmets – no helmet, no brainer really!
Justin,
Berks
One question for all the
One question for all the people on this site saying banning headphones whilst cycling (because you can’t hear the other road users) Can deaf people hold a UK driving Licence.
Ans. Yes for cars and vans without even informing DVLA of condition PSV and large vans/lorries Yes but have to inform DVLA.
Unfortunately a bad user of a road is going to continue being a bad user/risk to you wether you can hear them or not.
strange that wiggo thinks
strange that wiggo thinks helmets should be compulsory and ipods and phones be made illegal whilst cycling because he wasn’t wearing one the other sunday while out riding with his son in paris and for the three weeks before that he was cycling at speed in a big group with an earpiece in his ear and talking into a microphone!!!