Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Bishop fractures skull after being doored while cycling - but says he should have worn his helmet

Paul Swarbrick, Roman Catholic Bishop of Lancaster, is recovering from incident which happened on VE Day

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Lancaster, Paul Swarbrick, is recovering after sustaining a fractured skull when he was the victim of a car dooring while riding his bike - and said afterwards it was his own fault for not wearing his cycle helmet for a trip to the shops.

According to the Lancaster Guardian, the 61-year-old, who was appointed to the diocese in 2018 by Pope Francis, was left “shaken” by the incident which happened on Friday 8 May, the VE Day bank holiday.

Father Stephen Pearson from the diocese as saying: “The bishop has always been a keen cyclist and he was cycling as his form of exercise in Morecambe when he was involved in an accident.

“In Bare where he lives he was cycling past a parked car and the door opened as he was passing and knocked him off his bike.

“He ended up in the Royal Lancaster Infirmary that Friday afternoon a week ago and on the Sunday he was allowed home.

“He has fractured his skull and damaged his left ear,” Father Pearson continued.

“He is a very fit man but he is sensible and is recovering at this time and will be for three or four weeks.

“A number of services were broadcast during Holy Week from the cathedral and the bishop has been doing a short 10-minute weekly invitation to prayer which was filmed at the cathedral.

“These things are not now possible but hopefully we will see him back very soon.

“His health is very good at 61-years-of-age,” Father Pearson said, but “The severity of the incident was quite a shock and when I spoke to him he sounded quite shaken.

“He will be back as soon as he can. The bishop is forbidden to go near a bike now!,” he added.

Writing on his blog, the Bishop said: "This has not been the week I thought it was going to be. The change came about because I fell off my bicycle on Friday, VE Day.

"That resulted in an ambulance trip to Lancaster Royal Infirmary, where I spent two days under observation. All the NHS staff were professional, kind and attentive. In a time when we are all thanking them for their work I have deep personal reasons for standing at my gate and applauding on a Thursday evening."

He added: "Of course, it was largely my own silly fault. No helmet ... Usually I do wear one but since I was only nipping up to the shops I thought it not necessary. I was wrong.

"As I cycled past vehicles parked outside the shops one driver opened the door and sent me flying. I’ve no idea who that was but I do hope the person finds out I am ok."

That last comment suggests that the driver who opened the car door did not come forward.

Under current legislation, the maximum penalty for anyone convicted of "opening a vehicle’s door, or causing or permitting someone to do so, and thereby cause injury to or endanger any person" is a fine of up to £1,000.

The charity Cycling UK has called for stricter penalties, including imprisonment, in cases where a cyclist has been killed as a result of a driver or passenger opening a door, and for a new offence of causing death or serious injury through opening a vehicle’s door.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

128 comments

Avatar
ChrisB200SX | 3 years ago
0 likes

Apparently, the Bishop needs his head examining.

Avatar
Cycloid | 3 years ago
2 likes

Best wishes to the Bishop for a speedy recovery, he is much more forgiving than I am. Even so I think  it is possible to forgive a personal injury and hold the view that the law should take it's course.

Unwittingly he has opened the helmet can of worms again and all the old arguments are coming out. I am aware of or have read most of the papers other bloggers have referred to and trawled through hundreds of websites, but I am neither a qualified social scientist or a statistician, so my opinions can only have limited weight.

On RISK COMPENSATION I would like to add my two pennorth.

The theory sounds quite plausible and it can be tested to a certain extent on cycling friends

Consider this scenario

You are meeting some friends outside the local bike shop in the town centre to go for a ride. While you are getting ready to go out something happens to your helmet. (may be you put it on the stove when preparing an energy drink, or the dog eats it)  The solution is simple, you have to ride a couple of miles to the meeting point, pop into the shop and buy a new helmet and continue as normal.

While riding into town would you feel more vulnerable than usual, and would you take exra care on the roads?

If the answer is "Yes" then you are exhibiting risk compensation, because you would take more risks if you were wearing a helmet.

As I said it's a plausible theory

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
3 likes

Are we up to 100 comments yet?

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

Are we up to 100 comments yet?

Have you seen this?  Obstacle course for squirrels.  Hysterical, especially the homewrecker.  https://boingboing.net/2020/05/25/mark-robers-rube-goldberg-sq.html?fbcl...

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
1 like

Yes thanks - I posted a link to it earlier on the Beeline article: https://road.cc/content/review/beeline-velo-273627

(Which is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to my eBay sale of my Beeline currently selling at 99p)

I loved the consideration given to the squirrels safety and the uselessness of the guard dog.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
0 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

Yes thanks - I posted a link to it earlier on the Beeline article: https://road.cc/content/review/beeline-velo-273627

(Which is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to my eBay sale of my Beeline currently selling at 99p)

I loved the consideration given to the squirrels safety and the uselessness of the guard dog.

Surely you'll have your own course set up soon?  Show him our British squirrels are more than a match for those damn yankees.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
2 likes

eburtthebike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Yes thanks - I posted a link to it earlier on the Beeline article: https://road.cc/content/review/beeline-velo-273627

(Which is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to my eBay sale of my Beeline currently selling at 99p)

I loved the consideration given to the squirrels safety and the uselessness of the guard dog.

Surely you'll have your own course set up soon?  Show him our British squirrels are more than a match for those damn yankees.

I haven't got a big enough garden to set up an assault course, so I've been concentrating on online exams instead.

Avatar
David9694 | 3 years ago
6 likes

“Shut up”, “No you shut up”, ahh, the Helmet debate. Can’t even mention Hs on most of CUK - has its own thread.

"Please don’t leave anything valuable in your car and don’t hide them either because you never know who is watching you. This handbag was stolen from the boot,"

https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/18469089.warning-handbag-stolen-...

So the traditional “don’t leave valuables on view” morphs into this. At what point does crime prevention advice become an admission of failure? At what point do people start saying the person should have known better, as the Police can be read as doing here? Or do we say “what a horrible thing to happen - hope whoever did this is caught and the person gets their stuff back”?

We’re too quick, thinking what wise owls we are, to say “that’s a bad area of town” and then say “what was she doing out on her own?” and then that becomes in a few cases “asking for it”.  Cyclists wilfully endanger themselves, whereas things cars do (what with everything they do being necessary and important) somehow just happen by themselves. 

So it goes with helmets and hi viz. “That’s a dangerous/busy road...”

A couple of times, I’ve encountered Facebook posts from drivers either having had an encounter with a wayward road user, or fearing a change in traffic regulation will give rise to this. I’ve stood firm with “drive to the conditions” and “bikes, kids, animals, buggies - it’s your job to keep them all safe - whatever they might do”.  

An interesting side-issue I’ve noticed is the motorist fear of them getting sued, their car getting damaged - laughable with some, huh - but bullies make the world’s greatest victims. let’s hear it for the ill-used, hard done by, law-abiding motorist! (Anyone got a picture?)

The drivers who process one road related thought every 2-3 seconds don’t like/ can’t handle any sort of complexity in the environment - that’s in part where I think you get the “ban everything” / “roads are for cars outlook”/ “made to” (another fave phrase) wear helmets.  Driving past a school at 3.30pm is a level 1 complexity, so that’s about 10%.

Back to helmets - I wear one. Call it habit, comfort, protection from overhanging branches - but I know fine it’s not going help me much in the event of a collision involving a car or being doored.  I will resist any move to make them mandatory for cyclists, principally because this would be a win for the "make everything simple for me" argument and a distraction from the real issue that actually does the killing and maiming day after day.

Get we'll, soon, Bish. 

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to David9694 | 3 years ago
0 likes

David9694 wrote:

“Shut up”, “No you shut up”, ahh, the Helmet debate. Can’t even mention Hs on most of CUK - has its own thread.

"Please don’t leave anything valuable in your car and don’t hide them either because you never know who is watching you. This handbag was stolen from the boot,"

https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/18469089.warning-handbag-stolen-...

So the traditional “don’t leave valuables on view” morphs into this. At what point does crime prevention advice become an admission of failure? At what point do people start saying the person should have known better, as the Police can be read as doing here? Or do we say “what a horrible thing to happen - hope whoever did this is caught and the person gets their stuff back”?

We’re too quick, thinking what wise owls we are, to say “that’s a bad area of town” and then say “what was she doing out on her own?” and then that becomes in a few cases “asking for it”.  Cyclists wilfully endanger themselves, whereas things cars do (what with everything they do being necessary and important) somehow just happen by themselves. 

So it goes with helmets and hi viz. “That’s a dangerous/busy road...”

A couple of times, I’ve encountered Facebook posts from drivers either having had an encounter with a wayward road user, or fearing a change in traffic regulation will give rise to this. I’ve stood firm with “drive to the conditions” and “bikes, kids, animals, buggies - it’s your job to keep them all safe - whatever they might do”.  

An interesting side-issue I’ve noticed is the motorist fear of them getting sued, their car getting damaged - laughable with some, huh - but bullies make the world’s greatest victims. let’s hear it for the ill-used, hard done by, law-abiding motorist! (Anyone got a picture?)

The drivers who process one road related thought every 2-3 seconds don’t like/ can’t handle any sort of complexity in the environment - that’s in part where I think you get the “ban everything” / “roads are for cars outlook”/ “made to” (another fave phrase) wear helmets.  Driving past a school at 3.30pm is a level 1 complexity, so that’s about 10%.

Back to helmets - I wear one. Call it habit, comfort, protection from overhanging branches - but I know fine it’s not going help me much in the event of a collision involving a car or being doored.  I will resist any move to make them mandatory for cyclists, principally because this would be a win for the "make everything simple for me" argument and a distraction from the real issue that actually does the killing and maiming day after day.

Get we'll, soon, Bish. 

Concise works best.

Avatar
ktache replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
5 likes

Sorry eburt, I thought it was well written and put across good points.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to ktache | 3 years ago
0 likes

ktache wrote:

Sorry eburt, I thought it was well written and put across good points.

Perhaps, but I'll never know.  My tolerance for other people's opinions seems to be declining, and either they make their points succinctly or I just can't be assed to read them.  Surely it's only polite not to waste people's time with waffle.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
4 likes

eburtthebike wrote:

 My tolerance for other people's opinions seems to be declining, and either they make their points succinctly or I just can't be assed to read them.  Surely it's only polite not to waste people's time with waffle.

Yes, but comments on a bike website seems a good place for waffle. Obviously you don't have to read them if you don't have the inclination. (I'm with ktache in that it was worth my time reading it)

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
0 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

 My tolerance for other people's opinions seems to be declining, and either they make their points succinctly or I just can't be assed to read them.  Surely it's only polite not to waste people's time with waffle.

Yes, but comments on a bike website seems a good place for waffle. Obviously you don't have to read them if you don't have the inclination. (I'm with ktache in that it was worth my time reading it)

Perhaps, but good points are best made succinctly, not prolix.

Avatar
David9694 replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
4 likes

digested read:

Janet has got a new Audi.  It is black and goes very fast. "Vroom, vroom," says Janet. John has got his old mountain bike out of the garage. The bike is a bit dusty and the tyres need pumping up. "I like riding my bike" says John. 
 

digester, digested read: bikes are good 

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to David9694 | 3 years ago
1 like

David9694 wrote:

digested read:

Janet has got a new Audi.  It is black and goes very fast. "Vroom, vroom," says Janet. John has got his old mountain bike out of the garage. The bike is a bit dusty and the tyres need pumping up. "I like riding my bike" says John. 
 

digester, digested read: bikes are good 

A trifle simplistic perhaps, but, see, you can make your points succinctly.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
1 like

eburtthebike wrote:

David9694 wrote:

digested read:

Janet has got a new Audi.  It is black and goes very fast. "Vroom, vroom," says Janet. John has got his old mountain bike out of the garage. The bike is a bit dusty and the tyres need pumping up. "I like riding my bike" says John. 
 

digester, digested read: bikes are good 

A trifle simplistic perhaps, but, see, you can make your points succinctly.

I remember years ago reading something about how the structure of news programmes actually dictates the kind of debates that can happen (I think it might have been by Noam Chomsky, but couldn't find it). Basically, any idea that is complex enough to require more than 2-3 minutes of explanation cannot be discussed and thus news and politics devolves into small sound-bites that rarely mean anything but get people to make agreeing noises.

e.g. Get Brexit Done - doesn't specify what "Brexit" means or what getting it "Done" means but repeated often enough makes people think that it's a good idea. Any discussions of what the specific targets are and how they can be measurably completed, simply don't fit into most news items.

Avatar
ktache replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
3 likes

Or "Stay Home"

Hmmm...

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to ktache | 3 years ago
1 like

ktache wrote:

Or "Stay Home"

Hmmm...

At least that is fairly specific, despite "loopholes" such as venturing out for medical reasons (though I don't think that going for a drive to test your eyesight is a wise thing to do even if it is your wife's 45th birthday).

Avatar
David9694 replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
1 like

Yes - we live in a 10 second soundbite world. Cars are "normal" to most people, it feels like we're usually the underdog.
So how to get our message across - concisely in a way that will have an impact, in the face of for example helmets, insurance, road tax, should be banned, etc. 
just another thought, from the local newspaper comment sections, if you're fond of phrases like "end of", why go on a forum?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to David9694 | 3 years ago
2 likes

The best message is to get out there and be seen riding your bike (with or without a helmet).

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

I remember years ago reading something about how the structure of news programmes actually dictates the kind of debates that can happen (I think it might have been by Noam Chomsky, but couldn't find it). Basically, any idea that is complex enough to require more than 2-3 minutes of explanation cannot be discussed and thus news and politics devolves into small sound-bites that rarely mean anything but get people to make agreeing noises.

e.g. Get Brexit Done - doesn't specify what "Brexit" means or what getting it "Done" means but repeated often enough makes people think that it's a good idea. Any discussions of what the specific targets are and how they can be measurably completed, simply don't fit into most news items.

Fair point, but do we deal with the world as it is, or how we wish it was?  It's perfectly possible to make short, extremely telling points e.g. Neil Kinnock, known as the "Welsh windbag" because of his long, incomprehensible questions at PMQs, scored his biggest hit with "How is the government's inflation plan going?"

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
0 likes

eburtthebike wrote:

Fair point, but do we deal with the world as it is, or how we wish it was?  It's perfectly possible to make short, extremely telling points e.g. Neil Kinnock, known as the "Welsh windbag" because of his long, incomprehensible questions at PMQs, scored his biggest hit with "How is the government's inflation plan going?"

Short arguments are definitely best for gaining popular support, but that's not so relevant on a cycle forum.

Avatar
David9694 replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
2 likes

No drifting off at the back there!

Avatar
leqin | 3 years ago
0 likes

It was his own fault because he was riding his bike too close to a car. Anybody who rides their bike so close to a vehicle - any vehicle - even those that appear to have nobody occupying them - is going to become another statistic. You need to ride far enough out into the road that a opened door will miss you..... and if the idiots behind in their tin boxes complain, which the self entitled idiots will, then phuck them - you have a right to a life more than they have a right to be a few more inches down the road.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to leqin | 3 years ago
7 likes

Whilst good roadcraft, you need to be careful with that line of thought.

It was the cyclist's fault because:

They should have used the cycle path.
Should have used a light in daytime
Shouldn't have used a bright light at night.
Should have been riding in primary
Shouldn't have been riding in primary
Should have been riding slower
Shouldn't have held up the traffic
Should have used the asl
Shouldn't have filtered past a queue of traffic
Shouldn't be using a busy road
Shouldn't be using quiet country roads
Should be riding as a compact group
Shouldn't be riding 2 abreast.
Should have ridded more defensively
Shouldn't have ridden as defensively

Etc

The good Bishop did nothing illegal here, certainly with regard to wearing or not wearing a helmet or with regard to where he was cycling. Maybe he was in one of those door zone cycle lanes? The fact is that a motorist did fail to observe the law in opening their door or allowing a passenger to do so, resulting in injury to another road user.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to leqin | 3 years ago
4 likes
leqin wrote:

It was his own fault because he was riding his bike t̶o̶o̶ ̶c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶a̶r̶.̶ ̶A̶n̶y̶b̶o̶d̶y̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶r̶i̶d̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶b̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶s̶o̶ ̶c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶v̶e̶h̶i̶c̶l̶e̶ ̶-̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶v̶e̶h̶i̶c̶l̶e̶ ̶-̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶e̶a̶r̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶b̶o̶d̶y̶ ̶o̶c̶c̶u̶p̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶m̶ ̶-̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶g̶o̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶s̶t̶i̶c̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶n̶e̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶r̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶r̶ ̶e̶n̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶o̶a̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶o̶p̶e̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶d̶o̶o̶r̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶m̶i̶s̶s̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶.̶.̶.̶.̶.̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶d̶i̶o̶t̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶h̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶t̶i̶n̶ ̶b̶o̶x̶e̶s̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶a̶i̶n̶,̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶e̶l̶f̶ ̶e̶n̶t̶i̶t̶l̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶d̶i̶o̶t̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶p̶h̶u̶c̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶m̶ ̶-̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶i̶f̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶f̶e̶w̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶h̶e̶s̶ down the road.

 3

Avatar
Msiv | 3 years ago
1 like

If he had been wearing a helmet he still would have been doored, they are not magic.
The results of that helmeted dooring are just conjecture but he probably just then fell sidewards and banged his head on the asphalt at slow speed, perfect for the only protection helmets can give. He is lucky, most people that are doored wouldn't see significant benefit from wearing a helmet. As a priest with a head injury he is probably not the best commentator on road safety. Ignore.

Avatar
roubaixcobbles | 3 years ago
4 likes

It's funny, when I commute on the roads in London I see approximately 90% of people cycling are wearing helmets, and when I go training on popular routes (e.g. Dulwich Paragon)  99% of "serious" cyclists are wearing helmets. And yet whenever helmets are raised on cycling websites, 90% of the comments are anti-helmet. Thus we may conclude that either 90% of cyclists and 99% of serious cyclists are complete muppets doing something that has no value whatsoever, or there is a minuscule minority of strangely embittered commentators who rove the Internet desperate to find helmet discussions to leap on and prove their superiority by showing that they are part of the 1%. There is at least one passionate anti-helmeter on here who shows up on at least five other cycling websites that I know of, never commenting on anything but helmet use. It's pretty sad really.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to roubaixcobbles | 3 years ago
14 likes

More likely, it's a reaction to all the rubbish spoken about helmets. With the number of articles on the BBC and mainstream media that can hardly ever mention a bike without commenting on hi-viz and helmets, it's a natural reaction to state that wearing helmets has very little to do with actual safety on the roads (motorists not paying attention or driving inconsiderately has to be number one).

There's also the reactions from people declaring things like "you must be a complete idiot to ever cycle without a helmet" without considering the other effects of helmets (e.g. risk compensation). What's worse is that the constant harping on about helmets makes it seem like cycling is a very dangerous activity and so the general public decides to get in a car and drive instead.

What we need to do is to focus on copying the examples of successful cycling cities and get ordinary people (e.g. not lycra-clad louts) to use cycles to go from A to B. There's just so many advantages of cycling and yet the MSM and motoring proponents manage to keep pushing the "danger" agenda and even that cycling increases air pollution!

This particular example highlights just how gaslighted the general public has become.

(I do wear a helmet but I don't believe it will be of much help. If NMOTD 414 had made contact then my helmet would have done nothing.)

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
0 likes

Out of interest, and genuine question, based on the above why do you wear a helmet? 

I ask as I still refrain from wearing a helmet for much of my riding... MTB and fast group rides, race scenarios, yes, otherwise no. 

Reasons being... I don't see cycling as a dangerous activity, and certainly not one with a specific head injury issue that needs to be mitigated against. Raise that risk as in the examples I mention, then it maybe needs a fresh look... another reason is that the level of protection provided by a helmet is moderate at best... the final reason is plain stubborness; based on my first two reasons, I refuse to give in to peer pressure on this issue... I'm sure darwin may catch up with me at some point, put 30 years and god knows how many miles, and many, many crashes later, I'm still here! 

Pages

Latest Comments