Cyclist badly injured after freak crash (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Cyclist badly injured after freak crash
1:20pm Thursday 26th January 2012 in News By Anna Roberts
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.
Comments(44)
says...
Nick Brighton
says...
1:28pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Nick Brighton
says...
1:33pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Indigatio
says...
1:47pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Spanners
says...
1:56pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Nick Brighton wrote: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
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.
Maxwell's Ghost
says...
2:02pm Thu 26 Jan 12
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
Blame the victim?
fascinator
says...
2:14pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Nick Brighton wrote:But the riders in the Tour de France go a lot quicker, and cycle far more dangerously than cyclists in Hove.
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.
CliveA
says...
2:36pm Thu 26 Jan 12
.
- 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:Yes definitely StaNford!
Tell the copy editors in Southampton that it's StaNford Avenue, not StaMford.
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 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.
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
-
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
CliveA
says...
3:07pm Thu 26 Jan 12
Alisanderina
says...
3:14pm Thu 26 Jan 12
CliveA wrote:Thanks Clive......x
Alisanderina - Why is this relevant? Yes. Yes, you are.
bhoy1976
says...
3:23pm Thu 26 Jan 12
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
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: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.
"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...
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
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
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: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.
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...
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
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
-
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 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: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.
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.
Would you not wear a helmet?
CliveA
says...
6:36pm Thu 26 Jan 12
bhoy1976
says...
9:49pm Thu 26 Jan 12
CliveA wrote:Okay mate, you win. But only because your being ridiculous.
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?
jools99
says...
1:16am Fri 27 Jan 12
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
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
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
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 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.
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.
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:"too fast" is when you can't stop in time to avoid a collision, when something unexpected happens"
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.
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
Bryan555
says...
10:48pm Fri 27 Jan 12
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
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
"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
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:Good advice - now go and put that tenner on Brighton to win the FA cup, you'll get better odds before the draw.
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.
Bryan555
says...
12:19pm Mon 30 Jan 12
jools99 wrote: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.
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.
Source: http://www.explorato
rium.edu/cycling/bra
kes2.html
jools99
says...
1:13pm Mon 30 Jan 12
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
CliveA
says...
5:45pm Thu 16 Feb 12
CliveA
says...
6:18pm Thu 16 Feb 12
More News stories
- Labour and Tories in pact to defeat Green tax hike bid
- Man attacked in Eastbourne Pier nightclub
- Buy my house and you can have it for free if Albion are promoted
- Police linking two Brighton robberies
- Gang set two dogs on sheep
- Amex to cut up to 195 jobs
- Online hate campaign targets Brighton mum
- Road closed after drivers ignore signs
- Inquiry into sexual assault at university closed
- Phoenix set for £100m rebirth
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with