Fire chief says cycle helmet saved his daughter's life after accident on Broadstone Way

Bournemouth Echo: Assistant Chief Fire Officer Ben Ansell with the helmet Assistant Chief Fire Officer Ben Ansell with the helmet

A senior fire officer has issued a safety warning after his 13-year-old daughter’s life was saved by a cycle helmet.

Hannah Ansell was thrown 20 metres into the air when her bike collided with a van in Poole.

But she escaped serious injury thanks to her helmet, which was damaged in the incident.

Her relieved father, Assistant Chief Fire Officer Ben Ansell, has now urged others to follow her example.

The collision took place near Beechbank Avenue as Hannah cycled from her home in Broadstone to Parkstone Grammar School on Tuesday May 13.

Police and paramedics attended and Hannah was taken by ambulance to Poole Hospital. She suffered minor injuries and is now recovering at home.

Mr Ansell, who is Dorset Fire and Rescue’s strategic lead for road safety, said: “In my time in the fire service I have seen lots of road traffic collisions, but I felt I needed to share my personal experience in the hope that others can learn from it.

“I know that had Hannah not been wearing her helmet on Tuesday morning, this could be a totally different incident – her helmet really did save her life. I would urge all cyclists to make sure they have the proper protective clothing including a well fitted helmet.”

He added: “I would also like to thank the police officers, paramedics, nurses and doctors who looked after Hannah. In particular, I would like to praise the actions of a GP doctor who came to Hannah’s aid and ensured that she was not moved before the arrival of the emergency services”.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:09pm Thu 15 May 14

suzigirl says...

Glad to hear your daughter is okay.
Glad to hear your daughter is okay. suzigirl
  • Score: 6

4:07pm Thu 15 May 14

StuartMc1 says...

In glad she's OK, but shouldn't the message here be focused on the van hitting her in the first place? Prevention rather than protection is what should be the point. (Admittedly it doesn't go into detail about the accident)
In glad she's OK, but shouldn't the message here be focused on the van hitting her in the first place? Prevention rather than protection is what should be the point. (Admittedly it doesn't go into detail about the accident) StuartMc1
  • Score: -2

4:32pm Thu 15 May 14

Diesel Dog says...

Glad Hannahs ok.

All parents should ensure their children have a cycle helmet and use it.
All schools who allow cycling should have regular checks for all safety gear.
All newsagents should be legally liable if their cycling paper deliverers are not equipped with lights, High Vis and a helmet.

Cycle helmets should be a legal requirement. A traumatic head injury will ruin your life and everyone around you.
Glad Hannahs ok. All parents should ensure their children have a cycle helmet and use it. All schools who allow cycling should have regular checks for all safety gear. All newsagents should be legally liable if their cycling paper deliverers are not equipped with lights, High Vis and a helmet. Cycle helmets should be a legal requirement. A traumatic head injury will ruin your life and everyone around you. Diesel Dog
  • Score: -3

5:00pm Thu 15 May 14

Teddy 1 says...

Glad she is ok.

Ordinarily (this instance aside as it was his daughter) the fire service should really be focussing on fire safety especially as fires in the home and on the heath have been increasing in recent years so we are told.

It amaizes me that the fire service complain they are short of cash and want to increase charges via council tax yet they double up efforts competing for air time with streetwise, police, councils and nhs.

It will be interesting to read the outcome of the police investigation.
Glad she is ok. Ordinarily (this instance aside as it was his daughter) the fire service should really be focussing on fire safety especially as fires in the home and on the heath have been increasing in recent years so we are told. It amaizes me that the fire service complain they are short of cash and want to increase charges via council tax yet they double up efforts competing for air time with streetwise, police, councils and nhs. It will be interesting to read the outcome of the police investigation. Teddy 1
  • Score: -24

5:10pm Thu 15 May 14

steveatbournemouth says...

Glad your daughter is OK.
Glad your daughter is OK. steveatbournemouth
  • Score: 13

6:24pm Thu 15 May 14

djd says...

Teddy 1 wrote:
Glad she is ok.

Ordinarily (this instance aside as it was his daughter) the fire service should really be focussing on fire safety especially as fires in the home and on the heath have been increasing in recent years so we are told.

It amaizes me that the fire service complain they are short of cash and want to increase charges via council tax yet they double up efforts competing for air time with streetwise, police, councils and nhs.

It will be interesting to read the outcome of the police investigation.
The Fire Service also attends road traffic collisions so maybe having a lead on road safety is not such a bad thing. If they attend less collisions then they could concentrate their efforts on fighting fires and the cause of them.
I think Dorset Fire and Rescue do a marvellous job in the circumstances.
[quote][p][bold]Teddy 1[/bold] wrote: Glad she is ok. Ordinarily (this instance aside as it was his daughter) the fire service should really be focussing on fire safety especially as fires in the home and on the heath have been increasing in recent years so we are told. It amaizes me that the fire service complain they are short of cash and want to increase charges via council tax yet they double up efforts competing for air time with streetwise, police, councils and nhs. It will be interesting to read the outcome of the police investigation.[/p][/quote]The Fire Service also attends road traffic collisions so maybe having a lead on road safety is not such a bad thing. If they attend less collisions then they could concentrate their efforts on fighting fires and the cause of them. I think Dorset Fire and Rescue do a marvellous job in the circumstances. djd
  • Score: 21

8:53pm Thu 15 May 14

scrumpyjack says...

Diesel Dog wrote:
Glad Hannahs ok.

All parents should ensure their children have a cycle helmet and use it.
All schools who allow cycling should have regular checks for all safety gear.
All newsagents should be legally liable if their cycling paper deliverers are not equipped with lights, High Vis and a helmet.

Cycle helmets should be a legal requirement. A traumatic head injury will ruin your life and everyone around you.
All people should be governed by more and more rules and told what they should be doing.

Like you I don't care that generation after generation before us managed quite well without it.

Don't get me started on people at home having the audacity of using a knife with out wearing a steel glove. There should be a law to make them wear one.

Oh and men in their sheds/garages - the maniac next door to us was in his garage using a drill without safety goggles. I don;t care that he has done it all his life without incident, I have played the lottery for years but am sure one day soon I will..............
[quote][p][bold]Diesel Dog[/bold] wrote: Glad Hannahs ok. All parents should ensure their children have a cycle helmet and use it. All schools who allow cycling should have regular checks for all safety gear. All newsagents should be legally liable if their cycling paper deliverers are not equipped with lights, High Vis and a helmet. Cycle helmets should be a legal requirement. A traumatic head injury will ruin your life and everyone around you.[/p][/quote]All people should be governed by more and more rules and told what they should be doing. Like you I don't care that generation after generation before us managed quite well without it. Don't get me started on people at home having the audacity of using a knife with out wearing a steel glove. There should be a law to make them wear one. Oh and men in their sheds/garages - the maniac next door to us was in his garage using a drill without safety goggles. I don;t care that he has done it all his life without incident, I have played the lottery for years but am sure one day soon I will.............. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 8

9:19pm Thu 15 May 14

Colin@cycling says...

The evidence for promoting cycle helmets is mixed, e.g.
Erke and Elvik stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent." http://www.cycle-hel
mets.com/norway.pdf page 28.

Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-hel
mets.com/robinson-he
ad-injuries.pdf Table 5

Details from New South Wales, Australia reported the number of injuries to children compared to the level of cycling. The equivalent number of injuries for pre-law number of cyclists increased from 1310 (384 head + 926 other injuries) in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in 1993.

Clarke, CF, Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle law, NZMJ 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349
http://journal.nzma.
org.nz/journal/125-1
349/5046/
The ‘Summary’ includes;
Cycling usage reduced by 51% (average hours cycled per person, % change from 89–90 to 06-09).
Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%.

There is in fact more evidence raising concerns about cycle helmets. The media should investigate this issue in detail.
The evidence for promoting cycle helmets is mixed, e.g. Erke and Elvik stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent." http://www.cycle-hel mets.com/norway.pdf page 28. Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-hel mets.com/robinson-he ad-injuries.pdf Table 5 Details from New South Wales, Australia reported the number of injuries to children compared to the level of cycling. The equivalent number of injuries for pre-law number of cyclists increased from 1310 (384 head + 926 other injuries) in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in 1993. Clarke, CF, Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle law, NZMJ 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349 http://journal.nzma. org.nz/journal/125-1 349/5046/ The ‘Summary’ includes; Cycling usage reduced by 51% (average hours cycled per person, % change from 89–90 to 06-09). Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%. There is in fact more evidence raising concerns about cycle helmets. The media should investigate this issue in detail. Colin@cycling
  • Score: 8

10:45pm Thu 15 May 14

anotherfatslob says...

The road system that gives priority to motorists at every opportunity is what nearly killed this girl.

The helmet did bugger all,and to saty it saved her life is moronic.

XXX
The road system that gives priority to motorists at every opportunity is what nearly killed this girl. The helmet did bugger all,and to saty it saved her life is moronic. XXX anotherfatslob
  • Score: 6

12:02am Fri 16 May 14

CaresAboutHealth says...

StuartMc1 wrote:
In glad she's OK, but shouldn't the message here be focused on the van hitting her in the first place? Prevention rather than protection is what should be the point. (Admittedly it doesn't go into detail about the accident)
Some interesting research showed that drivers took more risks when overtaking a helmeted cyclist. The researcher, Dr Ian Walker, was hit twice when conducting this research - by a truck and a bus - both times when he was wearing a helmet http://www.eurekaler
t.org/pub_releases/2
006-09/uob-wah091106
.php

It's all too easy to assume that the small amount of polystyrene helps absorb impacts and therefore must help prevent injuries. But the effect is quite small compared to other factors such as human behaviour. Countries with the low helmet wearing rates have more cyclists and thanks to Safety in Numbers much lower risks of injury per mile cycled.

Paradoxically, the result of passing helmet laws in Australia and New Zealand was a substantial increase in the risk of injuries per cyclist.
http://www.cycle-hel
mets.com/helmet-law-
spin.html
http://www.cycle-hel
mets.com/new-zealand
-road-users.html
[quote][p][bold]StuartMc1[/bold] wrote: In glad she's OK, but shouldn't the message here be focused on the van hitting her in the first place? Prevention rather than protection is what should be the point. (Admittedly it doesn't go into detail about the accident)[/p][/quote]Some interesting research showed that drivers took more risks when overtaking a helmeted cyclist. The researcher, Dr Ian Walker, was hit twice when conducting this research - by a truck and a bus - both times when he was wearing a helmet http://www.eurekaler t.org/pub_releases/2 006-09/uob-wah091106 .php It's all too easy to assume that the small amount of polystyrene helps absorb impacts and therefore must help prevent injuries. But the effect is quite small compared to other factors such as human behaviour. Countries with the low helmet wearing rates have more cyclists and thanks to Safety in Numbers much lower risks of injury per mile cycled. Paradoxically, the result of passing helmet laws in Australia and New Zealand was a substantial increase in the risk of injuries per cyclist. http://www.cycle-hel mets.com/helmet-law- spin.html http://www.cycle-hel mets.com/new-zealand -road-users.html CaresAboutHealth
  • Score: 11

6:34am Fri 16 May 14

anotherfatslob says...

Nearly all snowboarders now wear these stupid hats.

Amazingly,there has been no decrease in head injuries since this fashion took hold.
Nearly all snowboarders now wear these stupid hats. Amazingly,there has been no decrease in head injuries since this fashion took hold. anotherfatslob
  • Score: 6

9:02am Fri 16 May 14

Franks Tank says...

suzigirl wrote:
Glad to hear your daughter is okay.
Cobblers.
2 day ago you were trying to make out it was probably her fault!
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: Glad to hear your daughter is okay.[/p][/quote]Cobblers. 2 day ago you were trying to make out it was probably her fault! Franks Tank
  • Score: 9

9:17am Fri 16 May 14

Franks Tank says...

Personally, I'm all in favour of the compulsory wearing of a helmet and neck brace by all drivers and passengers.
The use of such devices has long been shown to save lives and injuries in all forms of motor sport.
Imaging the saving in insurance claims for whip lash alone and then you've got the savings to the NHS treating head injuries as well.
I also advocate that all cars should be painted in one of 3 day-glow or hi-viz fluorescent colours as this would make them easier to see and might prevent them from bumping in to each other quite so much.
I suspect padded shorts and a lighter weight helmet might be advisable for pedestrians should the pavements be icy. However, it's probably best if this is left as an advisory measure as it might discourage even more people from actually using their legs.
Personally, I'm all in favour of the compulsory wearing of a helmet and neck brace by all drivers and passengers. The use of such devices has long been shown to save lives and injuries in all forms of motor sport. Imaging the saving in insurance claims for whip lash alone and then you've got the savings to the NHS treating head injuries as well. I also advocate that all cars should be painted in one of 3 day-glow or hi-viz fluorescent colours as this would make them easier to see and might prevent them from bumping in to each other quite so much. I suspect padded shorts and a lighter weight helmet might be advisable for pedestrians should the pavements be icy. However, it's probably best if this is left as an advisory measure as it might discourage even more people from actually using their legs. Franks Tank
  • Score: 16

1:20pm Fri 16 May 14

FNS-man says...

Diesel Dog wrote:
Glad Hannahs ok. All parents should ensure their children have a cycle helmet and use it. All schools who allow cycling should have regular checks for all safety gear. All newsagents should be legally liable if their cycling paper deliverers are not equipped with lights, High Vis and a helmet. Cycle helmets should be a legal requirement. A traumatic head injury will ruin your life and everyone around you.
Yes, helmets should be compulsory in many situations to save lives. Car crash deaths involve head trauma much more often that cyclist deaths, and being in a car rather than riding a bike will allow a full crash helmet to be worn. Deaths from head injury also mostly involve people who have been drinking, so helmets should be compulsory in the pub and on the way home. Helmets should also be enforced for people in bathrooms, up ladders and climbing stairs, as a high proportion of head-injury deaths come from these situations.

Anyone not wearing a helmet in these situations is putting their life at risk, and clearly do not care for their own safety or the feelings of their family who will have to deal with their death. It's just common sense.
[quote][p][bold]Diesel Dog[/bold] wrote: Glad Hannahs ok. All parents should ensure their children have a cycle helmet and use it. All schools who allow cycling should have regular checks for all safety gear. All newsagents should be legally liable if their cycling paper deliverers are not equipped with lights, High Vis and a helmet. Cycle helmets should be a legal requirement. A traumatic head injury will ruin your life and everyone around you.[/p][/quote]Yes, helmets should be compulsory in many situations to save lives. Car crash deaths involve head trauma much more often that cyclist deaths, and being in a car rather than riding a bike will allow a full crash helmet to be worn. Deaths from head injury also mostly involve people who have been drinking, so helmets should be compulsory in the pub and on the way home. Helmets should also be enforced for people in bathrooms, up ladders and climbing stairs, as a high proportion of head-injury deaths come from these situations. Anyone not wearing a helmet in these situations is putting their life at risk, and clearly do not care for their own safety or the feelings of their family who will have to deal with their death. It's just common sense. FNS-man
  • Score: 9

5:53pm Fri 16 May 14

Colin@cycling says...

One side effect of helmets taking over the main theme is in some circumstances all the details of why the accident occurred are not reported. The focus on knowing what went wrong and measures to avoid the accident may not even be reported, as it appears to be the case here.
One side effect of helmets taking over the main theme is in some circumstances all the details of why the accident occurred are not reported. The focus on knowing what went wrong and measures to avoid the accident may not even be reported, as it appears to be the case here. Colin@cycling
  • Score: 4

9:47pm Fri 16 May 14

joeinpoole says...

Hannah was supposedly "thrown 20m into the air" ... and yet cycle helmets are only built to protect from a static fall of 1.2m (European standard EN1078).

She's clearly very lucky not to have been more seriously injured but I doubt very much that the helmet had much to do with it.

Six times more people die from falling down stairs each year in the UK than are killed whilst cycling. Head injuries from those who have been drinking are also vastly more. Same with motorists. Head injuries for pedestrians are roughly the same as for cyclists.

If we wanted to make the use of helmets mandatory, based on the actual statistical evidence, then it should be for motorists first ... then people having a drink ... then people using stairs ... then pedestrians and cyclists.
Hannah was supposedly "thrown 20m into the air" ... and yet cycle helmets are only built to protect from a static fall of 1.2m (European standard EN1078). She's clearly very lucky not to have been more seriously injured but I doubt very much that the helmet had much to do with it. Six times more people die from falling down stairs each year in the UK than are killed whilst cycling. Head injuries from those who have been drinking are also vastly more. Same with motorists. Head injuries for pedestrians are roughly the same as for cyclists. If we wanted to make the use of helmets mandatory, based on the actual statistical evidence, then it should be for motorists first ... then people having a drink ... then people using stairs ... then pedestrians and cyclists. joeinpoole
  • Score: 6

2:13am Sat 17 May 14

A V Lowe says...

As many posters here have already noted we have been given no information about how the crash came about. Few impacts between a car and a pedestrian or cyclist in what appears to be a 30mph urban area will hurl the victim 20 feet into the air, unless a) there was something very seriously wrong with the concentration of the driver or the pedestrian/cyclist, and no braking or evasive action was taken or b) the driver was using the motor vehicle at a speed in excess of 30 mph.

However from the photograph of the white camper-van type of vehicle with the windscreen and front panel damage immediately along the road from the paramedics attending to the injured girl, and what appears to be a skid mark extending back towards the signal controlled crossing, one might piece together that the cyclist was probably crossing at the lights and hit broadside by the vehicle, and the driver has taken roughly 3 times the vehicle length to stop from the likely point of impact.

Many years ago I hit a child who had darted off the kerb as he was going to school, and larking around with his friends. I had noted the busy footway and children being boisterous, and was travelling between 20 and 30mph. I guess I must have been covering the brakes as well as the skid marks on the road were barely the length of the car, and the little lad went down like a skittle, and ended up lying just under the front of the car - he certainly did not go flying through the air.

Let's take a closer look at the crossing, where her father is standing - the traffic signal heads have 3 lenses facing across the crossing - yes it is a crossing for pedestrians AND cyclists, with a green man and a green bike, and just in the far distance, partly hidden by vegetation which has not been cut back are some blue 'cycle route' signs. there is obviously an issue of drivers not seeing the traffic signals in the standard positions at the kerb edge, as the roads authority has seen fit to have a high level repeater set of signals, which does hint that this road may have a speed limit higher than 30mph, although I see no repeater roundels on any of the lamp posts in the pictures, although they might be there, as the vegetation at the side of the road does need a bit of trimming back in places.

Looking back from the 'crash scene' picture cast you eyes towards the point at which the path leading to the crossing comes through the hedge line. It does not let any driver coming along that road get much warning or sight of a pedestrian or cyclist approaching the crossing, nor does it give the pedestrian or cyclist much of a view of any approaching cars, especially if the cyclist sees a green bike as they approach and decides to keep rolling even if the lights turn from green to red as they reach the crossing, or the cyclist see the lights facing the carriageway begin to change and anticipates a green crossing signal with any approaching motor traffic stopping in full compliance with their traffic signals.

That is detail we do not have but is of far greater relevance than any discussion on the efficacy of cycle helmets. the key questions which come from this should be, if this is a route used by children going to school and using this crossing, the maximum speed limit in the vicinity of the crossing should be 30mph. By far the most effective pieces of safety equipment for every road user are eyes and ears, and a clear head to use the information coming from them. the degree to which the vegetation at the roadside is masking the ability of road users to actually see each other, and possibly also the traffic signals, would be listed in any rigorous investigation as a potential causal factor, and this crash is a wake-up call to the roads authority to do some vegetation management - something which should really have been done 9 months ago, after wild birds had fledged, an blossom/seed had set, and a robust mechanised regime, covering substantial distances with high output machinery, applied. This of course is not the best time to do the work.

As a road crash it is also something which the Road Traffic Act mandates the roads authority to 'investigate' under Section 39.3.a) and from that take appropriate action (Section 39.3.b)) . A number of us have been asking Councils about how they are complying with the law though FoI requests. We are sadly being disappointed with the results which are coming back to us.
As many posters here have already noted we have been given no information about how the crash came about. Few impacts between a car and a pedestrian or cyclist in what appears to be a 30mph urban area will hurl the victim 20 feet into the air, unless a) there was something very seriously wrong with the concentration of the driver or the pedestrian/cyclist, and no braking or evasive action was taken or b) the driver was using the motor vehicle at a speed in excess of 30 mph. However from the photograph of the white camper-van type of vehicle with the windscreen and front panel damage immediately along the road from the paramedics attending to the injured girl, and what appears to be a skid mark extending back towards the signal controlled crossing, one might piece together that the cyclist was probably crossing at the lights and hit broadside by the vehicle, and the driver has taken roughly 3 times the vehicle length to stop from the likely point of impact. Many years ago I hit a child who had darted off the kerb as he was going to school, and larking around with his friends. I had noted the busy footway and children being boisterous, and was travelling between 20 and 30mph. I guess I must have been covering the brakes as well as the skid marks on the road were barely the length of the car, and the little lad went down like a skittle, and ended up lying just under the front of the car - he certainly did not go flying through the air. Let's take a closer look at the crossing, where her father is standing - the traffic signal heads have 3 lenses facing across the crossing - yes it is a crossing for pedestrians AND cyclists, with a green man and a green bike, and just in the far distance, partly hidden by vegetation which has not been cut back are some blue 'cycle route' signs. there is obviously an issue of drivers not seeing the traffic signals in the standard positions at the kerb edge, as the roads authority has seen fit to have a high level repeater set of signals, which does hint that this road may have a speed limit higher than 30mph, although I see no repeater roundels on any of the lamp posts in the pictures, although they might be there, as the vegetation at the side of the road does need a bit of trimming back in places. Looking back from the 'crash scene' picture cast you eyes towards the point at which the path leading to the crossing comes through the hedge line. It does not let any driver coming along that road get much warning or sight of a pedestrian or cyclist approaching the crossing, nor does it give the pedestrian or cyclist much of a view of any approaching cars, especially if the cyclist sees a green bike as they approach and decides to keep rolling even if the lights turn from green to red as they reach the crossing, or the cyclist see the lights facing the carriageway begin to change and anticipates a green crossing signal with any approaching motor traffic stopping in full compliance with their traffic signals. That is detail we do not have but is of far greater relevance than any discussion on the efficacy of cycle helmets. the key questions which come from this should be, if this is a route used by children going to school and using this crossing, the maximum speed limit in the vicinity of the crossing should be 30mph. By far the most effective pieces of safety equipment for every road user are eyes and ears, and a clear head to use the information coming from them. the degree to which the vegetation at the roadside is masking the ability of road users to actually see each other, and possibly also the traffic signals, would be listed in any rigorous investigation as a potential causal factor, and this crash is a wake-up call to the roads authority to do some vegetation management - something which should really have been done 9 months ago, after wild birds had fledged, an blossom/seed had set, and a robust mechanised regime, covering substantial distances with high output machinery, applied. This of course is not the best time to do the work. As a road crash it is also something which the Road Traffic Act mandates the roads authority to 'investigate' under Section 39.3.a) and from that take appropriate action (Section 39.3.b)) . A number of us have been asking Councils about how they are complying with the law though FoI requests. We are sadly being disappointed with the results which are coming back to us. A V Lowe
  • Score: 6

8:48pm Sat 17 May 14

Colin@cycling says...

https://www.google.c
o.uk/maps/@50.744153
,-1.994444,3a,75y,18
7.01h,84.68t/data=!3
m4!1e1!3m2!1sFcqnPCO
kJicWZA5nUuPKDw!2e0!
6m1!1e1?hl=en

it appears that a 50 mph limit may have been the situation and hopefully someone can specify the limit.

One issue that may be worth considering, if I am correct, is that lights generally have a 3 seconds timing for amber, this is the same time for a 30 mph limit or a 50 mph limit. The stopping distance at 30 mph is about 23 m and 53m at 50 mph according the highway code, these are in good conditions and an alert driver with a vehicle in good condition, possibly add 50% in some condition, e.g. 35m and 79m.

We do not know the actual driving speed, but at 50 mph, 22m/s, a driver may find it difficult to stop in 3 seconds (66m away and possibly 79m to actual stop). At 30 mph, 14m/s, again it may be difficult to stop (42m away and 35m to stop). If the amber time should be varied to suit different road and crossing situations could be considered, e.g. a downhill section of road could be given a longer signal time, or where children may be crossing.
A 50 mph limit needs to go down to 40mph and a longer signal time provided, reducing the approach speed and extra time for slowing and stopping. Hopefully the MP for the area can raise this with the minister.
https://www.google.c o.uk/maps/@50.744153 ,-1.994444,3a,75y,18 7.01h,84.68t/data=!3 m4!1e1!3m2!1sFcqnPCO kJicWZA5nUuPKDw!2e0! 6m1!1e1?hl=en it appears that a 50 mph limit may have been the situation and hopefully someone can specify the limit. One issue that may be worth considering, if I am correct, is that lights generally have a 3 seconds timing for amber, this is the same time for a 30 mph limit or a 50 mph limit. The stopping distance at 30 mph is about 23 m and 53m at 50 mph according the highway code, these are in good conditions and an alert driver with a vehicle in good condition, possibly add 50% in some condition, e.g. 35m and 79m. We do not know the actual driving speed, but at 50 mph, 22m/s, a driver may find it difficult to stop in 3 seconds (66m away and possibly 79m to actual stop). At 30 mph, 14m/s, again it may be difficult to stop (42m away and 35m to stop). If the amber time should be varied to suit different road and crossing situations could be considered, e.g. a downhill section of road could be given a longer signal time, or where children may be crossing. A 50 mph limit needs to go down to 40mph and a longer signal time provided, reducing the approach speed and extra time for slowing and stopping. Hopefully the MP for the area can raise this with the minister. Colin@cycling
  • Score: 3

1:51am Sun 18 May 14

A V Lowe says...

Thanks Colin for that. If The Echo wants to champion road safety they shoul move the focus of this story from the wearing of cycle helmets to the serious question of why on earth there is a route to the local school which has to be crossed twice a day, and at times when the road will be busy (especially in the mornings) where a 50mph speed limit applies.

Consider the standards of risk management used for rail and air transport, where the annual death toll in the UK for users and 'drivers' rarely gets into double figures, unlike the 2000+ killed on our roads annually, The 50mph speed limit would certainly be cut down, probably to 30mph for at least 100 metres either side of that crossing. The management regime for the vegetation would be clearly specified, and adhered to. Again from the published (and presumably current pictures with this article, it is clear that the efficacy of the street lighting in actually doing its job properly is compromised by bushes and trees that are growing out below the lamp head.

At the crash scene, the density of the tree canopy over the road is apparent, creating the highly dangerous 'dark tunnel' effect, where road users eyes have to adjust rapidly to massive changes in light levels, and cannot therefore see the road ahead in sufficient detail to meet that "be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear" test for the safe speed to the travelling at .

I'm even more convinced on a second viewing that the failure of the roads authority to properly cut-back vegetation could be considered as a significant factor in this incident. Had this been a cyclist knocked down crossing a railway line on a level crossing there would almost certainly be a full and objective investigation with details such as the line (road) speed and sighting distances reviewed, and "recommendations" made for action to be taken.

There is an equivalent for roads, Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act, which mandates that the roads authority, rather than an independent body investigates crashes and then takes account of the investigation results to remove hazards completely, or apply measures, like reduced speed limits, to manage the risks that are identified. Around the UK I'm encouraging folk to ask their local roads authority about how they are delivering on managing road risks with FoI and the key detail is that Section 39 is not delivering the aspired to improvements in road safety, and road authorities seriously need to up their game in assessment and management of road risk.
Thanks Colin for that. If The Echo wants to champion road safety they shoul move the focus of this story from the wearing of cycle helmets to the serious question of why on earth there is a route to the local school which has to be crossed twice a day, and at times when the road will be busy (especially in the mornings) where a 50mph speed limit applies. Consider the standards of risk management used for rail and air transport, where the annual death toll in the UK for users and 'drivers' rarely gets into double figures, unlike the 2000+ killed on our roads annually, The 50mph speed limit would certainly be cut down, probably to 30mph for at least 100 metres either side of that crossing. The management regime for the vegetation would be clearly specified, and adhered to. Again from the published (and presumably current pictures with this article, it is clear that the efficacy of the street lighting in actually doing its job properly is compromised by bushes and trees that are growing out below the lamp head. At the crash scene, the density of the tree canopy over the road is apparent, creating the highly dangerous 'dark tunnel' effect, where road users eyes have to adjust rapidly to massive changes in light levels, and cannot therefore see the road ahead in sufficient detail to meet that "be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear" test for the safe speed to the travelling at . I'm even more convinced on a second viewing that the failure of the roads authority to properly cut-back vegetation could be considered as a significant factor in this incident. Had this been a cyclist knocked down crossing a railway line on a level crossing there would almost certainly be a full and objective investigation with details such as the line (road) speed and sighting distances reviewed, and "recommendations" made for action to be taken. There is an equivalent for roads, Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act, which mandates that the roads authority, rather than an independent body investigates crashes and then takes account of the investigation results to remove hazards completely, or apply measures, like reduced speed limits, to manage the risks that are identified. Around the UK I'm encouraging folk to ask their local roads authority about how they are delivering on managing road risks with FoI and the key detail is that Section 39 is not delivering the aspired to improvements in road safety, and road authorities seriously need to up their game in assessment and management of road risk. A V Lowe
  • Score: 4

9:28am Mon 19 May 14

suzigirl says...

Franks Tank wrote:
suzigirl wrote: Glad to hear your daughter is okay.
Cobblers. 2 day ago you were trying to make out it was probably her fault!
Get it right mate. The comments were automatically saying that it was the driver's fault! As usual cyclists never cause accidents - wake up and smell the coffee! Of course I am glad she is okay whether it was her fault or not - moron - everybody makes mistakes - my son did and he died and he was wearing a helmet.........
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: Glad to hear your daughter is okay.[/p][/quote]Cobblers. 2 day ago you were trying to make out it was probably her fault![/p][/quote]Get it right mate. The comments were automatically saying that it was the driver's fault! As usual cyclists never cause accidents - wake up and smell the coffee! Of course I am glad she is okay whether it was her fault or not - moron - everybody makes mistakes - my son did and he died and he was wearing a helmet......... suzigirl
  • Score: -1

9:33am Mon 19 May 14

suzigirl says...

Franks Tank wrote:
Personally, I'm all in favour of the compulsory wearing of a helmet and neck brace by all drivers and passengers. The use of such devices has long been shown to save lives and injuries in all forms of motor sport. Imaging the saving in insurance claims for whip lash alone and then you've got the savings to the NHS treating head injuries as well. I also advocate that all cars should be painted in one of 3 day-glow or hi-viz fluorescent colours as this would make them easier to see and might prevent them from bumping in to each other quite so much. I suspect padded shorts and a lighter weight helmet might be advisable for pedestrians should the pavements be icy. However, it's probably best if this is left as an advisory measure as it might discourage even more people from actually using their legs.
Let's protect cyclists by providing them with cycle lanes so they are not near all those nasty cars................
..Whoops I forget cycle lanes are provided at great cost and guess what cyclists avoid them because there might be the odd obstacle like a stone or heaven forbid some leaves - shock horror!
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: Personally, I'm all in favour of the compulsory wearing of a helmet and neck brace by all drivers and passengers. The use of such devices has long been shown to save lives and injuries in all forms of motor sport. Imaging the saving in insurance claims for whip lash alone and then you've got the savings to the NHS treating head injuries as well. I also advocate that all cars should be painted in one of 3 day-glow or hi-viz fluorescent colours as this would make them easier to see and might prevent them from bumping in to each other quite so much. I suspect padded shorts and a lighter weight helmet might be advisable for pedestrians should the pavements be icy. However, it's probably best if this is left as an advisory measure as it might discourage even more people from actually using their legs.[/p][/quote]Let's protect cyclists by providing them with cycle lanes so they are not near all those nasty cars................ ..Whoops I forget cycle lanes are provided at great cost and guess what cyclists avoid them because there might be the odd obstacle like a stone or heaven forbid some leaves - shock horror! suzigirl
  • Score: -2

11:34am Mon 19 May 14

Franks Tank says...

suzigirl wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
suzigirl wrote: Glad to hear your daughter is okay.
Cobblers. 2 day ago you were trying to make out it was probably her fault!
Get it right mate. The comments were automatically saying that it was the driver's fault! As usual cyclists never cause accidents - wake up and smell the coffee! Of course I am glad she is okay whether it was her fault or not - moron - everybody makes mistakes - my son did and he died and he was wearing a helmet.........
Double cobblers, go back and read my post, then read your response.
Actually don't bother I'll do it for you...
Franks Tank wrote:
Hope the Rozzers check the phone records.

suzigirl says...
Quite right - the cyclist might have been on her mobile phone!

QED.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: Glad to hear your daughter is okay.[/p][/quote]Cobblers. 2 day ago you were trying to make out it was probably her fault![/p][/quote]Get it right mate. The comments were automatically saying that it was the driver's fault! As usual cyclists never cause accidents - wake up and smell the coffee! Of course I am glad she is okay whether it was her fault or not - moron - everybody makes mistakes - my son did and he died and he was wearing a helmet.........[/p][/quote]Double cobblers, go back and read my post, then read your response. Actually don't bother I'll do it for you... Franks Tank wrote: Hope the Rozzers check the phone records. suzigirl says... Quite right - the cyclist might have been on her mobile phone! QED. Franks Tank
  • Score: 1

2:26pm Mon 19 May 14

Franks Tank says...

suzigirl wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
Personally, I'm all in favour of the compulsory wearing of a helmet and neck brace by all drivers and passengers. The use of such devices has long been shown to save lives and injuries in all forms of motor sport. Imaging the saving in insurance claims for whip lash alone and then you've got the savings to the NHS treating head injuries as well. I also advocate that all cars should be painted in one of 3 day-glow or hi-viz fluorescent colours as this would make them easier to see and might prevent them from bumping in to each other quite so much. I suspect padded shorts and a lighter weight helmet might be advisable for pedestrians should the pavements be icy. However, it's probably best if this is left as an advisory measure as it might discourage even more people from actually using their legs.
Let's protect cyclists by providing them with cycle lanes so they are not near all those nasty cars................

..Whoops I forget cycle lanes are provided at great cost and guess what cyclists avoid them because there might be the odd obstacle like a stone or heaven forbid some leaves - shock horror!
NO! Let's protect vulnerable road users by being considerate, vigilant and carful drivers.
If the perception was that roads were safer and (some) drivers were less aggressive, the less confident cyclists would not feel the need to ride on the pavement and they'd be no need for cycle lanes.

The "virtuous circle" would continue with more people choosing to cycle instead of driving on short journeys and so elevating much of the urban traffic misery we experience.
I think that's called a "win / win situation".
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: Personally, I'm all in favour of the compulsory wearing of a helmet and neck brace by all drivers and passengers. The use of such devices has long been shown to save lives and injuries in all forms of motor sport. Imaging the saving in insurance claims for whip lash alone and then you've got the savings to the NHS treating head injuries as well. I also advocate that all cars should be painted in one of 3 day-glow or hi-viz fluorescent colours as this would make them easier to see and might prevent them from bumping in to each other quite so much. I suspect padded shorts and a lighter weight helmet might be advisable for pedestrians should the pavements be icy. However, it's probably best if this is left as an advisory measure as it might discourage even more people from actually using their legs.[/p][/quote]Let's protect cyclists by providing them with cycle lanes so they are not near all those nasty cars................ ..Whoops I forget cycle lanes are provided at great cost and guess what cyclists avoid them because there might be the odd obstacle like a stone or heaven forbid some leaves - shock horror![/p][/quote]NO! Let's protect vulnerable road users by being considerate, vigilant and carful drivers. If the perception was that roads were safer and (some) drivers were less aggressive, the less confident cyclists would not feel the need to ride on the pavement and they'd be no need for cycle lanes. The "virtuous circle" would continue with more people choosing to cycle instead of driving on short journeys and so elevating much of the urban traffic misery we experience. I think that's called a "win / win situation". Franks Tank
  • Score: 2

9:09am Tue 20 May 14

suzigirl says...

Franks Tank wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
Franks Tank wrote: Personally, I'm all in favour of the compulsory wearing of a helmet and neck brace by all drivers and passengers. The use of such devices has long been shown to save lives and injuries in all forms of motor sport. Imaging the saving in insurance claims for whip lash alone and then you've got the savings to the NHS treating head injuries as well. I also advocate that all cars should be painted in one of 3 day-glow or hi-viz fluorescent colours as this would make them easier to see and might prevent them from bumping in to each other quite so much. I suspect padded shorts and a lighter weight helmet might be advisable for pedestrians should the pavements be icy. However, it's probably best if this is left as an advisory measure as it might discourage even more people from actually using their legs.
Let's protect cyclists by providing them with cycle lanes so they are not near all those nasty cars................ ..Whoops I forget cycle lanes are provided at great cost and guess what cyclists avoid them because there might be the odd obstacle like a stone or heaven forbid some leaves - shock horror!
NO! Let's protect vulnerable road users by being considerate, vigilant and carful drivers. If the perception was that roads were safer and (some) drivers were less aggressive, the less confident cyclists would not feel the need to ride on the pavement and they'd be no need for cycle lanes. The "virtuous circle" would continue with more people choosing to cycle instead of driving on short journeys and so elevating much of the urban traffic misery we experience. I think that's called a "win / win situation".
What utter tosh. The majority of drivers like myself are very considerate to cyclists who ride on the road in a proper manner!
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: Personally, I'm all in favour of the compulsory wearing of a helmet and neck brace by all drivers and passengers. The use of such devices has long been shown to save lives and injuries in all forms of motor sport. Imaging the saving in insurance claims for whip lash alone and then you've got the savings to the NHS treating head injuries as well. I also advocate that all cars should be painted in one of 3 day-glow or hi-viz fluorescent colours as this would make them easier to see and might prevent them from bumping in to each other quite so much. I suspect padded shorts and a lighter weight helmet might be advisable for pedestrians should the pavements be icy. However, it's probably best if this is left as an advisory measure as it might discourage even more people from actually using their legs.[/p][/quote]Let's protect cyclists by providing them with cycle lanes so they are not near all those nasty cars................ ..Whoops I forget cycle lanes are provided at great cost and guess what cyclists avoid them because there might be the odd obstacle like a stone or heaven forbid some leaves - shock horror![/p][/quote]NO! Let's protect vulnerable road users by being considerate, vigilant and carful drivers. If the perception was that roads were safer and (some) drivers were less aggressive, the less confident cyclists would not feel the need to ride on the pavement and they'd be no need for cycle lanes. The "virtuous circle" would continue with more people choosing to cycle instead of driving on short journeys and so elevating much of the urban traffic misery we experience. I think that's called a "win / win situation".[/p][/quote]What utter tosh. The majority of drivers like myself are very considerate to cyclists who ride on the road in a proper manner! suzigirl
  • Score: -2

11:11am Tue 20 May 14

Franks Tank says...

suzigirl wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
suzigirl wrote:
Franks Tank wrote: Personally, I'm all in favour of the compulsory wearing of a helmet and neck brace by all drivers and passengers. The use of such devices has long been shown to save lives and injuries in all forms of motor sport. Imaging the saving in insurance claims for whip lash alone and then you've got the savings to the NHS treating head injuries as well. I also advocate that all cars should be painted in one of 3 day-glow or hi-viz fluorescent colours as this would make them easier to see and might prevent them from bumping in to each other quite so much. I suspect padded shorts and a lighter weight helmet might be advisable for pedestrians should the pavements be icy. However, it's probably best if this is left as an advisory measure as it might discourage even more people from actually using their legs.
Let's protect cyclists by providing them with cycle lanes so they are not near all those nasty cars................ ..Whoops I forget cycle lanes are provided at great cost and guess what cyclists avoid them because there might be the odd obstacle like a stone or heaven forbid some leaves - shock horror!
NO! Let's protect vulnerable road users by being considerate, vigilant and carful drivers. If the perception was that roads were safer and (some) drivers were less aggressive, the less confident cyclists would not feel the need to ride on the pavement and they'd be no need for cycle lanes. The "virtuous circle" would continue with more people choosing to cycle instead of driving on short journeys and so elevating much of the urban traffic misery we experience. I think that's called a "win / win situation".
What utter tosh. The majority of drivers like myself are very considerate to cyclists who ride on the road in a proper manner!
Errr, which bit exactly is utter tosh?
It would appear that you actually agree with me that the "majority" of drivers are considerate and, therefore (logically) "some" are inattentive or aggressive.
The problem comes with anticipating which drivers have something more important to do than look out of the windscreen or use their mirrors.

Most motor bikers I know ride under the assumption that they haven't been seen and that car waiting at the junction will, potentially, pull out on them. I would hope you fall into this camp also.
[quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suzigirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: Personally, I'm all in favour of the compulsory wearing of a helmet and neck brace by all drivers and passengers. The use of such devices has long been shown to save lives and injuries in all forms of motor sport. Imaging the saving in insurance claims for whip lash alone and then you've got the savings to the NHS treating head injuries as well. I also advocate that all cars should be painted in one of 3 day-glow or hi-viz fluorescent colours as this would make them easier to see and might prevent them from bumping in to each other quite so much. I suspect padded shorts and a lighter weight helmet might be advisable for pedestrians should the pavements be icy. However, it's probably best if this is left as an advisory measure as it might discourage even more people from actually using their legs.[/p][/quote]Let's protect cyclists by providing them with cycle lanes so they are not near all those nasty cars................ ..Whoops I forget cycle lanes are provided at great cost and guess what cyclists avoid them because there might be the odd obstacle like a stone or heaven forbid some leaves - shock horror![/p][/quote]NO! Let's protect vulnerable road users by being considerate, vigilant and carful drivers. If the perception was that roads were safer and (some) drivers were less aggressive, the less confident cyclists would not feel the need to ride on the pavement and they'd be no need for cycle lanes. The "virtuous circle" would continue with more people choosing to cycle instead of driving on short journeys and so elevating much of the urban traffic misery we experience. I think that's called a "win / win situation".[/p][/quote]What utter tosh. The majority of drivers like myself are very considerate to cyclists who ride on the road in a proper manner![/p][/quote]Errr, which bit exactly is utter tosh? It would appear that you actually agree with me that the "majority" of drivers are considerate and, therefore (logically) "some" are inattentive or aggressive. The problem comes with anticipating which drivers have something more important to do than look out of the windscreen or use their mirrors. Most motor bikers I know ride under the assumption that they haven't been seen and that car waiting at the junction will, potentially, pull out on them. I would hope you fall into this camp also. Franks Tank
  • Score: 2

11:14am Tue 20 May 14

A V Lowe says...

As they say on RT communications Franks Tand and suzigirl QRM (remove this rubbish/interference from the channel) and if you can't say anything useful QRT (shut up)
As they say on RT communications Franks Tand and suzigirl QRM (remove this rubbish/interference from the channel) and if you can't say anything useful QRT (shut up) A V Lowe
  • Score: -1

11:45am Tue 20 May 14

A V Lowe says...

Colin you've actually nailed it in one. Surely a trained safety professional like a Fire Officer should pick up on this.

The light controlled crossing looks to be inherently dangerous, if iot is operating on a carriageway with a 50mph speed limit and a 3 second 'amber' safety margin.

With a sensible allowance for human factors and weather conditions, a driver travelling at 50mph and 3 seconds away from the crossing when the lights turn to amber (stop) will be driving through any pedestrian or cyclist who sets off when their signal turns green. Indeed the car is likely to travel a further 19 metres, through the crossing and 15-16 metres beyond.

The campaign has to be for the traffic signal timings to be extended, or the speed limit at this point reduced to 30mph. the roadside vegetation should also be maintained properly.
Colin you've actually nailed it in one. Surely a trained safety professional like a Fire Officer should pick up on this. The light controlled crossing looks to be inherently dangerous, if iot is operating on a carriageway with a 50mph speed limit and a 3 second 'amber' safety margin. With a sensible allowance for human factors and weather conditions, a driver travelling at 50mph and 3 seconds away from the crossing when the lights turn to amber (stop) will be driving through any pedestrian or cyclist who sets off when their signal turns green. Indeed the car is likely to travel a further 19 metres, through the crossing and 15-16 metres beyond. The campaign has to be for the traffic signal timings to be extended, or the speed limit at this point reduced to 30mph. the roadside vegetation should also be maintained properly. A V Lowe
  • Score: 0

11:53am Tue 20 May 14

Franks Tank says...

A V Lowe wrote:
As they say on RT communications Franks Tand and suzigirl QRM (remove this rubbish/interference from the channel) and if you can't say anything useful QRT (shut up)
Pot - kettle.
[quote][p][bold]A V Lowe[/bold] wrote: As they say on RT communications Franks Tand and suzigirl QRM (remove this rubbish/interference from the channel) and if you can't say anything useful QRT (shut up)[/p][/quote]Pot - kettle. Franks Tank
  • Score: 1

4:59pm Tue 20 May 14

Colin@cycling says...

I can see the issue of the timing of lights and speed limits does require further research. I expect Assistant Chief Fire Officer Ben Ansell will be following the comments here. He may be dealing with road accidents on a regular basis.

The local MP or member for the House of Lords for the area could raise a question and gain a published reply. In this particular accident we do not know who was at fault or any contributing factors. It can be proven that the amber signal on for 3 seconds in a 50 mph zone may not provide the best option for braking in all circumstances. This is a national issue and I will raise it within the UK and internationally if possible to see if other countries vary the amber time signal or the time they use.
I can see the issue of the timing of lights and speed limits does require further research. I expect Assistant Chief Fire Officer Ben Ansell will be following the comments here. He may be dealing with road accidents on a regular basis. The local MP or member for the House of Lords for the area could raise a question and gain a published reply. In this particular accident we do not know who was at fault or any contributing factors. It can be proven that the amber signal on for 3 seconds in a 50 mph zone may not provide the best option for braking in all circumstances. This is a national issue and I will raise it within the UK and internationally if possible to see if other countries vary the amber time signal or the time they use. Colin@cycling
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree