The husband of a woman who was killed when she was thrown from her bicycle just moments after taking a selfie has suggested that the government should introduce a mandatory helmet law.
The London Evening Standard reports how on August 19, New Zealand born Carmen Greenway was cycling home from The Crown in St Margaret’s with her mother Sherry Bennett and two friends when her bike hit a “rough” patch in the road.
Her husband, Rufus, said: “She’d been taking selfies and had one hand on the bars. It was bumpy and she just jack-knifed the bars, threw herself off the bike and fractured her skull. It wasn’t the cycling that killed her, it was a tragic mistake. She was close to home, relaxed and having a lovely time.”
Bennett said she had been riding right behind her daughter and described the incident as “just one of those unbelievable accidents.”
She was rushed to intensive care at St Mary’s Hospital in Paddington where she died six days later after going into cardiac arrest. Her funeral was held last month.
“It is worrying to hear that she had been taking selfies,” said Rufus. “We all think ‘it will never happen to me’, but the reality is that an accident can happen to anyone at any time – regardless of how experienced a cyclist you may be.”
Pointing to mandatory helmet laws in New Zealand, he added: “With London becoming a cycling city there are only going to be more cyclists, therefore perhaps the government should make a stronger case for saying if you want to get on a bike you need a proficiency test and you need to wear a helmet.”
Carmen Greenway took up cycling competitively 18 months ago and both Rufus and their eldest son Finlay, 13, are members of the Twickenham Cycling Club. Rufus was on the group ride during which Ralph Brazier was thrown from his bike and killed after hitting a pothole in March.
A spokesman for Headway, the brain injury charity which campaigns for mandatory helmet laws, said:
“The evidence is clear that helmets protect the brain and save lives. We are calling for a change in the law for children to wear helmets and we would like to see more done to encourage everyone to wear helmets.
“The evidence from Australian and New Zealand is that the number of head and brain injuries from cycling has reduced while cycling has never been more popular.”
This is however disputed. While contributing to a 2015 senate inquiry into the country’s mandatory helmet laws, research journalist Chris Gillham said that data published over the past 25 years had consistently shown a substantial and permanent decline in the proportion of Australians cycling.
44 thoughts on “Husband of woman who died after fall from bike says helmets should be mandatory”
Its sad that he has to bear a
Its sad that he has to bear a loss, but it doesnt provide any evidence that a helmet helps.
australia and new Zeland are not the best cycling country examples…they are simply ones he is familiar with and who support his wish to exert control where the truth is people have accidents and die sometimes.
Sad news for the family.
Sad news for the family. Serves her right just maybe?
SStill can’t see why helmets should be compulsory any more than seat belts . Your choice.
mattsccm wrote:
Wow you’re all heart aren’t you…
mattsccm wrote:
Seatbelts are righly compulsory because they can lead to other people being killed.
kitsunegari wrote:
OK, I’m intrigued. Please give me an example of someone, outside the car, being killed due to someone inside not wearing a seat-belt.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Seatbelts are righly compulsory because they can lead to other people being killed.
— kitsunegari OK, I’m intrigued. Please give me an example of someone, outside the car, being killed due to someone inside not wearing a seat-belt.— mattsccm
What about someone who is not the driver inside the car getting killed due to the actions (or inactions) of the driver ? Not sure if that was his intention (it’s how I read it) but that fits in with mattsccm comment doesn’t it ?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
OK, I’m intrigued. Please give me an example of someone, outside the car, being killed due to someone inside not wearing a seat-belt.[/quote]
They may have it back to front.
Four members of the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety (all seat belt proponents) had an article published in the statistical journal Significance about this. It could be called the corollary to the steering wheel spike effect.
They wrote,
“the clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.”
By their figures, when seat belts were made compulsory, cyclist deaths went up by 38, which is 13% and pedestrian deaths by 150, 8%. KSI figures went up similarly.
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/03/24/the-biggest-lie/
felixcat wrote:
Yep, straightforward statistical demonstration of risk-compensation leading to unintended consequences. The difference between seatbelts and helmets, is that the victim of the unintended consequences is most likely to be the user. Risk compensation meets marginal safety gains gets you the graphs most of us have seen in the New Zealand and Australia data.
Helmet user here, but support
Helmet user here, but support people’s choice of whether or not to wear one. Very sympathetic to the husband’s feelings, but cycling back from the pub, taking selfies on a poor road surface? Maybe the anger/grief is misdirected here…
Steezysix wrote:
This +1
When NZ made helmets
When NZ made helmets compulsory the number of riders went down from 250,000 to 150,00, but the injury rate nearly doubled. Look at this graph.
https://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/ (link is external)
When helmets were mandated in Australia wearing rates went up from about a third to nearly 100%. The head injury rate went up slightly.
You can find all the evidence in cyclehelmets.org.
New Zealand and Australia are the two countries where helmet laws were first introduced and are a very good choice to show that these laws do not work.
My late mother-in-law tripped
My late mother-in-law tripped over the wheel of a wheel chair and banged the back of her head. She died from a massive haematoma as a consequence of the fall.
More ‘Proof’ that pedestrians should wear helmets.
Idiots, doing idiot things,
Idiots, doing idiot things, because they’re idiots. Move along.
had she been drinking in the
had she been drinking in the pub? was she drunk in charge of a vehicle?
there is already a law that covers drunk in charge – and unlike speeding, it includes bikes.
A sad incident that could almost certainly have been avoided by not drinking and riding.
Condolences to the husband.
I wear a helmet had a crash
I wear a helmet had a crash coming back from the pub, fractured some ribs and cracked the helmet. My own fault cycling with a few pints, unfortunately like my own incident this was self inflicted, compulsory helmet use won’t stop accidents like this happening.
Pub + taking selfies with one
Pub + taking selfies with one hand on bars = everyone suffers for one person’s stupidity?
Never mind the husband’s it’ll never happen to me talk, that WILL never to me as I won’t go down the pub on a bike or take selfies whilst riding.
It’s bad enough people in cars keep off the phone.
I feel sorry for the husband and family in this tragic accident but they should perhaps remember the old lawyers’ motto: Hard cases make bad law.
A very sad case – but would
A very sad case – but would she have crashed if she hadn’t been taking selfies ?
https://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12
https://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/
I see my link does not work. Is this better?
How about a compromise then.
How about a compromise then.
People who want to ride drunk, with one hand on the bars, taking selfies with the other, on rough tarmac, should have to wear helmets.
unconstituted wrote:
She was coming back from a pub. She’d been there for dinner with her Mum. Her husband commented that she’d probably had a drink. This does not mean she was drunk. Neither does it mean she was not drunk, but it does not mean she was drunk.
Laws should be based on data
Laws should be based on data and reasoning, not on personal experiences. Nearly everybody who lost friend or family would argue the same way. Imagine the Dutch had introduced mandatory helmets instead of changing their infra based on the “Stop the child murder” campaign.
Really very sorry for this
Really very sorry for this gentleman’s loss, but with best will in the world I fail to see how someone’s free, though I’ll advised, choice to lark about on a bicycle after a session at the pub whilst taking selfies should mean that my free choice not to ride with a helmet when I don’t feel like wearing one should be taken away.
Here in New Zealand, cycling
Here in New Zealand, cycling events have (almost) never been more popular. Cycling as a mode of transport from a to b (eg kids cycling to school, commuters) is strongly on the wane. I live in a town with about 3000 school students. I pass or live close to 5 schools on my morning ‘commute’. It would be a rare day I see more than 10 kids cycling to school. Much of this lack of participation is due to the perception of cycling being dangerous. Personally I support individual choice. I do think children should be strongly encouraged to wear helmets as the incidence of head injuries from cycling accidents in NZ has always been highest in those under 16.
And back to the article, I do think this guy has done a brilliant job of highlighting why the separated cycle path is a good idea 🙂
madcarew wrote:
Are you aware that children have been strangled by their helmet straps but there is no proven case of a helmet saving a life. So helmets have killed children and saved none. Do you still think they should be strongly encouraged?
This girl wasn’t killed by a car, so of what possible relevance are segregated cycle paths?
Shortlist for a Darwin Award.
Shortlist for a Darwin Award.
And No. I have no sympathy for moronic behaviour. If she was killed by a drunk, selfie taking motorist, it would be a different matter.
MikeOnABike wrote:
Nice. Wonder what the eulogies will be like at your funeral?!
BikeBud wrote:
That I was a miserable cunt unless I was riding a bike, cleaning a bike or repairing a bike.
MikeOnABike wrote:
Maybe you could find something else in the world that also interests you, might be less of a cunt then ?
Husban of woman who died from
Husband of woman who died from fall in a shower/ from ladder / in a car accident says helmets should be mandatory…
A tragedy for the family
A tragedy for the family without doubt but this is all about choice.
Mrs Greenway came from New Zealand where helmets are compulsory yet she chose to ride without one. She chose to ride after a night out without fully concentrating on the road whilst taking a selfie. She was an experienced cyclist in making these choices. Whilst the consequences of these choices are devastating for her and her family, the outcome does not justify the removal of freedom to choose for everyone else. At no point is it clear that if there was a law, her choices would have been different anyway.
A tragic tale and that’s it.
My thoughts are with the family but I disagree with the reasoning in their campaign.
Some pretty awful responses
Some pretty awful responses on here to a tragic accident. I hope none of her friends or family come across this site.
Jackson wrote:
It was a tragic accident however if the family choose to use it to promote a helmet law then it is no longer a private tragedy and they can expect fair comment on their campaign.
Condolences to the family and
Condolences to the family and very sorry that TCC have suffered more bad news so soon after Ralph.
In the rush to rightly defend choice & critique this lady’s behaviour, comments above have overlooked the fact that yet again bad road surface was cited as a trigger for the accident. We should be bemoaning that it’s the responsibility of the relevant agency to maintain the roads to be safe for all rather than only blaming the cyclist, who we must accept may well have been also at fault.
It’s also possible a helmet could have prevented her skull injury, in contrast to the accidents that involve HGVs
An egg box sellotaped to your
An egg box sellotaped to your head is going to reduce the force in an impact, not much but some. It is funny the way this issue with being crushed by HGV’s keeps coming up, like anyone claims a helmet will protect you from this. Its a bit like climate change deniers saying ‘It was hotter when the dinosaurs were around’ fallacious arguments are fallacious.
Funny as well that there doesn’t seem to be the same sort of debate about Horse Jumping, BMXing, Base Jumping, White water kayaking, Rafting, Carting, Motorbiking, Helmets are cool/No compulsion.
The way the law is now is fine, classic British Libertarianism, what are we still arguing about?
Leviathan wrote:
If you’re trying to draw a parallel between sports activities and everyday utility cycling, I might need to borrow your fallacious argument, argument.
Fortunately, being a sensible bunch, 99% of people who cycle agree that the law is correct even though views on helmets vary. The 1% who want to impose their beliefs, deservedly get clobbered with data until they shut up or look ridiculous.
Leviathan wrote:
it’s like raiaiiiiiiiin on your wedding day…
Leviathan wrote:
The only thing we are ‘arguing’ about is the apparent desire of a sad widower and an opportunist ‘charity’ to use a sad event to push a helmet compulsion law for whioch there is little real demand and almost no evidence of benefit. The law now is indeed fine, but these people’s behaviour is far from fine.
New Zealand has a compulsory
New Zealand has a compulsory all age helmet law and it’s about exactly as dangerous to cycle there as in the UK which doesn’t (interesting that the law was also brought in by using a single anecdote by the “Helmet Lady” rather than population level data). And the UK is hardly a shining star in European cyclist safety…
If Sweden had a compulsory all age helmet law then you might take some notice as they have a third the road casualties as New Zealand… but New Zealand is hardly a leader in road safety. You couldn’t even regard it as a follower.
More like heads off in it’s own direction doing shit that has never been shown to work (you might consider it working if you think reducing cyclist numbers is a good thing).
Disgusting to watch the
Disgusting to watch the “charity” Headway misusing this tragedy. Is there no depth to which they will not stoop?
Someone on another thread
Someone on another thread referred to “noddy hat wearing evangelists”, which I thought was quite funny. I would stress that I am a fan of wearing helmets, although not to the point of evangelism, I hope, so I disagree with the poster’s position on helmets. But at least poster had a sense of humour.
Wife.
Wife.
Mother of two kids.
RIP .
Her husbands says that “the
Her husbands says that “the government should make a stronger case for saying if you want to get on a bike you need a proficiency test and you need to wear a helmet.”
but previously he said: “but the reality is that an accident can happen to anyone at any time – regardless of how experienced a cyclist you may be.”
So a proficiency test wouldn’t have helped, and his wife normally wore a helmet.
The mistakes that caused the crash – riding with one hand and carrying a phone in the other – are all covered by Rule 66 of the highway code.
So the government should do no such thing.
Sympathies to the family.
I hesitate to comment without
I hesitate to comment without all the facts , but it appears that alcohol and cyclist behaviour may have played a part here. I’ll wait for the inquest and see – jumping to “compulsory helmet” time seems to be too hasty.