# Cyclist's death may have been caused by listening to music on her phone



## Accy cyclist (5 Dec 2016)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...istening-music-earphones-caused-accident.html


----------



## Haitch (5 Dec 2016)

No, her death was caused by a lorry driving over her.


----------



## tyred (5 Dec 2016)

She didn't make contact with the lorry.


----------



## User6179 (5 Dec 2016)

Alan H said:


> No, her death was caused by a lorry driving over her.



I think the articles says there was no contact , she died avoiding being hit .
Rubbish article focusing on helmet and earphones and I cant work out if the lorry joined from same junction or was coming round from the junctions right .


----------



## smutchin (5 Dec 2016)

Sounds to me like the coroner is the one who has been distracted by the earphones.

It's really not clear from the story what happened - did she join the roundabout at the same point as the lorry? If so, that means either she filtered up the side of the lorry or the lorry driver had come up behind her and was overtaking at the point of joining the roundabout.


----------



## ianrauk (5 Dec 2016)

More unchecked, unfounded lies by the Daily Heil bollocks.


----------



## Steady (5 Dec 2016)

I stopped listening to music via earphones on the bike not because it wasn't safe, but purely because in the event of an incident it would become the escape clause if I wasn't my fault, at all times I could hear everything around me, but I refuse to open myself up to that kind of blame. 

The police investigation notes seem .. out-dated in practice? 
_"The cycle also had no front reflector and a loose bell on the handlebars which was missing a bolt." _I understand they're stating what the found the bike to be, but neither of those are really a factor in what happened_, _surely?_
_
It really isn't clear what happened, I got the impression the HGV driver was coming around the roundabout already on it so had "priority" and was taking the next exit with "straight" being used, and the cyclist should have given way, but didn't? Realised her own mistake and tried to avoid the lorry resulting in her sliding off and banging her head?_
_
It seems heavily unlucky.


----------



## User33236 (5 Dec 2016)

'Lorry driver Alexander Lamb said: 'As I approached the roundabout, I paused to look for traffic to the right.'

From this I take it he was joining the roundabout but a better written article would remove doubt.


----------



## smutchin (5 Dec 2016)

What's really worrying is that from the lorry driver's own description of what happened, he was completely oblivious that there was a cyclist anywhere near him. 



Steady said:


> The police investigation notes seem .. out-dated in practice?
> _"The cycle also had no front reflector and a loose bell on the handlebars which was missing a bolt." _I understand they're stating what the found the bike to be, but neither of those are really a factor in what happened_, _surely?



Maybe, but more pertinently, the defective front brake could have been a factor.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (5 Dec 2016)

Sounds like one of those roundabouts where you can use a couple of lanes on that then merge in progress round. If so I don't think you could blame either for their road position coming onto it but neither seems to have been aware of the other being there until too late. Poor lady and her family that the fall was so severe. RIP.


----------



## mjr (5 Dec 2016)

Steady said:


> The police investigation notes seem .. out-dated in practice?
> _"The cycle also had no front reflector and a loose bell on the handlebars which was missing a bolt." _I understand they're stating what the found the bike to be, but neither of those are really a factor in what happened_, _surely?


Crashing makes stuff fall off bikes and can knock brakes out of adjustment. Cable outers are always cut shorter than the inners because that's how they work and it reads like the police officer doesn't know that... but that evil newspaper's report probably isn't reliable. What's the betting most eyewitnesses were drivers, too?

As they can't tell whether she was listening to music (which seems slightly surprising given that phones log what apps are running), then both headphones and helmet points seem rather irrelevant. The relative actions of the rider and the HGV (and it does read like it was overtaking on entry to a roundabout, but it's not clear from the article and surely any coroner worth their salt would have remarked on such an action contrary to the Highway Code?) should probably be the focus. Bad reporting.

RIP


----------



## Lonestar (5 Dec 2016)

Steady said:


> I stopped listening to music via earphones on the bike not because it wasn't safe, but purely because in the event of an incident it would become the escape clause if I wasn't my fault, at all times I could hear everything around me, but I refuse to open myself up to that kind of blame.



God help us if there are any deaf cyclists...Pardon?


----------



## Profpointy (5 Dec 2016)

did they report that the lorry driver was listening to his radio?

Anyway as others have said, I will not click on a daily mail link as it is literally giving money to a racist hate-filled rag. And even for right-of-centre politics folk, remember that hatred is frequently directed at cyclists


----------



## mjr (5 Dec 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Sounds like one of those roundabouts where you can use a couple of lanes on that then merge in progress round. If so I don't think you could blame either for their road position coming onto it but neither seems to have been aware of the other being there until too late. Poor lady and her family that the fall was so severe. RIP.


Amen. Crash location pictured is http://www.instantstreetview.com/@53.74897,-0.852831,70.19h,-6.35p,0.85z - Big roundabout with no lanes marked on it, but single lane entry from every arm.


----------



## jefmcg (5 Dec 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Anyway as others have said, I will not click on a daily mail link as it is literally giving money to a racist hate-filled rag.


I did click on it. Unfortunately the Mail seems like the only paper reporting on the inquest. 

Her name was Emily Norton, if you want to try to google it.


----------



## Dan B (5 Dec 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Anyway as others have said, I will not click on a daily mail link as it is literally giving money to a racist hate-filled rag. And even for right-of-centre politics folk, remember that hatred is frequently directed at cyclists


That's when it's not being directed at the rule of law, or at the Austrians who recently voted against a neo-Nazi


----------



## Profpointy (5 Dec 2016)

Dan B said:


> That's when it's not being directed at the rule of law, or at the Austrians who recently voted against a neo-Nazi



That's strange; they used to look quite favourably on a certain Austrian back in the day.


----------



## Pale Rider (5 Dec 2016)

Profpointy said:


> That's strange; they used to look quite favourably on a certain Austrian back in the day.



Yawn.

Where were we?

Ah yes, an inquest into the death of a cyclist.

Looks to me as if the cyclist entered the roundabout on the nearside of the lorry, using it as cover.

She then took a tumble for no apparent reason, although it could have been no more than a slippery road surface.

Routinely, such a fall would cause minor injuries at worst,

But occasionally impacts to the head are fatal.

Lots of cases around the country of 'single punch' manslaughter.

The victim is struck a non-fatal blow but one which is strong enough to cause him to lose balance.

Death is caused by the victim's head hitting the pavement.

Once again, 99 times out of 100 when someone is knocked over they wouldn't even hit their head, let alone suffer a fatal impact.

But occasionally it will end badly.


----------



## jefmcg (5 Dec 2016)

I must say, if I listen to music while cycling, it does block out the surrounding. It's not the sound, per se, it's something that happens in my head. I get involved in the music and stop paying attention around me. It does not happen while driving and it does not happen with talk. So - duh! - I don't listen to music while cycling, but happily listen to podcasts. 

I'm not saying this applies here, in fact I don't think it does. She was an adult and an experienced cyclist. If she zoned out with music the way I do, I'm sure she wouldn't have listened to it. And we don't even know if she was listening to anything. 

Normally I am as against the Daily Mail as anyone, but this example seems to be a perfectly acceptable article, publishing something in public interest that no one else seems to have published. The last article about this collision on the Yorkshire Post site is calling it a hit and run where the driver speed away. Clicking this article is probably ok, and may even be a good thing, leading to more actual journalism on the site, rather than commentary on youtube clips and important celebrity side-boob updates.


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Dec 2016)

Where has this thread been moved to? I can't seem to find it in https://www.cyclechat.net/forums/general-cycling-discussions.55/


----------



## Dayvo (5 Dec 2016)

User14044mountain said:


> I'm sorry about the death of anyone but I refuse to read anything in the Daily Mail. Its reporting is usually pure fantasy. If I feel any need for that genre, I'll read Lewis Carroll instead. He was a better writer.



As indeed is Andy Carroll, I suspect. 

This article completely lacks credibility. Every comment is made to imply that the cyclist was TOTALLY at fault:

*may have been distracted by listening to music

She had entered a roundabout without looking right *really?

*Ms Norton, who was wearing her headphones at the time of her tragic crash, was not wearing a helmet *and a helmet would have saved her?
*
Coroner Paul Marks ruled listening to music could have been a distraction

He also said her injuries may have been lessened if she had worn a helmet.*

*Eyewitness Martin Ward said: 'From what I saw she did not appear to look left or right as she entered the roundabout.

A police accident investigator found the cycle had a defective front brake which touched the handlebar - which could have been a manufacturing fault - as the cable outer was cut short.

The cycle also had no front reflector and a loose bell on the handlebars which was missing a bolt. *is that at all relevant?
*
Coroner Paul Marks told the inquest he found that Ms Norton went on to the roundabout without looking right and was **seemingly unaware** of the HGV. *

*He said because of a fitting defect in the front brake caused by the cable being too short, she **may** have applied the rear brake causing a skid. *

*He continued: 'I cannot determine if she was on her iPhone listening with earphone at the time, but if she had been, it could have caused a distraction and could have contributed to the cause of the accident.'*

*He said the fact she was not wearing a helmet may have meant she had suffered worse injuries,
*
Every highlighted comment above is speculation, conjecture and assumption.

Piss-poor, one-sided 'journalism.'


----------



## Accy cyclist (5 Dec 2016)

User said:


> Scroll up to the top and you can see where you are.




Oh right, i've found it.


----------



## smutchin (5 Dec 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Looks to me as if the cyclist entered the roundabout on the nearside of the lorry, using it as cover.



First part is how I interpreted it too, but there's no evidence to infer 'using it as cover' from the report. I'm also not convinced by the eyewitness account that she didn't look right before entering the roundabout.

What's also not clear is the relative positions of the bike and the lorry on the approach to the roundabout. If the cyclist was moving along at normal cycling speeds, and the lorry was moving at normal motor traffic speeds, then for them both to arrive at the roundabout at the same time suggests the lorry had been behind the bike and was overtaking when the incident happened.

So how did the lorry driver not know there was a cyclist sharing the road space? Had he not seen the cyclist ahead of him on the approach to the roundabout?


----------



## mjr (5 Dec 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Looks to me as if the cyclist entered the roundabout on the nearside of the lorry, using it as cover.


That seems improbable - it looks far more likely to me that the lorry probably overtook a cyclist on the entry to the roundabout, probably encroaching on a hatched area to do so - three of the arms of that roundabout have hatching on the right-hand side of the entry in a futile cheapskate attempt to discourage motorists overtaking cycles and motorcycles like that. The angles look so shallow that if a lorry is there first and in its lane, there shouldn't be space for a cyclist to overtake on its left. EDIT: this interpretation is contradicted by the road.cc report linked below.

Roundabout is of an old dangerous design. Redesign roundabout ASAP... oh sorry, we're not a country with Sustainable Safety or Vision Zero, so let's just blame the cyclist because it's cheaper.


----------



## PK99 (5 Dec 2016)

http://road.cc/content/news/213510-listening-music-iphone-may-have-led-cyclists-death-says-coroner

Extract:

Keen cyclist Emily Norton, 38, *entered a roundabout without looking right at the same time as a DAF HGV lorry was exiting the roundabout* and may have panicked trying to avoid a collision, Hull Coroners’ Court heard.


----------



## smutchin (5 Dec 2016)

PK99 said:


> Keen cyclist Emily Norton, 38, *entered a roundabout without looking right at the same time as a DAF HGV lorry was exiting the roundabout* and may have panicked trying to avoid a collision, Hull Coroners’ Court heard.



That's clearer and makes more sense than the DM report. And does more or less absolve the lorry driver of any blame.


----------



## mjr (5 Dec 2016)

PK99 said:


> http://road.cc/content/news/213510-listening-music-iphone-may-have-led-cyclists-death-says-coroner
> 
> Extract:
> 
> Keen cyclist Emily Norton, 38, *entered a roundabout without looking right at the same time as a DAF HGV lorry was exiting the roundabout* and may have panicked trying to avoid a collision, Hull Coroners’ Court heard.


So now we've two reports which disagree with each other! I assume the road.cc one is original reporting, but there's neither author named nor source cited.

The road.cc report also differs in that it says "[Coroner Paul Marks] said because of a fitting defect in the front brake caused by the cable being too short, she may have applied the rear brake causing a skid, adding that at no point did witnesses see the two vehicles make contact" which still doesn't make sense. Is there ANY type of brake where a too-short cable wouldn't result in it being permanently on?


----------



## PK99 (5 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4585590, member: 9609"]*I am understanding it as both the lorry and the cyclist were on the same road approaching the roundabout ?* It sounds a bit like the lorry has got too close for comfort and the poor cyclist has maybe moved a bit to the left, come off and very very unluckily received fatal injuries. Presumably the lorry never made contact with her and with no one saying he was too close to the cyclist it is very difficult to appoint any blame.

I'm always very mindful when approaching such a roundabout on the bike that anyone coming up behind me maybe devoting too much concentration on traffic coming from the right that they may not notice me.[/QUOTE]

not according to the report on road.cc linked and quoted just above. That reads that the HGV was on the roundabout and the cyclist approached from a different direction and failed to give way


----------



## Pale Rider (5 Dec 2016)

Dayvo said:


> As indeed is Andy Carroll, I suspect.
> 
> This article completely lacks credibility. Every comment is made to imply that the cyclist was TOTALLY at fault:
> 
> ...



Usual shoot the messenger garbage.

You should direct your ire at the coroner who said: "'I accept this was an entirely avoidable incident and the cause of the events that lead up to the accident rest entirely with the cyclist. 

'No charges have been brought against the HGV driver and he has been totally exonerated.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...istening-music-earphones-caused-accident.html





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-earphones-caused-accident.html#ixzz4RzRiRnVu 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## jefmcg (5 Dec 2016)

The road cc article is plagarised DM article

How shaming
DM


> Eyewitness Martin Ward said: 'From what I saw she did not appear to look left or right as she entered the roundabout. The cyclist kept in a straight line.
> 
> 'The wagon kept in a straight line. I saw the cyclist lift in the air and go on to the verge. The way the road is they were converging. In my opinion the wagon driver did not do anything wrong.'
> 
> ...


road cc


> Eyewitness Martin Ward, of Howden said: “From what I saw she did not appear to look left or right as she entered the roundabout.
> 
> “The cyclist kept in a straight line. The wagon kept in a straight line. I saw the cyclist lift in the air and go on to the verge. The way the road is they were converging. In my opinion the wagon driver did not do anything wrong.”
> 
> PC Sally Acomb said a full accident investigation had taken place and the lorry driver was not facing any charges. A police accident investigator found the cycle had a defective from brake which touch the handlebar – which could have been a manufacturing fault – as the cable outer was cut short.


----------



## MarkF (5 Dec 2016)

jefmcg said:


> I must say, if I listen to music while cycling, it does block out the surrounding. It's not the sound, per se, it's something that happens in my head. I get involved in the music and stop paying attention around me. It does not happen while driving and it does not happen with talk.



I agree, I am a non-helmet/hi-viz/glove wearer but would never use music/earphones on the roads, I too get involved in the music, it's really pleasurable on the towpath but on the roads, never for me.


----------



## fossyant (5 Dec 2016)

Hearing on a bike is another sense that you need.

Problem is, in law, if someone can argue for the slightest contributory negligence, they will. It saves them thousands ! As an individual you need to mitigate this as much as possible. The number of times I've been asked 'were you wearing a helmet' and I've come back and said it was my back, and my helmet was mark free. I even had lights on. At the minute, the other side are still going to try and argue road position (I had been filtering on the outside so could see and be seen, then went to primary before the driver turned right across my path). They will try anything even speed etc. Fortunately my GPS shows me not going fast.

As in this incident, they are trying to find blame. No reflector, poorly mounted bell - who is going to hear a bell in a truck ? The sad thing is a poor individual lost their lives on the road, this shouldn't be happening !


----------



## Pale Rider (5 Dec 2016)

User said:


> You are, I presume, familiar with the boy who cried wolf? He was right on one occasion.



A meaningless comment.

Just say the Mail didn't cover the story.

The inquest would have gone ahead just the same, the cyclist would still be dead, and the coroner would have reached the same conclusion.



fossyant said:


> As in this incident, they are trying to find blame. No reflector, poorly mounted bell - who is going to hear a bell in a truck ? The sad thing is a poor individual lost their lives on the road, this shouldn't be happening !



The inquest is trying to establish what happened and why, also who, where, and when.

As part of his job, the accident investigator will examine the bicycle and produce a factual report.

It's up to the coroner to judge what impact that information - and all the rest of the evidence before him - had on the death.

The coroner said the faulty front brake may have caused the cyclist to apply more than usual pressure to the rear brake, in turn causing a skid which led to the fall and fatal injury.

Seems a reasonable hypothesis to me, although that's all it is, and the coroner presented it as such - a possible explanation.


----------



## Pale Rider (5 Dec 2016)

User said:


> You criticised people for shooting the messenger, so reminding you about the long established quality of said messenger is perfectly reasonable. Still, if they keep up the good work, just reporting stuff accurately for a while, say 80 odd years, they might restore a reputation worth trying to defend.



The coroner's remarks are what they are, it matters not where you read them.

It's been noted upthread the same stuff appears on road cc.

Most likely is the inquest was covered by a freelance or news agency which has sold the story to whoever will buy it.

In other words, both newsdesks get the same copy, hence the quotes are identical because they are what they are - quotes.

But hey, bleating about the Mail is much more important than a cycling fatality and how officialdom deals with it, so you carry on.


----------



## jefmcg (5 Dec 2016)

I usually hate the DM, but I am fascinated that everyone hated the DM article, then poured love on the road.cc article that was nearly the same word for word. Even though I have locked horns with @Pale Rider on the subject of the Daily Mail before (when he was very wrong  ), he is right this time.

As for the content of both articles, I'm OK with it - assuming it's an accurate report of the inquest. When a cyclist is crushed under the wheels of a lorry and the papers immediately say "died when his cycle collide with ...", I am enraged. But when an inquest exonerates the driver, who had previously be tarred 'hit and run, fleeing the scene at speed" then I think it's ok for the newspaper to exonerate him too.

Whether the coroner was correct? I don't know. But mentioning a helmet in an accident that involved head injuries seems ok, especially as there is no criticism or suggestion it would have made a difference. Ditto for mentioning headphones in an accident where the fatality did not seem to notice her surroundings? That seems ok too. The reflector and bell - that's seems to be reporting what the police said. And I think it's fine that the police would mention every "fault" with the bike, whether or not it was a factor. And it doesn't seem to me that the coroner thought it was a factor.

Yeah, I'm ok with the coroner and the DM.


----------



## mjr (5 Dec 2016)

jefmcg said:


> And I think it's fine that the police would mention every "fault" with the bike, whether or not it was a factor. And it doesn't seem to me that the coroner thought it was a factor.


Are you also fine with the shoot about the brake cables, saying that either the outer was cut too short or that the cable was too short? It really doesn't make much sense to me, but the coroner seems to think it was a factor.

How can you have the outer so short it affects braking without it being immediately obvious with the inner in a straight line and the outer rattling around? Have you ever seen a bike like that? Or if the cable was too short, surely it would lock the brakes on or be flapping around... at which point, the outer wouldn't stay on the bike anyway...  Surely it's more probable that the front brake cable came off in the crash?

It all feels like a bunch of motorists who don't understand how bikes work have sat in judgement on a cyclist who can no longer offer testimony.


----------



## Accy cyclist (6 Dec 2016)

fossyant said:


> Hearing on a bike is another sense that you need.
> 
> Problem is, in law, if someone can argue for the slightest contributory negligence, they will. It saves them thousands ! As an individual you need to mitigate this as much as possible. The number of times I've been asked 'were you wearing a helmet' and I've come back and said it was my back, and my helmet was mark free. I even had lights on. At the minute, the other side are still going to try and argue road position (I had been filtering on the outside so could see and be seen, then went to primary before the driver turned right across my path). They will try anything even speed etc. Fortunately my GPS shows me not going fast.
> 
> As in this incident, they are trying to find blame. No reflector, poorly mounted bell - who is going to hear a bell in a truck ? The sad thing is a poor individual lost their lives on the road, this shouldn't be happening !




When i was knocked off my bike last year i was lucky to have a reliable witness to the incident. He was very sympathetic in our phone conversation but he did say that maybe i should've been wearing a high viz jacket then all of this wouldn't have happened. I was wearing a white red and yellow jersey(hardly black or grey)and it was daylight. Yet even those who sympathise with us think we bring it upon ourselves when we're hit by some tit who'd hit you even if you were dressed from head to toe in high viz and had a flashing light on your helmet! The boy racer who knocked me off said in court that he didn't see me, but i made eye contact with him as we approached each other. He definitely saw me but chose to cut across my path either through bravado,stupidity or total inexperience.


----------



## hatler (6 Dec 2016)

But would a regular cyclist ride a bike with deficient brake like that on a daily basis ? Seems improbable to me.


----------



## Pale Rider (6 Dec 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Even though I have locked horns with @Pale Rider on the subject of the Daily Mail before (when he was very wrong  ), he is right this time.



I can't remember locking horns with you over the Mail so I must have been wrong on that occasion.

Court reporting in this country is fairly straight, the laws of contempt and vigilant judges and lawyers see to that.

The reporter who did this inquest has probably done dozens if not hundreds in the past, and won't work for the Mail anyway.

So just this once the simple answer is the correct one - it's an accurate report written by a competent journalist.


----------



## mjr (6 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4586161, member: 45"]If the inner was too long (outer too short) then the lever would hit the bars when squeezed, as the report said, and the brake wouldn't engage properly.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that simply the inner clamped in the wrong place, too far out, rather than the outer too short? And how does it tie up with the inner being too short?


----------



## fossyant (6 Dec 2016)

Plenty of badly maintained bikes out there. Brakes are the luxury option like indicators on BMWs


----------



## mjr (6 Dec 2016)

fossyant said:


> Hearing on a bike is another sense that you need.
> …
> 
> As in this incident, they are trying to find blame. No reflector, poorly mounted bell - who is going to hear a bell in a truck ? The sad thing is a poor individual lost their lives on the road, this shouldn't be happening !


And yet, some of the most vehement opponents of cycling sound systems (headphones or speakers) ride around with fat straps in front of their ears making whoosh whoosh noises and few people criticise that!

Yes, it feels like the motorists' courts looking for reasons to blame the deceased instead of suggest how to improve the junction and it shouldn't be happening.


----------



## jefmcg (6 Dec 2016)

Did anyone get the impression there a *forensic* examination of the bike, by an expert? I seems like it was just a copper checking it over. It had been in a _crash_. OK, maybe the brakes didn't work, not unheard of in a Halfords bike, or maybe they worked fine before the crash and things were knocked badly out of alignment.


----------



## fossyant (6 Dec 2016)

It probably was just a coppa. Comments on damage to my bike by the officer on scene was damage to the wheel. There actually wasn't any. Just a scratch on the forks which they missed.


----------



## jefmcg (6 Dec 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> I can't remember locking horns with you over the Mail so I must have been wrong on that occasion.


Yeah, you were clearly continuing an argument that you had previously had SC&P, so might not have noticed a new voice (mine).



Pale Rider said:


> The reporter who did this inquest has probably done dozens if not hundreds in the past, and won't work for the Mail anyway.


1) correct 2) incorrect

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alexander-matthews-b9748452


> I am a reporter working on the home news desk at the MailOnline.
> I previously worked as a reporter for the Gravesend Messenger and the Dartford Messenger newspapers.
> I have covered inquests, crown and magistrates’ court, elections, council meetings, murder and various other serious crimes, human interest stories and Ofsted reports.
> My pieces have generated thousands of web hits and have been sold to various national newspapers including the Mirror, The Independent, The Sun and The Telegraph.
> I am also extremely confident developing stories across social media and I am experienced in live tweeting events such as public meetings, political debates and sport (I spent some time as an aspiring football reporter).


I am heartened to see that the Mail is still employing an actual journalist - maybe there are more than one. I apologise for my plagiarism remark above, I am sure that road.cc purchased the article rather than stole it.

More article by him 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...k-using-mobile-phones-reading-maps-wheel.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...len-van-just-42-MINUTES-reported-missing.html

Nothing world shattering, but perfectly fine tabloid writing.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 Dec 2016)

User said:


> You are, I presume, familiar with the boy who cried wolf? *He was right on one occasion*.


*Purely dispassionately and for balance, so was the Daily Mail over Stephen Lawrence*. once is enough can be used both ways.

it would appear here that a cycling specific news site and a general 'interest' news site have used near as the same report and ~word for word the same quotes but the one without an innate understanding or sympathy for cycling has incurred the wrath of the cycling community. I imaging The Sun or Mirror or Telegraph or _insert name of daily mass circulation paper 'we' approve of here_ would have had the same dog whistle reactions 'oooh failed to hear a truck = earphones, oooh head injury = no helmet' and written the story exactly like the Daily Mail because they are just as likely to be writing up something on Santa arriving on Kilburn High Road or the latest spiffing wheeze from Donald Trump half an hour later.

PS I do not buy any papers and am exceptionally selective on clicking to the DM online due to their their general world view and ways of expressing them, nor the Sun (Hillsborough).

I also like your christmas Avatar.


----------



## jefmcg (6 Dec 2016)

fossyant said:


> It probably was just a coppa. Comments on damage to my bike by the officer on scene was damage to the wheel. There actually wasn't any. Just a scratch on the forks which they missed.


That's comparing apples and oranges. If you were in a minor {bingle/fender bender/whatever the british call it} in a car, I'd expect a police officer to glance at your car and note down "damage to headlight, front left panel and bumper bar" and leave it at that.

But if you were involved in a fatality, I would expect a crack team of collision experts to be on the scene, measuring skid marks, examining tread wear, taking the car apart later to check brake fluid level and wear etc etc. I assume this team exists. In Australia they used to be called - and I swear I am not making this up - The Accident Appreciation Squad. 

But if the police do the same half-hearted investigation of a bike after a minor collision, and one that has resulted in a fatality, then that an indictment on our legal system.

Compare it with this https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/flaw-in-steerer-tube-kills-cyclist.210884/#post-4586285 - expert opinion on the cause of the accident by properly examining the bike (a policeman couldn't differentiate between a failing part and a part that had been damage in the incident), engaging the manufacturer and then drawing conclusions.


----------



## mjr (6 Dec 2016)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...hones-kills-mother-coroner-says-caused-death/ another report (hat tip to thirdcrank on CUK forum), but less detail than the road.cc, and odd stuff like claiming the crash happened on Flatgate which has no roundabout.


----------



## jefmcg (6 Dec 2016)

mjr said:


> As they can't tell whether she was listening to music (which seems slightly surprising given that phones log what apps are running)


Of course they can. They didn't bother doing a forensic examination of her phone either.

I take it back, I am not happy with the coronial process.


----------



## User33236 (6 Dec 2016)

mjr said:


> And yet, some of the most vehement opponents of cycling sound systems (headphones or speakers) ride around with fat straps in front of their ears making whoosh whoosh noises and few people criticise that!



If the straps are such that they make whoosh whoosh noises them they are poorly adjusted and quite rightly deserves criticism IMO.

No point in wearing a piece of equipment you may believe will assist in a crash of you are going to wear it inappropriately.


----------



## lazybloke (6 Dec 2016)

User33236 said:


> If the straps are such that they make whoosh whoosh noises them they are poorly adjusted



Science
Earlier this year I found a quiet rural descent, picked up speed and did a precarious bit of no-handed cycling, alternating between helmet and no helmet.
Conclusion: my ears make as much noise as any helmet straps. No-one ever said my ears need adjusting.


----------



## Big Andy (6 Dec 2016)

lazybloke said:


> No-one ever said my ears need adjusting.


 Maybe they're just too polite?


----------



## mjr (6 Dec 2016)

User33236 said:


> If the straps are such that they make whoosh whoosh noises them they are poorly adjusted and quite rightly deserves criticism IMO.


Some of them seem impossible to stop on some heads, hence the existence of CatEars and similar products. Now, you could argue that they're poorly-designed or poorly-fitting, but there's plenty of them about, shops are allowed to sell them without proper presales fitting and I've never heard of anyone turned away from a compulsive event for it not fitting properly.


User33236 said:


> No point in wearing a piece of equipment you may believe will assist in a crash of you are going to wear it inappropriately.


If you're willing to believe that... but there's a whole thread for that discussion. Does anyone remember a coroner ever criticising someone for using a poorly-adjusted or poorly-fitting helmet?

It seems only to matter if someone wasn't using one at all, even if that could be for well-founded reasons. I also wonder if the brother felt social pressure to state “I am told at the time she was not wearing a helmet. I cannot understand why she did not wear it that day. We later found it in the house. She was a stickler for safety.” If she was a stickler for safety, maybe she'd actually looked into helmets, realised the inconvenient truth and was just an unlucky one. If so, it's a shame she didn't explain it to her brother and leave a note. I've told my nearest but I don't want to bore all relatives with it, so I put a web page on my website explaining that I've investigated them and why I no longer use one.


----------



## mjr (6 Dec 2016)

[QUOTE 4586485, member: 45"]Possibly. You do need enough length in the outer though so as to not have too tight a curve, which can affect operation.[/QUOTE]
I think that would make the cable jam, not letting the lever reach the bars. I don't know - the comments on brakes and speed/gears in the reports seem like they can't all be true, but the coroner isn't reported as ruling any out explicitly.


----------



## User33236 (6 Dec 2016)

mjr said:


> ... I've never heard of anyone turned away from a compulsive event for it not fitting properly.



<offtopic>I have seen people on middle distance and full triathlons (think half IronMan and full IronMan) being pulled up on helmet fitment and told to sort it out or it's game over. But then they are sticklers on rules e.g.making wetsuits mandatory because the water drops 0.1 degree below their minimum value.</offtopic>


Will a full, unedited version, of proceedings ever make it into the public domain and then, hopefully, some of these confusions caused by the way it is written can be seen in full and in context?


----------



## hatler (6 Dec 2016)

User said:


> Yes, there is a class of cyclists who ride poorly maintained BSOs, usually with one brake straddle uncoupled to accommodate the wobble from a broken spoke. They ride rather slowly and wear hi-viz but not helmets.


But they will be aware of the compromised braking performance of the bike, and are therefore unlikely to be taken by surprise when the badly set-up brake doesn't work as well as it should, 'cos it's always that bad. The inference in the report is that she applied the sub-optimal brake, realised it didn't work, and then jammed on the other brake in a panic, resulting in a loss of control. I would contend that that inference cannot be correct.


----------



## Pale Rider (6 Dec 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Yeah, you were clearly continuing an argument that you had previously had SC&P, so might not have noticed a new voice (mine).
> 
> 
> 1) correct 2) incorrect
> ...



The reporter who did the inquest wasn't Matthews, as he says he's based at the Mailonline newsdesk.

He got the agency copy and was told to rewrite it in Mail style - nothing wrong with that - but he is not the reporter in the East Riding coroner's court in Hull.

Had the Mail staffed the job, road cc would not have got exactly the same copy.

Similarly, Jamie Johnson - the name on the Telegraph story - wasn't in Hull.

In his case, he's rewritten the agency copy and got some reaction from interested parties - RoSPA and Cycling UK.


----------



## smutchin (6 Dec 2016)

The problem with the Mail report is that it's unclear whether the lorry was already on the roundabout or joining at the same point as the cyclist. The road.cc report is only better in that it's clearer on that point. 

As to why the brother commented on the lack of helmet, he was probably answering a direct question. 

I suspect the truth about the brakes is that the blocks were worn to the point where they needed replacing. It's not only people on BSOs who ride around with badly adjusted brakes. This may or may not have been a factor in the crash. 

The headphones are a major red herring and it's a shame this is the focus of the story.


----------



## Dan B (12 Dec 2016)

lazybloke said:


> No-one ever said my ears need adjusting.


Ah, but. If they did, would you have heard them?


----------

