Conclusion - cyclist fault rather than 3 motorist
 

Conclusion - cyclist fault for not wearing a helmet rather than the unsafe driving of 3 motorist.:notamused:
http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s..._by_three_cars

TWSS?

(Triple Witness Suicide Swerve)

Perhaps if motorist 1 was allowing more room it might have been different?

Even at 40 mph, two car lengths distance provided by the second motorist is practically tailgating, and not leaving a safe distance for making an evasive maneuver. Again, another cyclist "magically" appearing out of nowhere, ending up right in front of cautious and observant motorists.

His chances of survival would have been much better if he had not been run over by a car.

I wonder how they would have found IF he had been wearing a helmet?

I'm sure that it is safe to presume that they still would have found some way of blaming the cyclist.

:eek: :lol: :roflmao: :bang: :cry:

Ah yes, the old "cyclist appeared out of nowhere" defence. I keep on telling Scotty to check that the arrival area is clear before beaming me down.

I think Peter Beford should test out his hypothesis that "... wearing a helmet could possibly have saved Mr Honour’s life." All you need is three cars going 40MPH with approximately 2 car lengths between each.

Also, I don't think the UK has mandatory helmet laws. But does that road really have a 70MPH speed limit :eek:?

Yup. No mandatory helmet law and "A" roads which are dual carriageway (i.e. have a median [term unused in this country]) usually have 70 limit. I've ridden - and time trialled - on such roads and generally felt safe, altho' moving across 2 or 3 lanes to turn at a roundabout can have a moderately bowel-loosening tendency ;). In fact many riders seek out events on such roads as passing traffic can have a very beneficial effect on their personal best.

probably kph, not mph

Conclusion: you can't read. That link does not say the cyclist was at fault for not wearing a helmet.

Read the link. "CB HI" is misleading you.

Sloppy. Clearly, you didn't even read the link.

===============

(It is a bit absurd to think that a helmet would have helped at all in this case.)

Why are you the only person here that does not get it?

Why do people have to distort the facts? Isn't the reality bad enough?

The link specifically mentions in the ending about the wearing a helmet, but not anything specific about the motorists' driving habits other than "Perhaps all of us can learn something from this tragic event".

To me, this leaves one with an impression of all cyclists without helmets as "careless scofflaws" and motorists, who are involved in a collision with said cyclist, as a helpless victim of circumstance.

The first motorist felt he was driving as safely as he could and yet he didn't even see the cyclist. Maybe his skill/attention/vision levels are too low for him to be allowed behind the wheel. The third driver was following less than one-half second behind the second vehicle; at least he acknowledged this was a contributing factor in running the cyclist over. I love how the victim is both a regular cyclist and an elderly totterer who can't stay upright. I guess whatever it takes to justify the drivers' behavior is going to come into play.

The inquest flat out ignored the facts. The inquest final comments support my conclusion, for which I did not distort any facts.

I'd like to see snapshots of the road. Are there places along the road he could have pulled out of without warning or is it a long straight strech of country road? This part seems crucial before you can really get a feel for possible accuracy of the "out of nowhere" statement.

Also, the parts about him being 79 and a disinterested 3rd party reporting he seems "wobbly" on the bike earlier should be considered.

These two things aren't mutually exclusive. As an example. I sing in the shower all the time. This does not, however, speak to my singing ability. ;)

You're right. However, there was an implication that the cyclist must have simply fallen into the cars (whose drivers didn't see him) and they were using the statement of his wobbliness to buttress that claim. It seems highly unlikely that someone who can't keep his bike upright would ride regularly. It's possible, but it still seems unlikely.

Sorry mate, but all our road signs still use miles rather than kilometres

But it does speak to your ability to sing in the shower without drowning yourself. Sort of like being a regular cyclist speaks to an ability to ride without blindly darting into a car.

Miami, FL gets these all the time, only it's pedestrians. The first car hits the person, the others are the equivalent of late hits and piling on as NFL penalties. A recent one, the first driver hit the pedestrian, never stopped and kept going, the others hit the road kill but stopped. As I recall, they didn't do anything about the 2nd & 3rd drivers, the other, they are still looking for and will charge with at least leaving the scene. Situation was that the pedestrian's car broke down, instead of waiting for roadside assistance, tried to cross the highway and it just wasn't even fair.

Another, a few weeks back, a couple of cars had a collision on southbound I-95, others pulled over to help, got out of their cars to help. Then another car came later and smoked those good samaritans. What a mess that one was. Read about those and you know why Itake charge when I ride a bike, motorists just aren't qualified to handle themselves sometimes. Most all of us have the final say in our own destinies often times. Why turn it over to someone else ?

It's hard to guess how a reader couldn't conclude what you did after reading the focused points of the article.

Gee, if just everybody would wear a helmet. Then all the cyclists who die would live, even when drivers run over them, because we all know helmets can withstand multiple impacts far beyond their limitations. We also know that they can extend their magical properties far beyond their area of coverage to prevent massive internal thoracic injuries and broken spines too!

I'd bet you dollars to donuts that the cyclists died not just from head injuries, but other injuries as well. Bringing up the lack of a helmet is a dangerous red herring and that advice is likely to lead to further deaths than had they left the helmet out of it.

Looks to me like the guy was mirrored by the first car, which is what caused him to lose his balance...but I guess they're buying that the driver was pure as the driven snow and didn't see a cyclist who magically just appeared.

Considering that he did die of head injuries (at least the article insinuates as much), I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that a helmet MIGHT have made a difference, tho. That doesn't excuse the driver, of course. It's too bad that the other lesson wasn't to "PAY FREAKIN ATTENTION WHEN YOU ARE OPERATING A LETHAL WEAPON".

I wonder if the head was hit at a speed greater than 12 mph, at, or below ear level, or if there were other injuries involved?

An intact upper portion but crushed lower portion of skull, and possible broken neck, torn aorta and burst spleen produce the same results.