News

Cyclist William Honour, 79, died after the accident in Bagshot Road
advertisement

Cyclist died after being struck by three cars

By Laura Herbert
April 27, 2011

An elderly cyclist was struck by two cars and run over by a third as he cycled along the A322 last autumn, an inquest heard.

Regular cyclist William Honour, of Bucklebury, Hanworth, was pedalling in Bagshot Road, which has a speed limit of 70mph, at around 9.45am on Saturday, October 23, 2010.

An inquest at Windsor Guildhall heard how the 79-year-old appeared from nowhere in front of a blue Ford Focus, ricocheted into the path of a red Alfa Romeo before being struck by a blue Citroen C1.

He later died of serious head injuries.

The coroner’s court heard how Mr Honour was not wearing a helmet at the time, prompting Berkshire coroner Peter Bedford to issue a stark warning about the importance of cyclist safety.

He said that wearing a helmet could possibly have saved Mr Honour’s life.

Giving evidence Michael Bull, the driver of the Ford Focus said: “I looked in my mirror after I heard a bang on the nearside door. Someone appeared to be falling over. I didn’t see a bike, I thought he was a pedestrian.

“I did feel I was driving as carefully as I could.”

Driver of the Alfa Romeo Rachel Marriott was travelling with three friends to a hockey game.

Holding back tears she said: “When I saw him he was upright cycling and there was no cause for concern.

“I noticed mist on my window and I went to put my right hand up and as my hand made contact with the windscreen my bonnet was level with the cyclist and I saw the cyclist wobble which made me react. I swerved right and didn’t even check my blind spot so I’m glad there was nothing on my right side.

“I knew he was falling so I had to get out of the way.”

The inquest heard the nearside wing mirror on the Alfa Romeo had been knocked out of place.

Catherine Nicker, the driver of the Citroen C1, told the inquest she was travelling at around 40mph and left a space of two car lengths from the Alfa Romeo in front.

She said: “I first saw the cyclist coming out to the side of the car in front.

“He came out and already started to fall, he was astride his bike on the floor. I was in shock, it all happened so quickly.

“Maybe if I had left more space between me and the car in front, but I thought I had left enough room. Apart from that there’s nothing I could do.”

Earlier that morning other motorists including Zoe Cowley and her mum Deborah Hall saw Mr Honour in the same stretch of road.

In a statement read out at the inquest last Thursday, April 14, Deborah said: “He appeared very wobbly similar to a child first learning how to ride a bike.”

A post mortem examination revealed Mr Honour, whose daughter attended last week’s inquest, suffered life-threatening head injuries and died a day later at Oxford’s John Radcliffe Hospital.

Although it was bright and sunny that day, the road was damp and Berkshire coroner Peter Bedford admitted that the conditions might have been a key factor.

Recording a verdict of accidental death, he added: “Perhaps all of us can learn something from this tragic event. I do feel wearing a helmet would have increased Mr Honour’s chances of survival.

“We are all very quick to put helmets on our children but we are all vulnerable.

“Whether it would have changed the outcome I cannot say.”

| View Comments (13)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 12 of 13

Quote from above:

Catherine Nicker, the driver of the Citroen C1, told the inquest she was travelling at around 40mph and left a space of two car lengths from the Alfa Romeo in front.

She said: “I first saw the cyclist coming out to the side of the car in front.

“He came out and already started to fall, he was astride his bike on the floor. I was in shock, it all happened so quickly.

“Maybe if I had left more space between me and the car in front, but I thought I had left enough room. Apart from that there’s nothing I could do.”

Well actually yes there was something you could have done. Allowing two car lengths braking distance at 40mph was nowhere near enough. In the dry you're looking at a total distance of at least 100ft to come to a complete stop, closer to 180ft on a damp or wet road, which it appears it was on the day of the accident. So, wobbly old guy on bike fighting his way down yet another 70mph car friendly piece of tarmac aside had the correct stopping distance been maintained (it never is is it?) then Mr. Honour might well have lived.

Most important thing though is that the motorists were all cleared as they were all driving quite sensibly (despite an obvious admittal by the final driver that she was effectively tailgating) so that's alright then. Anyone else getting sick to death of constant 'accidents' that are excused in any manner possible to keep the motorist comfy in their metal bubbles?

1.2 million deaths per year in the world caused by the motorist and still we allow more people to die. Bring back the man with the red flag, why did we ever scrap that act anyway? Oh yes, cars got faster and impatience at the expense of everything else including life was disposed with. Whole thing is absurd.

Cole Stone
14/12/2011 at 14:08

It is almost a year since this tragic incident and it is both comfortng and frustrating to read the comments on this report, in full knowledge of the verdict.

I too find it hard to believe that a cyclist appeared out of nowhere on an open road on a clear day. I also find it hilarious that the report first refers to him as a , "regular cyclist" and then references an upsubstantiated report from a passing motorist who claims he rode the bike like a child. I suppose it was a magical road which teleported him from place to place , making him younger with each burst?

The same can be said of the mountain of driving errors which are listed, hitting any objective reader in the face like an avalanche of varying incompetence . Yet the conclusion is a lack of cycling helmet is to blame. Everyone on this site has detailed exactly why and how each driver has to share responsibility for this incident so how anyone with any atom of logic would blame the cyclist is well, beyond the realms of logic.

All of this is irrelevant when you dwell on the outcome . A wonderful life was lost through careless driving and subsequently blamed on a cyclist for not wearing helmets. Surely there is a national forum for this in the press as it seems that the Law iis now dictating that a substantial proportion of the population on two wheels will forever be blamed in road accidents when four wheels are involved?

Matt Dyson, Reading
10/10/2011 at 19:02

Cyclists do not appear out of nowhere. The three car drivers have all admitted shortcomings in their driving, and should face prosecution for causing death by careless driving.

I know the A322 very well. It is a very busy road, even on a Saturday morning. As a cyclist myself, I would not consider riding along the A322 or any similar road, without wearing a hi-vis vest. So many cyclists wear clothes that tend to blend in with the background. It is not fair to motorists to expect them to see you riding along at 10-15mph whilst they are potentially doing 70. A hi-vis makes you visible at a much greater distance, and gives drivers the opportunity to plan how to give you space. They are much more likely to protect you in these circumstances than a helmet.

TFS, Bracknell
08/05/2011 at 11:39

First please align with Police forces and road safety groups throughout the UK and stop using the word accident - this was no chance happening. This was an event, a sequence of collisions between a cyclist and cars driven by 3 drivers, all the drivers admitting that they had failed in some way to be driving in a manner which avoided the fatal outcome.

The first driver practically admits that his driving was below a reasonable standard through failure to see a cyclist in front and his driving such that the front nearside of his car passed so close to the cyclist that an impact occurred.

The second driver was travelling too close to the leading car and failed to move out sufficiently, especially as she appears to confirm that she was observing the road in front of the first car and saw the cyclist, and the potential for the car in front to hit the cyclist .

The third driver was travelling too close she was unable to stop within the distance which she could see to be clear

All should face careless driving charges and arguably all causing death by careless driving, as all contributed to the fatal outcome, although the greater responsibility would appear to lie with the first driver.

The coroner should never make statements of opinion like this. An inquest is a finding on facts not opinions, Helmets do not prevent many life threatening injuries which are caused when the head is hit and often twisted back or around (cyclists hit the road at an oblique angle with the full body weight acting through the point(s) of contact - helmets are tested by dropping a helmet on a head-form vertically into a smooth flat surface). Some evidence suggests that serious brain injuries (through the greater rotational forces imposed when a helmet hits the road) and spinal cord damage in the region of vertebra C1-C5 (death-paralysis generally results) - oh and those flashy ABS visors can shatter and embed themselves in faces and eyes. Figures suggest that the skull of a healthy human is at just 30% of its impact capacity for a 'flat' impact at 20mph. A styrene helmet is well past its point of destruction (250% of impact capacity at 20mph).

A far greater safety device comes fitted to all road users as standard equipment - they are called eyes - with ears as a back-up system to pick up things we might not have seen and warnings to alert the eyes. System has a couple of million years of proven value and fully integrated with the brain. All those involved in this crash sequence, including the victim would have benefitted from actually looking into the eyes of the other players - Not possible to look directly at the other road user in your path? well then you must have been going too fast to be safe.

Mister H, Scotland
04/05/2011 at 23:05

how likely is it that the cyclists died from not only head injuries, but other injuries as well?

Massive internal bleeding? Broken spine perhaps?

Claiming the cyclist dies of head injuries implies the cyclists died from those injuries alone. Very misleading.

the spokesman
29/04/2011 at 20:16

I have cycled along that road a few times. There is a certain amount of tarmac between the lane and the verge which is narrower than a bike lane, as the speed limit is 70mph any cyclists obviously use this narrow strip of road. This means certain drivers feel no need to deviate from their lane position or pull out (despite a clear second lane) to give a safe amount of room. Any vehicle passing at 50, 70mph or more less than half a meter from you will cause you to wobble. The slight bend on the road, debris in the verge and state of the carriageway also aggravate the danger to cyclists. The A331 is safer to ride on, this road is terrifying, do not cycle along it.

cjeam
29/04/2011 at 15:50

Mr Claridge, I think it is clear that the cyclist was struck by three vehicles, and at least one of them caused injuries that killed him. Therefore it is pretty clear the drivers of those vehicles all contributed towards his death. This is what was determined by the coroner. Are you still assuming that the cyclist was responsible because he appeared from nowhere? He was a cyclist not a visitor from space. He was there all the time, the driver that made that statement was obviously not paying attention, and drove without due care by his own admission, yet the cyclist is blamed for not protecting himself against such driving. The drivers were all at fault and to suggest otherwise is a scurrilous slur on Mr Honour and entirely negates the condolences you so cheaply offer.

szegerely, reading
29/04/2011 at 09:05

First thing is i offer my condolences to the gentlemans family at this difficult time. As for the cause and who is to blame i do think we need to have all the facts before assuming the drivers were at fault here, it's very easy to point the finger of blame as the top 3 posters have done but until all the facts are known it is a little unfair.

Tim Claridge
28/04/2011 at 16:09

I agree with these comments wholeheartedly.

It is simply not possible for a cyclist to appear "out of nowhere". Nor is it possible to stop a car at 40mph within 2 car lengths. It is equally impossible that between half and inch and 2 inches of expanded polystyrene will protect against a 40mph collision with a car.

The coroner is correct that we *are* quick to put helmets on our children and that is because they are most likely to be cycling on a traffic free route (pavement, park, cyclepath). Any accident is most likely to be that of a fall from say 2-4feet onto a hard surface, probably due to loss of balance, probably at low speed. It is THIS which a helmet will help protect against - not three impacts of 1.5tonnes+ at 40mph.

So if Mr Honour had simply been hit by the first two vehicles it is entirely possible (from the report here) that a helmet may have helped protect against the resulting fall. However, he was hit by a third vehicle and it is this which would have defeated any cycle helmet.

Rob De La Porte
28/04/2011 at 12:00

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

As for the coroner's comment about helmets, does he not know that they are designed to protect the head when it collides with a stationary object (like the ground) at 13 mph?

How on earth is a polystyrene pudding basin supposed to provide real protection when you are hit by 3 vehicles?

Utter nonsense

Atbman, Morley
27/04/2011 at 21:52

ah, obviously the cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet. Just asking to get clipped by one car and hit by another that was too close behind the first. Clearly no motorists to be blamed.

Angus Brucker
27/04/2011 at 15:52

Although it sounds like common sense, it is a fallacy that helmet wearing reduces cycling accident fatalities. Yes, if you are actually struck on the head you will most likely be better off if you are wearing a helmet, but the issue isn't as simple as that. For example, some studies show that if you aren't wearing a helmet you may be less likely to be involved in an accident in the first place. More info here: http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4688