Advocacy & Safety - wear your helmet - another bad news story

Local youth hospitalized after accident

By Ashley Kuenstler

Aaron Erickson, a 15-year-old Bridgeport resident, was lifelined to Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis after sustaining multiple serious injuries resulting from a traffic accident that occurred one half mile from the intersection of IL 250 and County Road 700 East "King's Hill Road" in Bridgeport at approximately 3:42 p.m. Monday.

According to Erickson's sister, Laura Croslow, Erickson's grandfather passed away on Sunday. He was offered a ride from his mother, Gloria Erickson, Bridgeport, to his grandfather's house near Lawrence County 4-H Fairgrounds to visit with family but Erickson was "too upset" and wanted to ride his bicycle.

Erickson was travelling westbound on Illinois Route 250 in front of a 2008 Ford F-150 driven by Jason M. Inyart, 35, Sumner, according to the accident report. Erickson veered into the passenger side rear-view mirror of Inyart's vehicle as another vehicle was passing in the eastbound lane, prohibiting Inyart from dodging Erickson.

"[Erickson] probably didn't even realize someone was behind him," Lawrence County Sheriff Russell Adams said.

A 9-1-1 call was placed to Crawford County Sheriff's Department; and Lawrence County Sheriff's Deputy Byron Middlecoat responded to the scene, as well as Bridgeport Chief of Police Scott Murray. Erickson was transported to Lawrence County Memorial Hospital (LCMH) by Blue Star Ambulance Service and was later lifelined to Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis.

According to Adams, it took approximately three hours from the time of the accident to identify Erickson. Teachers and principals from area schools were taken to LCMH in an attempt to identify him, but to no avail.

"He was unrecognizable at that time," Croslow said.

Erickson's mother identified her son at approximately 6:30 p.m. Monday. His father, "Toby" Erickson, joined the family in Indianapolis later Monday evening.

Croslow said Erickson is currently in the Intensive Care Unit at the hospital and is in stable condition. His injuries include a fractured skull, bleeding and swelling of the brain, two collapsed lungs, internal bruising and a fractured pelvis.

"The doctors are constantly monitoring the pressure and swelling on the brain," Croslow said. "The pressure has started to go down."

Erickson has not had to undergo any surgeries as of 10:30 a.m. today. He is currently sedated but is still responding to the voices of his family members.

"The way his stats are right now, he's still very critical," Croslow said. "They're keeping him under sedation but he hears us and moves a little when we're talking to him."

Doctors have anticipated at least a two-week stay in ICU for Erickson, depending on his condition.

"We're trying to get into a Ronald McDonald House because of all the expenses," Croslow said. "Most likely he'll be here at least another two weeks."

No citations were issued as a result of the accident.

Cards and well wishes may be sent to Erickson at 764 Adam St., Bridgeport, IL

http://lawdailyrecord.1updemo.com/main.asp?SectionID=14&SubSectionID=16&ArticleID=5235&TM=47249.93


RHHS Student Critically Injured in Bicycle/Pickup Collision.
About 4:30 p.m., Monday, Erin Ericksen, l5, was west bound on his bicycle on Route 250, at King's Hill, west of Bridgeport. Traveling in the same direction, immediately to his rear was Jason Inyart, Sumner, in his pickup truck. As the pickup undertook to pass the bicyclist, latter came into contact with the right rear mirror of the truck. Mr. Ericksen was hurled against the road surface. He was airlifted to the Indiana University Medical Complex, Indianapolis; Examination revealed two skull fractures, numerous broken bones, particularly in the chest rib cage. The patient underwent extensive surgery, Tuesday morning. As we go to press, 9 a.m. Wednesday, his condition remains critical .Erin's family and many friends are encouraged by his resilience.
Erin's parents are Aaron and Emily Ericksen, Ironically, he was grieving at the time of this collision on account of the death of his grandfather, Charles G. Vogel, Jr., Sunday, with whom he sometimes resided.
Lawrence County Deputy Sheriff Middlecoat investigated this tragic occurrence. He indicated that no criminal charges were contemplated against the other driver, Mr. Inyart. We were less than impressed with the urgency the Deputy brought to the investigation. His report was not complete at 8 pm., Tuesday, nor by his secrecy. He does not recognize the public's right to know, at earliest possible hour, details of an accident as serious as here involved. If there is nothing to conceal, why hide it?
Our prayers are for Erin's recovery.
http://sumnerpress.com/

What about, ya know, hitting the brakes? passing at a safe speed? a safe distance? Not overtaking when it was unsafe to do so?

This whole "he swerved into me" type of BS is horrible.

There's no way of knowing if a helmet would have helped, the two fractures could mean at least two hard impacts (mirror - head and head - ground most likely) It might have prevented one though. He'd still be in hospital with two collapsed lungs and life threatening chest injuries though. :(

I really doubt a helmet would have helped. Also I have a high degree of skepticism about the line that the cyclist "veered into" the truck's mirror. I'm not saying it's not true: many cyclists ride very poorly and he could have very well put the driver in an impossible situation. However, it's just as likely, maybe more, that the truck driver just didn't exercise due caution and didn't allow enough room for the mirror.

All we know for sure is what was written in the (evidently) police report: "Traveling in the same direction, immediately to his rear was Jason Inyart, Sumner, in his pickup truck. As the pickup undertook to pass the bicyclist, latter came into contact with the right rear mirror of the truck."

Obviously the cop writing the report was being objective and not assigning blame, because who knows exactly what happened? Certainly the driver wouldn't be objective.

And it's JUST as likely that the kid swerved far enough to erase any due diligence on the part of the driver.

Sad, but true. Hope he can get his life back together.

Kid would have to swerve 3 ft to get in front of mirror if the fellow was passing safely. What's more likely - kid swerves 3 ft or truck passing too close? I would think this will come to a head at some point. Were I attempting to recover medical expenses I'd go after the truck driver. That's usually what insurers seem to like to do.

What's more likely - kid swerves 3 ft or truck passing too close?

Honestly, both are just about as likely, considering how I see kids that age ride.

Possible scenario (meaning, I'm making this up... mostly): truck comes up and actually gives about 3', kid hears it, starts to turn his head to look back, except that he and the front of the truck are about even. His head turn makes him swerve (how often do you see kids swerve when they try to look back?), and he gets clocked by the truck's mirror, forehead first. :(

Honestly, both are just about as likely, considering how I see kids that age ride.

Entirely agreed, and for that matter, the adult cyclists on the street in this neck of the woods can be equally at fault for it too. Can't tell you how many times I've been passing (with audible warning and at least 6' distance) and nearly get creamed by the fool rider I was attempting to pass. What's worse is that they'll make an effort to look at you (as you pass) in the process.

-Kurt

We had a similar scenario up here in Vancouver a few years ago. A prominent cycling advocate was riding home from work one day and a passing truck's mirror contacted the cyclists head and the cyclist died from the resulting head injury. Oh, did I mention he was wearing a helmet?

People have to wake up and understand a helmet is not made to provide protection in impacts with motor vehicles. A logical disconnect comes when you say "helmets prevent 85% of injuries, therefore they would prevent 85% of deaths", which is how helmets are promoted but not how they work.

The study that claimed an 85-88% reduction in head injuries and brain damage did not include a single impact with a motor vehicle to the helmeted group but did include impacts with motor vehicles to the group who were not wearing helmets. Would a reasonable person say the lower injury rate to the helmeted group was due to a helmet or due to the impact?

yeah, most 15 y/os don't have a clue about the value of life. Cam: the kids head swelled up to make him unrecognizable(sp.) The helmet could have helped that part of the injuries. it still would have sucked to have: two collapsed lungs, internal bruising and a fractured pelvis. I'm getting ready to go for a ride in that area in a little bit, with my two blinky lights and reflective iron-on tape, I still won't feel very safe. but it's sunday nite and most of society will be home watching the boob tube.

I REFUSE to believe that the oncoming car 'suddenly appeared' and made a 'pass in progress' impossible; this would be the only scenario where the truck had ANY business being close enough to pass the bike rider. In short, the truck driver wasn't doing what he is REQUIRED to do -- wait until it is SAFE to pass a bike!

Oh, I must correct myself -- there is one more; if the young man on the bike suddenly decided to make a left or u-turn in traffic! Even less likely!

Criminal or traffic court may have a problem with "following too closely", which is the LEAST he should be charged with, but it sounds like a slam-dunk for insurance liability. Who knows, though -- ins. co.'s like to play hardball with EVERYONE when it comes to paying out so much as a dollar.

Taking an American Red Cross CPR/1st Aid class this last Tuesday, the book says that of all bicycle related deaths, 90% were not wearing helmets. Hope the kid turns out alright.
Any info on the type of bike?
Around here, and I assume most places, young person an a BMX/freestyle bike means motor vehicle drivers really need to be paying attention 'cause the kid+bike may suddenly be anywhere on the roadway. My favorite is two kids weaving along, then when they maybe notice a car coming up behind them, one jumps across the street in front of said car, now facing traffic, so the motor vehicle now has to drive between the two weaving cyclists. :mad:

unless the kid veared all the way across into oncoming traffic, it is HIS lane and can do what the F he wants, it s not his fault, the truck was overtaking him people, in HIS lane

Early Kuyler as I live and breath. One vehicle one lane but as we all know to kill a man is a crime, but to kiil a bicylcist is a free pass. I don't think a helmet would have made much of a difference.

I was wondering how long it would take before someone would claim that the cyclist -- young, old, or otherwise -- did absolutely nothing wrong.

Taking an American Red Cross CPR/1st Aid class this last Tuesday, the book says that of all bicycle related deaths, 90% were not wearing helmets...

I'll bet if the rate of wear is 10%, the rate of death to those who don't wear is 90% as the reverse would be true too

Taking an American Red Cross CPR/1st Aid class this last Tuesday, the book says that of all bicycle related deaths, 90% were not wearing helmets. Hope the kid turns out alright.
Any info on the type of bike?
Around here, and I assume most places, young person an a BMX/freestyle bike means motor vehicle drivers really need to be paying attention 'cause the kid+bike may suddenly be anywhere on the roadway. My favorite is two kids weaving along, then when they maybe notice a car coming up behind them, one jumps across the street in front of said car, now facing traffic, so the motor vehicle now has to drive between the two weaving cyclists. :mad:

That is a gross misrepresentation of statistics...if the ones that are posted can be believed to begin with. I personally know of two cyclists that were killed by cars, one died of abdominal trauma...wasn't wearing a helmet, the other died of head trauma and was wearing a helmet.

IMHO it sounds like the truck failed to give sufficient room for passing. I drive a crew cab dually with the extended mirrors, mine is one of the old ones that the mirrors are fixed on, when I pass cyclists I give them the full lane, nothing less. I quite often manage to piss quite a few motorists off too:innocent:

Aaron:)

Kid would have to swerve 3 ft to get in front of mirror if the fellow was passing safely. What's more likely - kid swerves 3 ft or truck passing too close? I would think this will come to a head at some point. Were I attempting to recover medical expenses I'd go after the truck driver. That's usually what insurers seem to like to do.

If the truck driver was 3ft from the kid, he would've had enough time to swerve away from the kid. I don't think the driver will admit that he was passing only a foot from the kid. Too bad there wasn't a witness to this to catch the truck driver's lies.

Too bad there wasn't a witness to this to catch the truck driver's lies.

Or to say that, yes, the kid was swerving around.

Nobody here REALLY knows what happened, so it's pretty insane to immediately proclaim the cyclist completely innocent.

That's probably the stupidest ****ing thing about A&S. No matter how stupid of a mistake a cyclist makes, there's always somebody to blame anyone BUT the cyclist.

****ing *******. :crash:

That is a gross misrepresentation of statistics...if the ones that are posted can be believed to begin with. I personally know of two cyclists that were killed by cars, one died of abdominal trauma...wasn't wearing a helmet, the other died of head trauma and was wearing a helmet...

Yeah, people tend to forget that a cyclist is more than just a head.

A study of fatally injured cyclists (Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in Auckland. Sage MD. 1985. NZ Med J: 25 Dec 1985 Vol 98 No 793) found injuries of fatal severity to multiple organ systems were in sixteen of twenty riders, including six with no significant head injury. Four riders died of fatal injury to head alone and one of these was the only rider known to be wearing a safety helmet. His death resulted from a fall from a bicycle at moderate speed rather than collision with a motor vehicle.

Or to say that, yes, the kid was swerving around.

Nobody here REALLY knows what happened, so it's pretty insane to immediately proclaim the cyclist completely innocent.

That's probably the stupidest ****ing thing about A&S. No matter how stupid of a mistake a cyclist makes, there's always somebody to blame anyone BUT the cyclist.

****ing *******. :crash:

I'll respond to this post not as a cyclist but as someone who also drives a car.

While a google search did not provide a close enough image of Route 250 to determine the width of the road, nor whether it had a shoulder but it did show that the road is a fairly typical Illinois state roadway, which means level and straight. Given that the accident occurred at 3:42 pm on Monday and that the weather history I checked shows no precipitation for that date in Bridgeport, IL I will take it that conditions were clear and visibility was good. I do get the sense that the road was one narrow lane, with little or no shoulder since the truck driver was unable to pass due to an oncoming vehicle.

Now I imagine myself driving a Ford F-150 and I see a cyclist up ahead, either well into the lane or as "far to the right as practicable", I would more than likely take note what kind of rider they were, is it an adult? a kid? etc.- and kids, as someone pointed out already, might be inclined to weave, swerve or do something unexpected- but, in fact, any cyclist might do that- there might be a road hazard, a stick, a pothole, anything. And on a straight road like this one, under good weather conditions and daylight visibility I could have seen any erratic riding pattern well in advance of passing and would have adjusted accordingly.

Now, well before I approach passing the cyclist I would slow down, check my mirrors and change lanes or slow down until I could pass with at least 3' of clearance if there was approaching traffic to my left in order give the cyclist wide berth. I would not, under any circumstances, pass a cyclist in my little tiny car, never mind in an F-150 with wide side mirrors!, as another car approached or passed on my left because I would have no room to negotiate. That's just common sense.

Now re-read this part of the report:


Erickson was travelling westbound on Illinois Route 250 in front of a 2008 Ford F-150 driven by Jason M. Inyart, 35, Sumner, according to the accident report. Erickson veered into the passenger side rear-view mirror of Inyart's vehicle as another vehicle was passing in the eastbound lane, prohibiting Inyart from dodging Erickson.

Certainly the conclusion that some are making, which is- did this driver even consider simply slowing down until it was safe to pass this kid? does not preclude an "error" on the part of the cyclist of moving slightly left or right. But should the margin of error when we cycle on roadways be so exact as to not allow for any deviation from a straight line? In your haste to accuse others of rushing to judgement you seem to have fallen prey to the same flaw. By simply stating that drivers should slow down and give appropriate passing room to cyclists does not mean that the cyclist was without error nor that everyone who posts in A&S believes that cyclists never make errors that contribute to accidents.

Posts like yours contribute to an on-line environment which allows for nothing but hyperbole, rants and diatribes and drive out anyone interested in real discourse on bicycle safety.

Your juvenile final comment so undermines the creditability of your thinking that I doubt very much you will persuade many readers to your point of view- but somehow I doubt that is your intention.


****ing *******.

In any case, what a sad and tragic event for this kid, his family and the driver involved. Hopefully an accident investigation less predisposed to favoring the motorists perspective than this newspaper article was will shed some light on what actually happened.

PP: it's a typical two lane with little to no shoulder. there are several rolling hills there, and from the way the second report read, it was going up a hill. Some of the closest calls I've had were going up hill, drivers are in a hurry, thus try not to cross the no passing line. Lately when climbing a hill I usually take the middle of the lane to keep people from passing. it's our lane, and might as well take it instead of the far side when climbing. Has anyone noticed the shoulder completely drops off to dirt on hills? usually a three or four inch drop , even more reason to take the center of the lane.

Latest report on the kid: He's getting better, still some swelling in various places. Probably won't be walking around for awhile though.

"He swerved into me"-- standard defense of the buzzer. I'm not saying the kid didn't swerve, but this is a textbook example of why we need a statute, as the Ducth have, that places a rebuttable presumption of liability on the driver. Even if this kid did swerve, if drivers knew they would be presumed liable, they'd exercise far more caution when passing a cyclist.

"He was offered a ride from his mother, Gloria Erickson, Bridgeport, to his grandfather's house near Lawrence County 4-H Fairgrounds to visit with family but Erickson was "too upset" and wanted to ride his bicycle."

This is the sad part, he would be alive today most likely if he were of a normal state of mind. In general riding a 2 wheeler (bicycle to motorcycle) requires a higher degree of attention and judgement than a car, or walking. Lots of little things like a rock on the road, a pothole, ect will cause a terrible spill. Bicycles are not stable enough to stay upright without the rider intervening. Teenagers (males especially) rely on their reflexes to keep them out of trouble, if the are riding impaired there is very little margin of safety in their riding style to keep them alive.

In this particular case if the kid could not be stopped riding behind him in a car might have worked, I bet he would not even have noticed.

If the truck driver was 3ft from the kid, he would've had enough time to swerve away from the kid. I don't think the driver will admit that he was passing only a foot from the kid. Too bad there wasn't a witness to this to catch the truck driver's lies.

I seriously doubt the truck driver gave him a whole foot, 4 inches is more likely in my experience.

The child should have been in the middle of the lane or not on the road at all (On an alternate road perhaps). The truck obviously did not pass safely or the child would be safe. And I have heard so many "the cyclist swerved into me" reports in the news you would think it was an epidemic.

"Crazy cyclists swerving into traffic for no reason, Next on FOX"

Drivers who injure or KILL cyclists need to be held ACCOUNTABLE. This is a bunch of crap.

We had a similar scenario up here in Vancouver a few years ago. A prominent cycling advocate was riding home from work one day and a passing truck's mirror contacted the cyclists head and the cyclist died from the resulting head injury. Oh, did I mention he was wearing a helmet?

People have to wake up and understand a helmet is not made to provide protection in impacts with motor vehicles. A logical disconnect comes when you say "helmets prevent 85% of injuries, therefore they would prevent 85% of deaths", which is how helmets are promoted but not how they work.

The study that claimed an 85-88% reduction in head injuries and brain damage did not include a single impact with a motor vehicle to the helmeted group but did include impacts with motor vehicles to the group who were not wearing helmets. Would a reasonable person say the lower injury rate to the helmeted group was due to a helmet or due to the impact?

So wearing a helmet is actually more dangerous than not wearing one?

Thanks for letting me know. I'll throw out my helmet today.

So wearing a helmet is actually more dangerous than not wearing one?

Thanks for letting me know. I'll throw out my helmet today.

Now how would you conclude that?

Really, this type of reaction to the information I posted shows some really poor reasoning skills.

Now how would you conclude that?

Really, this type of reaction to the information I posted shows some really poor reasoning skills.

The argument you presented is exactly what anti-helmet types present when they say that helmets are useless and provide a false sense of security.

I think it's a BS point to make, honestly. Wearing a helmet is better than not wearing one. It's pretty ****ing simple.

... It's pretty ****ing simple.

and so are some people...

"I wear a helmet, so you can trust me when I unleash my daily torrent of anti-helmet propaganda."

Your schtick is good, closetbiker, but it's still a schtick, and what you're selling is still anti-helmet propaganda.

... It's pretty ****ing simple.

BarracksSi: while I would more than likely agree with you regarding wearing a helmet ( I faithfully wear one on every bike ride) I do not agree with the tone of your response. I don't think it convinces anyone of anything. In fact, it makes me want to toss my helmet aside and join ranks with the helmetless rebels.


Your consistent use of 4 asterisks followed by "ing" in your posts is tiresome and antagonistic. Even when I agree with the gist of your posts I find myself irritated by your posts.

Since you seem so inclined to tell others how to behave (ie. wear a helmet) may I be so bold as to point out a forum guideline to you:


In addition, the "masking" of vulgarity by inserting * or another keystroke in place of one or more letters in a vulgar term is unacceptable

When you can find it in yourself to follow that simple rule maybe I'll be more willing to entertain your point of view. Until then your posts lack the maturity to be worth considering.

unless the kid veared all the way across into oncoming traffic, it is HIS lane and can do what the F he wants, it s not his fault, the truck was overtaking him people, in HIS lane

Sure. It's his lane. He can serpentine his way down the road, and any overtaking traffic just has to deal with it . . . right.

Caruso

"He was offered a ride from his mother, Gloria Erickson, Bridgeport, to his grandfather's house near Lawrence County 4-H Fairgrounds to visit with family but Erickson was "too upset" and wanted to ride his bicycle."

This is the sad part, he would be alive today most likely if he were of a normal state of mind. In general riding a 2 wheeler (bicycle to motorcycle) requires a higher degree of attention and judgement than a car, or walking. Lots of little things like a rock on the road, a pothole, ect will cause a terrible spill. Bicycles are not stable enough to stay upright without the rider intervening. Teenagers (males especially) rely on their reflexes to keep them out of trouble, if the are riding impaired there is very little margin of safety in their riding style to keep them alive.

In this particular case if the kid could not be stopped riding behind him in a car might have worked, I bet he would not even have noticed.

Far as I can tell, the kid, fortunately, is alive today, geo8rge.

So wearing a helmet is actually more dangerous than not wearing one?

No, it's just not some magical bullet-proof protection against injury. Note that this kid suffered numerous injuries to other parts of his body for which his failure to wear a helmet played no part.

I've been involved an an accident or two on my bike (fortunately, I was not at fault). On one occasion, I was right hooked by a vehicle. I'm standing there talking with the policeman, my arm swollen and bruised from wrist to shoulder, but, fortunately, no other injuries . . . helmet is still on my head. The cop running the checklist on his clipboard asks me, "were you wearing a helmet?"

The helmet issue has become reflexive, totally out of proportion to the helmet's practical function or benefit.

Caruso

I'll respond to this post not as a cyclist but as someone who also drives a car.
.
.
.


Well put.

...we need a statute, as the Ducth have, that places a rebuttable presumption of liability on the driver...

Agreed.

...

Your schtick is good, closetbiker, but it's still a schtick, and what you're selling is still anti-helmet propaganda.

how is what I've posted here is anti- helmet?

Isn't the dispute over whether helmets are, or are not made to be effective in impacts with motor vehicles?

Isn't it propaganda if they are not, people die wearing them in this situation, and the thread title is wear your helmet?

Isn't that selectively presenting facts and lying by omission? Isn't that propaganda?

(and it kind of blows me away to be labeled anti-helmet as you know I've worn a helmet for over 20 years. I started far before they were a popular thing to wear and I have a fair understanding on what they can, and cannot help with. I wouldn't expect a paper bag to safely transport my fish, but I'd bet a plastic bag would work much better. Just because it's a bag, doesn't mean it works. A far more accurate description of what I post on helmets would be that I'm pro-choice on the issue)

Sure. It's his lane. He can serpentine his way down the road, and any overtaking traffic just has to deal with it . . . right.

Caruso

I'm pretty sure thats what it says, qoute it again if it pleases you.

No, it's just not some magical bullet-proof protection against injury. . .

The helmet issue has become reflexive, totally out of proportion to the helmet's practical function or benefit.

Caruso

Indeed, that seems to be the situation. I wear a helmet when I'm on my go-fast bike because I feel the protection - I will go faster than I should because of that helmet. I'm much more cautious without it. And the cars tend to pass a little closer. I know the protection is mostly an illusion. But it works - I go faster. Other than the obvious additional danger from riding more aggressively, I do worry about that additional leverage around my neck.

I hit my head in exactly one bike accident, a head on collision with another cyclist. Oddly, a helmet would probably have helped a great deal, but they didn't exist then!

I'm convinced the helmet issue is a red herring diverting attention from more crucial cycling issues.

Most recently, my UPS driver was horrified that I commute without a helmet. Bizarre. I don't go very fast commuting and I'm in an upright position. I might blow a tire and have to put a foot down. I'm not going to crash unless I run off the road to get away from something. A dog isn't going to knock me down - I know all the dogs. I even have to slow down to let Lulu get a run in - she's getting very old and slow. Gives her a thrill. I might get hit by a car, I suppose. But they give me lots of clearance. I'm more worried about driving a car along that route - people will pass a slow car into oncoming traffic. And I drive the 35 mph speed limit, which infuriates people.

But for go-fast work, thinking of getting that built-in leathers stuff to wear. I already have skid ready gloves.

It was obviously the kids fault since he wasn't wearing a helmet.

BarracksSi:

Well, at least you're paying some attention.