Drunk cyclist, no helmet, no high viz, falls off and gets splattered

A cyclist probably hit a kerb and was thrown from his bike and knocked out
before being hit by two cars, an inquest has decided.

Mr Wells had met an old friend, Jonathan Burns, at the Greyhound Inn after
work and had three pints of cider before cycling home along the A3102
Sandridge road.

A post mortem report by Home Office pathologist Dr Basil Purdue gave the
cause of death as multiple injuries as a result of a road traffic collision
and a toxicology report said the level of alcohol in Mr Wells's body was
over the drink-drive limit.

Collision investigation officer PC Stephen Cox said that there was no
evidence of Mr Wells being in collision with another vehicle that may have
caused him to come off his bike.

Mr Ridley delivered a narrative verdict that Mr Wells died as a result of
multiple injuries caused by being run over by two vehicles. He said: "The
absence of a helmet is relevant, as it could have prevented the head injury.
The alcohol in his system would have impaired his judgment."


http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news...ing_t ragedy/

On 03/03/2012 08:39, Mrcheerful wrote:

A cyclist probably hit a kerb and was thrown from his bike and knocked out
before being hit by two cars, an inquest has decided.
Mr Wells had met an old friend, Jonathan Burns, at the Greyhound Inn after
work and had three pints of cider before cycling home along the A3102
Sandridge road.
A post mortem report by Home Office pathologist Dr Basil Purdue gave the
cause of death as multiple injuries as a result of a road traffic collision
and a toxicology report said the level of alcohol in Mr Wells's body was
over the drink-drive limit.

That doesn't mean much, though. Three pints is not roaring drunk up in the
sort of Mason end of the scale.

Collision investigation officer PC Stephen Cox said that there was no
evidence of Mr Wells being in collision with another vehicle that may have
caused him to come off his bike.

Accidents happen. The cider may have contributed.

Mr Ridley delivered a narrative verdict that Mr Wells died as a result of
multiple injuries caused by being run over by two vehicles. He said: "The
absence of a helmet is relevant, as it could have prevented the head injury.
The alcohol in his system would have impaired his judgment."

Possibly.

But surely, even if his head had been 100% protected, there must have been
severe multiple injuries to other parts of the anatomy if run over by two cars?

This looks like a case where a helmet would not have saved the wearer. That's
not to say that a helmet isn't worth wearing. It's a bit like wearing a
seat-belt. It'll save you in many/most situations, but not if a lorry crashes
through an overbridge parapet and lands on top of your sports car.


http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news...ing_t ragedy/

On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 08:39:11 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

snip





So he came off his bike and banged his head and was knocked out.

Just the sort of injury which can be prevented by a cycle helmet.

As the coroner said:

"The absence of a helmet is relevant, as it could have prevented the head
injury. The alcohol in his system would have impaired his judgment."




It always strikes me as odd that people such as police officers, coroners, and
doctors do not know as much about such things as cycling with a helmet or
cycling whilst ****ed as the psycholists here do :-)

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:38:56 +0000, JNugent wrote:

snip


But surely, even if his head had been 100% protected, there must have been
severe multiple injuries to other parts of the anatomy if run over by two cars?


You are spot on - and there is no way that the cycle helmet would have
protected his heart, or one of his other vital organs - which could easily have
been squashed by one of the vehicles which ran over him.

Therefore the absence of a helmet probably had no influence on the outcome of
the accident.

(I am not a doctor, coroner, or policeman - therefore I must know what I am
talking about)

Looks like a spell in jail is due and well deserved.

QUOTE:

A female motorist from South Wales has been found guilty of dangerous
driving after aiming her car at a cyclist, leaving him injured and his bike
a write-off, following a road rage incident that began with a plastic bottle
being thrown out of the car involved and striking the rider.

The incident took place on the A48 Swansea Road in Pontlliw on Monday 15
August last year as Gary Marshall was out on a bike ride with his wife,
Debbie when he was passed by a car being driven by Victoria Elizabeth
Williams of Lower Brynamman which also contained her husband and children,
reports This Is South Wales.

During the trial at Swansea Crown Court, the prosecution maintained that the
driver, who had pleaded guilty to careless driving but not guilty to the
more serious charge of dangerous driving, had used her vehicle, a Volvo 440,
as a weapon. The jury found her guilty by a unanimous verdict.

The court heard that Mr Marshall and his wife were riding along the road
when they were overtaken by Mrs Williams' vehicle from which a plastic
bottle was thrown, striking Mr Marshall on the arm.

Mr Williams made a gesture and swore, asking, "What are you playing at?" The
car then stopped and Mrs Williams husband got out, the two men exchanging
words.

"I wanted to know why he had thrown a bottle at me," explained Mr Marshall,
adding that he rode off after his wife had told him, "He's not worth it."
Riding past the car, he told Mrs Williams, "You're as bad as he is."

Once he had ridden around 20 feet past the Volvo, he heard the car
approaching and turned around, whereupon he was hit by it and knocked off
his bike, ending up beneath the front of the vehicle.

"Before I knew it, half of my body, up to my waist, was underneath the car,"
he explained. "I was in a state of complete and utter shock and disbelief."

The cyclist suffered injuries to his knees, arm and side and his bike was
written off.

Following her arrest, Mrs Williams said that she had meant to give Mr
Marshall a fright but not injure him, saying that he had used swear words in
front of her children.

In court, she insisted that when the cyclist braked, there was insufficient
space for her to stop, that striking him had not been intentional and that
her vehicle had not been used as a weapon.

After the jury returned its guilty verdict, Mrs Williams was bailed while
pre-sentencing reports are compiled.

http://road.cc/content/news/53818-so...cted-dangerous

--
Simon Mason

On 03/03/2012 18:35, Simon Mason wrote:
Looks like a spell in jail is due and well deserved.

QUOTE:

A female motorist from South Wales has been found guilty of dangerous
driving after aiming her car at a cyclist, leaving him injured and his bike
a write-off, following a road rage incident that began with a plastic bottle
being thrown out of the car involved and striking the rider.

You surprise me.

That sounds more like attempted murder and was dashed unsporting of her.

On Mar 3, 6:35*pm, "Simon Mason" wrote:


In court, she insisted that when the cyclist braked, there was insufficient
space for her to stop, that striking him had not been intentional and that
her vehicle had not been used as a weapon.

Some excellent follow up comments as usual.
QUOTE:

She's clearly making excuses. The "I couldnt help myself, m'lud, the
woman had a short skirt on" mentality comes to mind...

So by her own words she admits to driving too closely for a safe
stopping distance, not leaving a safety buffer around the cyclist, and
being party to an assault whereby the bottle was thrown.

She complains the cyclist swore. Is it any wonder

Soo, ramming a cyclist is less trumatic for her children than them
hearing swear words? I fail to see why she wasn't charged for
attempted murder or at the very least GBH with intent. Of course there
was no room to stop safely, it was twenty feet, reaction time wouldn't
have been quick enough. I'm assuming that she accelerated violently to
make as much noise as possible to make a point. As cidermart stated, a
conditional discharge. Hopefully though a lengthy driving ban followed
by a compulsary retest.

This is so wrong! I cannot believe she tried to say that he didn't
mean it. What happened to keeping a buffer between yourself and other
road users?
I do feel she'll get away with a suspended sentence though which is a
shame because it sends out the wrong message to other drivers thinking
they can do the same and get away with it!

--
Simon Mason

On 04/03/2012 05:28, Simon Mason wrote:
On Mar 3, 6:35 pm, "Simon wrote:


In court, she insisted that when the cyclist braked, there was insufficient
space for her to stop, that striking him had not been intentional and that
her vehicle had not been used as a weapon.

Some excellent follow up comments as usual.
QUOTE:

She's clearly making excuses. The "I couldnt help myself, m'lud, the
woman had a short skirt on" mentality comes to mind...

So by her own words she admits to driving too closely for a safe
stopping distance, not leaving a safety buffer around the cyclist, and
being party to an assault whereby the bottle was thrown.

She complains the cyclist swore. Is it any wonder

Certainly not a surprise. It seems to be default mode for cyclists when
challenged about cycling on the footway, failing to give way, passing through
red lights, etc.

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 10:14:15 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 04/03/2012 05:28, Simon Mason wrote:
On Mar 3, 6:35 pm, "Simon wrote:


In court, she insisted that when the cyclist braked, there was insufficient
space for her to stop, that striking him had not been intentional and that
her vehicle had not been used as a weapon.

Some excellent follow up comments as usual.
QUOTE:

She's clearly making excuses. The "I couldnt help myself, m'lud, the
woman had a short skirt on" mentality comes to mind...

So by her own words she admits to driving too closely for a safe
stopping distance, not leaving a safety buffer around the cyclist, and
being party to an assault whereby the bottle was thrown.

She complains the cyclist swore. Is it any wonder

Certainly not a surprise. It seems to be default mode for cyclists when
challenged about cycling on the footway, failing to give way, passing through
red lights, etc.

Those are not normal cyclists, they are militant cyclists.

On 04/03/2012 10:52, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 10:14:15 +0000,
wrote:

On 04/03/2012 05:28, Simon Mason wrote:
On Mar 3, 6:35 pm, "Simon wrote:


In court, she insisted that when the cyclist braked, there was insufficient
space for her to stop, that striking him had not been intentional and that
her vehicle had not been used as a weapon.

Some excellent follow up comments as usual.
QUOTE:

She's clearly making excuses. The "I couldnt help myself, m'lud, the
woman had a short skirt on" mentality comes to mind...

So by her own words she admits to driving too closely for a safe
stopping distance, not leaving a safety buffer around the cyclist, and
being party to an assault whereby the bottle was thrown.

She complains the cyclist swore. Is it any wonder

Certainly not a surprise. It seems to be default mode for cyclists when
challenged about cycling on the footway, failing to give way, passing through
red lights, etc.

Those are not normal cyclists, they are militant cyclists.

Same thing.

And 'normal cyclists' is an oxymoron.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University