News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Cyclist badly injured after freak crash

Police at the scene in Stamford Avenue Police at the scene in Stamford Avenue

A woman was last night seriously ill in hospital after suffering severe head injuries in a freak cycling accident.

The 43-year-old was pedalling downhill when a female pedestrian crossed her path.

It is thought as the cyclist, from Brighton, swerved to avoid the pedestrian she lost control and came off her bicycle.

Police at the scene of the crash, in Stanford Avenue, opposite Stanford Methodist Church, Five Ways, said the rider was not wearing a helmet.

Forensic collision officers initially described her condition as “life-threatening” but this was later downgraded to “serious”.

The woman was travelling between Ditchling Road and Preston Road when the collision happened at 10.35am yesterday (January 25).

The road was shut to traffic until 1.30pm while police examined the scene.

A Sussex Police spokesman said: “It looks as though she swerved to avoid a woman crossing the road southbound and just came off her bike and hit her head hard. It is a reminder that people should always wear a helmet.”

The woman was airlifted to King’s College Hospital in London from nearby Blakers Park.

Douglas Morrison, who lives in Southdown Avenue, Brighton, walked past moments after the incident.

He said: “She looked seriously ill. Paramedics worked on her while she was lying on the floor. She was then lifted into an ambulance.”

A Sussex Police statement said: “Police are appealing for witnesses after the woman tried to avoid a pedestrian crossing the road and came off her cycle.

“She has serious head injuries but not life-threatening.”

Anyone who witnessed the accident should call Sussex Police on 101, quoting Operation Rochford.

More news from The Argus

Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments(44)

Nick Brighton says...
1:28pm Thu 26 Jan 12

Tell the copy editors in Southampton that it's StaNford Avenue, not StaMford.

Nick Brighton says...
1:33pm Thu 26 Jan 12

There's still a debate as to whether cycling helmets actually help. There is a lot of evidence for example that drivers give a wider berth to riders without helmets, compared to those not wearing helmets. My view, as a cyclist who cycles daily, is that they should be worn. After all, the riders in the Tour de France wear them.

Indigatio says...
1:47pm Thu 26 Jan 12

2 1/2 years ago I was in knocked off my bike by a car. I suffered broken ribs, a dislocated shoulder, a bruised kidney and numerous cuts etc. My head hit the road, hard, but I was wearing a good quality helmet. The impact split the helmet. If I hadn't been wearing it I hate think what would have happened. Two days after this accident a collegue of mine in Holland fell off her bike. She hiy her head on the kerb, no helment, and ended up in a coma. So my view is that if you ride a bike you wear a helmet.

Spanners says...
1:56pm Thu 26 Jan 12

Nick Brighton wrote:
There's still a debate as to whether cycling helmets actually help. There is a lot of evidence for example that drivers give a wider berth to riders without helmets, compared to those not wearing helmets. My view, as a cyclist who cycles daily, is that they should be worn. After all, the riders in the Tour de France wear them.
I came off my bike the day before very close to here in the pouring rain when a car pulled out from a parked position without indicating ahead of me. All i can tell you is I'm really glad i was wearing a helmet and it took a lot of force/damage. Apart from scrapes, bruising and minor whiplash I'm fine. I wish the lady in question all the very best for a speedy recovery

Maxwell's Ghost says...
2:02pm Thu 26 Jan 12

But Nick, she swerved to avoid a pedestrian no car was invovled.
I cycle a 42 mile round trip daily and I can tell you that taking a chance on whether a vehicle 'might' swerve around you because you are not wearing a helmet is not something I would risk.
I have been knocked off by a car pulling out of a side road, my head smashed the windscreen, but I escaped with an A&E check up.
I was never one for wearing helmets and loved to have a sneaky ride on my motorbike without one, but never again.
I will leave risk to the odd £10 bet.

LB says...
2:06pm Thu 26 Jan 12

Advice from the police about wearing a helmet but none to pedestrians to look before they walk out into the road?

Blame the victim?

fascinator says...
2:14pm Thu 26 Jan 12

Nick Brighton wrote:
There's still a debate as to whether cycling helmets actually help. There is a lot of evidence for example that drivers give a wider berth to riders without helmets, compared to those not wearing helmets. My view, as a cyclist who cycles daily, is that they should be worn. After all, the riders in the Tour de France wear them.
But the riders in the Tour de France go a lot quicker, and cycle far more dangerously than cyclists in Hove.

CliveA says...
2:36pm Thu 26 Jan 12

- Why is this described as a 'freak' accident?
.
- Why are we not told whether the pedestrian was wearing a helmet? Why are we always encouraged to leap to 'the helmet question'?
.
- Riders in the Tour de France are forced to wear helmets by the rules of their sport. Cycling to work in Hove is not a sport. It is a normal way of getting around. And sadly, accidents do happen.

Alisanderina says...
2:40pm Thu 26 Jan 12

Nick Brighton wrote:
Tell the copy editors in Southampton that it's StaNford Avenue, not StaMford.
Yes definitely StaNford!
Hope the lady is going to be alright. I wondered why a yellow helicopter was hovering over my house! - I took a picture of it. - Didn't know what the circumstances were at the time - very sad news - please have a speedy recovery... whoever you are. x x

Indigatio says...
2:48pm Thu 26 Jan 12

CliveA wrote:
- Why is this described as a 'freak' accident?
.
- Why are we not told whether the pedestrian was wearing a helmet? Why are we always encouraged to leap to 'the helmet question'?
.
- Riders in the Tour de France are forced to wear helmets by the rules of their sport. Cycling to work in Hove is not a sport. It is a normal way of getting around. And sadly, accidents do happen.
- Why is this described as a 'freak' accident? . - Why are we not told whether the pedestrian was wearing a helmet?
A=Journalistic Licence?

Why are we always encouraged to leap to 'the helmet question'? .
A= and your point is??? -

Riders in the Tour de France are forced to wear helmets by the rules of their sport. Cycling to work in Hove is not a sport. It is a normal way of getting around. And sadly, accidents do happen.
A= Sadly they do but one needs to take responsibility who ones owns actions. You can never eliminate risk but there are things you can do to lower the risks involved.

CliveA says...
2:59pm Thu 26 Jan 12

Indignatio - If we want to lower the risks involved in everyday travel, should we advocate the wearing of helmets by pedestrians and motorists? Both groups sustain grave head injuries on a regular basis, so surely we should implore them to 'take responsibility', no?
-
I feel we're very inconsistent in the way the h-word always appears within the first few lines of any report of a cycling accident. The police and media pile on the expectation that helmet-wearing should be considered the norm among cyclists, as if cycling is the only way to sustain an injury - nonsense of course. We've become highly irrational on the subject, and making cycling appear more dangerous than it actually is.

Alisanderina says...
3:05pm Thu 26 Jan 12

I stopped a cyclist once when it was dusk - they were barely visible with dark clothes on, no lights on the bike and no helmet travelling through that dreadful traffic light system at Fiveways!! I stopped them whilst in my car a few roads up where it was safe and told them off! I was so angry - she could have caused an accident easily or been involved in one herself! They should make it law to wear a helmet and wear a high vis jacket or something reflective and at least have lights front and back!! (does anyone agree? or am I turning into a grumpy old women? ) :(

CliveA says...
3:07pm Thu 26 Jan 12

Alisanderina - Why is this relevant? Yes. Yes, you are.

Alisanderina says...
3:14pm Thu 26 Jan 12

CliveA wrote:
Alisanderina - Why is this relevant? Yes. Yes, you are.
Thanks Clive......x

bhoy1976 says...
3:23pm Thu 26 Jan 12

Wearing a cycling helmet should be the law. It is one of the few preventions a cyclist can take to save their lives.
I've seen a number of people cycle down Stanford Avenue wear I live and many do not have them. There are many injuries you can endure from cycling incidents, but do what you can to limit them and even save your life.
The details of the incident do not provide enough to who was at fault.
However, I hope the cyclist has a quick recovery.

LB says...
3:28pm Thu 26 Jan 12

"The details of the incident do not provide enough to who was at fault."

errm unless it was on a pedestrian crossing then the pedestrian;

"The 43-year-old was pedalling downhill when a female pedestrian crossed her path."

has anyone above done any research into any evidence suggesting a reduction in serious injuries when cyclists wear helmets v when they don't? There's very little published evidence that helmet wearing has a positive affect on outcomes for cyclists. Some studies have even found that neck injuries are increased due to the extra leverage that helmets cause being further out from the centre line of the skull.

Wearing a helmet may make cyclists *look* safer but it's not necessarily true that they are.

Mostly it's just an excuse for people to say 'it's there own fault' and move on to listing their grievances against *all* cyclists based on a bad experience with a few of them...

bhoy1976 says...
3:56pm Thu 26 Jan 12

LB wrote:
"The details of the incident do not provide enough to who was at fault."

errm unless it was on a pedestrian crossing then the pedestrian;

"The 43-year-old was pedalling downhill when a female pedestrian crossed her path."

has anyone above done any research into any evidence suggesting a reduction in serious injuries when cyclists wear helmets v when they don't? There's very little published evidence that helmet wearing has a positive affect on outcomes for cyclists. Some studies have even found that neck injuries are increased due to the extra leverage that helmets cause being further out from the centre line of the skull.

Wearing a helmet may make cyclists *look* safer but it's not necessarily true that they are.

Mostly it's just an excuse for people to say 'it's there own fault' and move on to listing their grievances against *all* cyclists based on a bad experience with a few of them...
LB, unless you have the facts of the incident I think it is short-sighted of you to assume who's fault it was. Yes someone crossed the path of the cyclist, but do you know at what distance, how well the cyclists brakes were working, were either of the people involved looking properly.
I'm a cyclist myself, cycle into work daily and have to look out fot pedestrians and motorists. Similarly I see a great many cyclist cycling with ignorance.
But if you do have the facts then I suggest you contact the Sussex Police on 101 as it seems to be a clear cut case for you. Think before you speak.

LB says...
4:33pm Thu 26 Jan 12

true bhoy1976 but I do feel that the automatic 'it's the cyclists fault for not wearing a hat attitude' from both police and other posters on here needs examining and countering.

No on suggests pedestrians wear hats but more than 2000 die every year in this country from head injuries whilst out and about...

Rocker says...
4:34pm Thu 26 Jan 12

Safety and cycling seem to be mutually exclusive around Brighton for some bizarre reason.The sheer number of lunatics who take to the road at night wearing dark,non-reflective clothing and no lights is staggering.What is amazing is that there aren't more serious accidents.

This is nothing to do with the precise circumstances of the story above,just an add-on to the general topic.

bhoy1976 says...
5:31pm Thu 26 Jan 12

LB wrote:
true bhoy1976 but I do feel that the automatic 'it's the cyclists fault for not wearing a hat attitude' from both police and other posters on here needs examining and countering.

No on suggests pedestrians wear hats but more than 2000 die every year in this country from head injuries whilst out and about...
You're right, LB and there will always be bashing on here regardless of who is at fault, but I'm not sure that is what people are saying. My first thought when I read this in work yesterday was 'were they wearing a helmet?', so I don't know what camp that puts me in because as I said, I cycle everywhere.
However, my mind is open to the whole incident and it will be based entirely information provided by witnesses and the accounts of the two people. That is what I am trained to do in my job and it applies here to.
Sadly though, I will be using this incident as a reminder to all my friends and cyclists to wear a helmet. I would much rather wear one than not, it certainly saved my life in 2010 when I was hit by a blind driver.
All the best.

Maxwell's Ghost says...
5:57pm Thu 26 Jan 12

Rocker is absolutely right. I can't understand why the council spent all that cash on a machine which counts cyclists in the cycle lane on Lewes Road, yet every day dozens of uni students cycle along the route without any lights and dark clothing, weaving about all over the lane and into the traffic as they negotiate around the buses which have their rear ends sticking in the road (particularly that incredibly dangerous giant bendy bus) and into the busy, 40mph Lewes Road without the cops ever doing a spot-check and fining them.
These kids spend a fortune on booze, laptops and gadgets but wont spend a tenner on a basic set of live saving lights when it's actually a legal requirement.

CliveA says...
6:05pm Thu 26 Jan 12

This is all so predictable.
-
Accident happens - apparently as the fault of a pedestrian's actions. And merely because a cyclist is involved, before long the irrelevant cyclist-bashing comments and helmet-obsessed hand-wringing is trotted out.
-
Yawn.

Hard times says...
6:27pm Thu 26 Jan 12

As a cyclist, it believe it should be down to the individual to wear a helmet - it is their life at stake.

As for lights - it is my belief that it should be downright illegal to ride a bike without lights when its dark.

I hope this lady has a speedy recovery, and all pedestrians reading this realise how important it is to look before crossing roads - not just for your own sake.

bhoy1976 says...
6:29pm Thu 26 Jan 12

CliveA wrote:
This is all so predictable.
-
Accident happens - apparently as the fault of a pedestrian's actions. And merely because a cyclist is involved, before long the irrelevant cyclist-bashing comments and helmet-obsessed hand-wringing is trotted out.
-
Yawn.
As I said to LB, CliveA, the fault has not been laid at anyone's door. Also, I don't think it is a bad thing to wear a helmet.

Would you not wear a helmet?

CliveA says...
6:36pm Thu 26 Jan 12

bhoy1976 - Sometimes I wear a helmet and sometimes I don't. But I never tell other people whether or not they should wear one, as I recognise it is absolutely none of my business. Would you wear one while walking or driving? If not, why not?

bhoy1976 says...
9:49pm Thu 26 Jan 12

CliveA wrote:
bhoy1976 - Sometimes I wear a helmet and sometimes I don't. But I never tell other people whether or not they should wear one, as I recognise it is absolutely none of my business. Would you wear one while walking or driving? If not, why not?
Okay mate, you win. But only because your being ridiculous.

jools99 says...
1:16am Fri 27 Jan 12

I saw this unfortunate accident and, sadly, the cyclist was travelling far too fast. In my humble opinion, the pedestrian was not at fault as it appeared that the cyclist panicked and slammed on her brakes too hard.

It was a horrible accident and I'm sure that the pedestrian is having nightmares about it, even though it wasn't her fault.

I do hope that the cyclist makes a speedy recovery without any lasting health issues.

My thoughts are with both the pedestrian and the cyclist.

Opus the Poet says...
7:17am Fri 27 Jan 12

I'm trying to figure out what other cyclists wearing dark clothing at night has to do with this daylight wreck avoiding a pedestrian.

And there were studies done on how much bicycle helmets helped in preventing head injury, but the helmet standards now are much lower than the standards when those studies were done almost 20 years ago. For one thing helmets almost universally had hard shells that would slide on the road rather than grabbing and causing neck injury as modern helmets are accused of doing.

CliveA says...
8:41am Fri 27 Jan 12

Jools99 - How fast is "too fast"?
bhoy1976 - It *is* ridiculous, isn't it? But that's just my point. We're being encouraged by the media and the police to bark "helmet!" as soon as anyone mentions cycling. And for no good, logical consistant reason.

Dirk Gently says...
2:04pm Fri 27 Jan 12

CliveA - "too fast" is when you can't stop in time to avoid a collision, when something unexpected happens - just the same as for car drivers. I don't see why the pedestrian is being blamed here, when if it was a car rather than a bike you can guarantee the driver would be held liable for hitting a pedestrian.

I don't care whether she was wearing a helmet or not - that's personal choice as far as I'm concerned, and she'll live or die with the consequences. But she was clearly travelling too fast for the conditions, otherwise there wouldn't have been a "freak" crash at all.

Accidents do happen, but they can always be avoided with the right precautions - and in some cases those precautions are well worth taking.

bhoy1976 says...
3:40pm Fri 27 Jan 12

jools99 wrote:
I saw this unfortunate accident and, sadly, the cyclist was travelling far too fast. In my humble opinion, the pedestrian was not at fault as it appeared that the cyclist panicked and slammed on her brakes too hard.

It was a horrible accident and I'm sure that the pedestrian is having nightmares about it, even though it wasn't her fault.

I do hope that the cyclist makes a speedy recovery without any lasting health issues.

My thoughts are with both the pedestrian and the cyclist.
I live in a road just off where the incident took place and regularly witness cyclists hammering it down Stanford Avenue. Given your witness account, I'm saddened that one of these occasions has brought pain to two people.
It was very wet on the road that morning and downhill speed is not your friends in such conditions. Let's hope a full recovery is achieved for both parties as I am sure the pedestrian is suffering mentally as much as the cyclist is suffering injury.

Spanners says...
4:15pm Fri 27 Jan 12

Dirk Gently wrote:
CliveA - "too fast" is when you can't stop in time to avoid a collision, when something unexpected happens - just the same as for car drivers. I don't see why the pedestrian is being blamed here, when if it was a car rather than a bike you can guarantee the driver would be held liable for hitting a pedestrian. I don't care whether she was wearing a helmet or not - that's personal choice as far as I'm concerned, and she'll live or die with the consequences. But she was clearly travelling too fast for the conditions, otherwise there wouldn't have been a "freak" crash at all. Accidents do happen, but they can always be avoided with the right precautions - and in some cases those precautions are well worth taking.
"too fast" is when you can't stop in time to avoid a collision, when something unexpected happens"

No, this has to be wrong. You can be doing 8mph, which is just double walking pace and very slow for a bicycle, and if someone steps out 2m ahead then you wont stop in time. Yet that would be "too fast" by your definition

Matters are not as black and white as you state. Accidents cannot "always be avoided". All sensible and reasonable precautions should be taken and risks may be reduced. The only way you can reduce risks to zero is to not cycle....or drive...or leave the house.

Opus the Poet says...
8:10pm Fri 27 Jan 12

The cyclist clearly wasn't going "too fast" in this case as the pedestrian appears to have been unharmed in this situation. But the pedestrian left her so little reaction time that the cyclist wrecked trying to avoid the collision. In the US when these things are judged the question becomes was there enough time to react without a wreck when the pedestrian crossed the path?

Bryan555 says...
10:48pm Fri 27 Jan 12

A sad story, but fortunately a rare one. I hope both parties recover fully and speedily.

The cyclist bashing and finger pointing is predictable but sad. As it hasn't been mentioned on here though, I would like to point out that such accidents can be avoided by cyclists and motorists allowing plenty of space between them and the kerb. Pedestrians make mistakes, and as faster moving vehicles drivers and cyclists have a responsibility to make allowances. Cyclists particularly tend to hug the kerb, giving no space for wayward pedestrians.

The pedestrian in this case must feel pretty bad, but it was an accident. They are lucky it wasn't a motor vehicle they stepped in front of, otherwise they would most likely be the one laying in hospital with a head injury.

Dirk Gently says...
12:09am Sat 28 Jan 12

Spanners, I disagree - 8mph in close proximity to a pedestrian is indeed too fast, for exactly the reason you state! Either slow down, or as Bryan says, change your course to leave more room to react. Anybody in charge of a vehicle of any kind has to pay attention to possible hazards, anticipate what might happen, and adjust course and speed to minimize the risks. Honestly, this is driving 101, and in my opinion it applies equally well to cyclists, untrained though they may be.

I didn't mean to imply that all precautions should always be taken to avoid accidents - as you say, there are practicalities involved. But I do believe in this kind of case the severity of the incident is almost entirely due to not taking a trivial precaution, and it's sad to see the result.

I sincerely hope the cyclist recovers from her injuries, but I also hope she learns from her mistakes.

jools99 says...
12:34am Sat 28 Jan 12

Many people are asking what is "too fast". This is going faster than the prevailing 30mph speed limit, which, in my estimation, the cyclist was doing.

"Too fast" is also not taking into consideration the steepness of the road and the road conditions and one's ability to stop to avoid a hazard in relation to the travelling speed.

In my opinion as a witness to the accident, the cyclist was not paying attention as she was at least 100 yards (possibly more - I haven't measured the distance exactly) away from the crossing point when the pedestrian started to cross the road. Had the cyclist not been travelling too fast (see my analysis of "too fast" above), then she could have braked slowly, had it been necessary. However, had the cyclist not been travelling too fast for the prevailing wet and slippery road conditions and bearing in mind the steepness of the road, then there would have been no necessity to brake.

In my opinion, the pedestrian is totally blameless and, sadly, the cyclist is now having to bear the consequences of her errors. What a sad way to have to learn.

moronslayer says...
12:14pm Sat 28 Jan 12

Very much hope the cyclist and pedestrian make a speedy recovery.

Cycling in traffic is dangerous and many cyclists regularly report 'near misses'.
Some of those unlit, darkly clad, cyclists described above are also drunk!

There have been far more studies done on motorcycle helmets. Serious neck injuries were more common with helmets that fully enclosed the chin. Open-faced helmets significantly reduce the chance of death in comparison but this was predominantly because the cyclists face acts as a spongy crumple-zone - thus reducing more serious brain injury.

The US BHSI is a good source of bicycle fatality statistics www.bhsi.org. Helmets do reduce serious injuries, but, as another noted, helmets may actually make a collision more likely (...but one is still less likely to die as a result).

The European Road Assessment Programme 2011 results show that bikes are involved in an unsurprising 21% of fatal road accidents in the UK, despite the fact that they only account for 1% of the traffic on our roads. In fact, on many roads they account for as many as 75% of fatal accidents. This sadly makes a cyclist more than 40 times more likely to be killed than a car driver, per kilometre travelled.

If anyone believes they are exercising free-will by not wearing a helmet then your choice is at the expense of the person who might have to live with the memory of needlessly killing you - irrespective of blame - that seems childish. Even the paramedics and medical staff can be deeply affected by a really messy wipe out - so any talk about 'my choice' shows a disappointing lack of insight.

Still don't want to wear a good quality bicycle helmet for every trip in traffic? Then please, please carry a donor card and also tell your next of kin you want to donate.

pebble counter says...
8:08pm Sat 28 Jan 12

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
But Nick, she swerved to avoid a pedestrian no car was invovled.
I cycle a 42 mile round trip daily and I can tell you that taking a chance on whether a vehicle 'might' swerve around you because you are not wearing a helmet is not something I would risk.
I have been knocked off by a car pulling out of a side road, my head smashed the windscreen, but I escaped with an A&E check up.
I was never one for wearing helmets and loved to have a sneaky ride on my motorbike without one, but never again.
I will leave risk to the odd £10 bet.
Good advice - now go and put that tenner on Brighton to win the FA cup, you'll get better odds before the draw.

Bryan555 says...
12:19pm Mon 30 Jan 12

jools99 wrote:
Many people are asking what is "too fast". This is going faster than the prevailing 30mph speed limit, which, in my estimation, the cyclist was doing.

"Too fast" is also not taking into consideration the steepness of the road and the road conditions and one's ability to stop to avoid a hazard in relation to the travelling speed.

In my opinion as a witness to the accident, the cyclist was not paying attention as she was at least 100 yards (possibly more - I haven't measured the distance exactly) away from the crossing point when the pedestrian started to cross the road. Had the cyclist not been travelling too fast (see my analysis of "too fast" above), then she could have braked slowly, had it been necessary. However, had the cyclist not been travelling too fast for the prevailing wet and slippery road conditions and bearing in mind the steepness of the road, then there would have been no necessity to brake.

In my opinion, the pedestrian is totally blameless and, sadly, the cyclist is now having to bear the consequences of her errors. What a sad way to have to learn.
30mph is VERY fast on a bicycle. If the lady was going at that speed it would require a great deal of confidence and a pretty good bike. 100 yards + is plenty of space to stop at 30mph on a fully functioning bicycle. It takes 78.88meters to stop a bicycle doing 30mph on ICE! Or 15.94meters on wet concrete (100 yards = 91.44 meters). So I'd speculate that if your guesses at speed and distance were correct then there must have been a severe mechanical problem with the bike.
Source: http://www.explorato
rium.edu/cycling/bra
kes2.html

jools99 says...
1:13pm Mon 30 Jan 12

Bryan 555: I have now had the chance to take measurements and my estimation of the distance was correct. Whether or not the cycle was mechanically sound will be determined by the police. However, I suspect that the cyclist was either inexperienced, which could be the case as she was not wearing a cycling helmet, or just that she wasn't concentrating properly.

I do agree that 30 mph is a very fast speed at which to travel for a cyclist, but bearing in mind that the top of Stanford Avenue is very steep, it is a perfectly achievable speed. Even on the flat it is possible to ride at 30 mph with a good cycle.

therighttodrive says...
2:11pm Thu 16 Feb 12

CYCLISTS SHOULD BE FORCED TO HAVE INSURANCE AND WEAR HI-VIZ FULL FACE HELMITS LIKE MOTORCYCLISTS AND TAKE A TEST AND STAY OUT OF THE WAY OF CARS AND PEDESTRIANS.

CliveA says...
5:45pm Thu 16 Feb 12

therighttodrive - WHY?

CliveA says...
6:18pm Thu 16 Feb 12

...and jools99 - I'm curious about your equation between experience and wearing a helmet. How does that work?

Local Businesses

Most popular