Cyclist suffers head injuries in Fulford Road crash

9:10am Tuesday 20th April 2010 in News

A CYCLIST was taken to hospital with head injuries after a collision with a car in York.

The crash happened at the junction of Cemetery Road with Fulford Road at 3.30pm yesterday.

The cyclist, a man is his 50s, was taken to hospital suffering head and neck injuries, although they were not believed to be life-threatening.

The woman driving the green Ford Focus car was uninjured.

There were minor delays on the road while the accident was cleared.

Comments(31)

Pleb says...
9:57am Tue 20 Apr 10

That reminds me -- I need to get a cycling helmet. An ex colleague was killed in Acomb in what would have been a minor collision with a car door if only he had been wearing one.

Report this post »

keepsgettingbanned says...
10:02am Tue 20 Apr 10

Pleb wrote:
That reminds me -- I need to get a cycling helmet. An ex colleague was killed in Acomb in what would have been a minor collision with a car door if only he had been wearing one.
Quite right. It's about time that wearing a helmet was made compulsory.

Report this post »

LittleTed says...
10:03am Tue 20 Apr 10

keepsgettingbanned wrote:
Pleb wrote:
That reminds me -- I need to get a cycling helmet. An ex colleague was killed in Acomb in what would have been a minor collision with a car door if only he had been wearing one.
Quite right. It's about time that wearing a helmet was made compulsory.
100% agree!

Report this post »

Jassy says...
10:33am Tue 20 Apr 10

Does it say he wasn't wearing a helmet?

Report this post »

sheps lad says...
10:41am Tue 20 Apr 10

LittleTed wrote:
keepsgettingbanned wrote:
Pleb wrote:
That reminds me -- I need to get a cycling helmet. An ex colleague was killed in Acomb in what would have been a minor collision with a car door if only he had been wearing one.
Quite right. It's about time that wearing a helmet was made compulsory.
100% agree!
Cycle helmets are only designed and tested to withstand an impact equivalent to an average weight rider travelling at a speed of 12 mph falling onto a stationary kerb shaped object from a height of 1 metre. They are not tested or expected to offer full protection if you come into contact with a moving vehicle

Report this post »

micky moodys hat says...
10:46am Tue 20 Apr 10

There is an argument against the wearing of cycle helmets, not one that I subscribe to as I wear one when out on my bike, indeed a friend took off on the selby cycle track and came down with a bang. Broke his collarbone and his cycle helmet cracked like an egg on impact, however it is likely he would have suffered a serious head injury or worse had he not being wearing one.

Report this post »

sheddie says...
10:52am Tue 20 Apr 10

And so what if he wasn't. Entirely up to him. Plastic hats make little differences when in collision with a ton of car. They can make spinal injuries worse too (extra weight/leverage).

Posters above - if you're so keen then go ahead and wear helmets when you're on bikes.

Why not also wear them when walking around, or in your car? Makes just as much or more sense in statistical terms.

Just don't presume to tell others what to do.

(This story probabvly isn't the place for yet another cycle helmet debate BTW - surprised comments are open. A man is seriously injured, and uninformed speculation about his headgear isn't all that helpful IMO).

Report this post »

pedalling paul says...
10:57am Tue 20 Apr 10

Helmets are as much use as an eggshell in the majority of impacts. They can also give a false sense of invulnerability to both the wearer and other road users. There is increasing evidence that helmeted cyclists are "safe" to overtake faster and closer.
By all means purchase the limited protection that it gives. But you will need rto wear a suit of armour, to be truly protected.

Report this post »

keepsgettingbanned says...
11:01am Tue 20 Apr 10

sheddie wrote:
And so what if he wasn't. Entirely up to him. Plastic hats make little differences when in collision with a ton of car. They can make spinal injuries worse too (extra weight/leverage). Posters above - if you're so keen then go ahead and wear helmets when you're on bikes. Why not also wear them when walking around, or in your car? Makes just as much or more sense in statistical terms. Just don't presume to tell others what to do. (This story probabvly isn't the place for yet another cycle helmet debate BTW - surprised comments are open. A man is seriously injured, and uninformed speculation about his headgear isn't all that helpful IMO).
Listen, Mr Imtoojumpeduptoreadi
ntothings, my comment was made as a response to Pleb's first comment. It wasnt a statement in response to the article and nobody has suggested the injured man wasn't wearing a helmet.

I suppose you subscribe to the train of thought that suggests you shouldnt wear a car seat belt for fear of damage to internal organs?

Report this post »

BL2 says...
11:09am Tue 20 Apr 10

For once I agree with you! Going for a lie down ... ;-)

Report this post »

sun seeker's says...
11:26am Tue 20 Apr 10

pedalling paul wrote:
Helmets are as much use as an eggshell in the majority of impacts. They can also give a false sense of invulnerability to both the wearer and other road users. There is increasing evidence that helmeted cyclists are "safe" to overtake faster and closer. By all means purchase the limited protection that it gives. But you will need rto wear a suit of armour, to be truly protected.
I do wear a "suit of armour", it's called a car!

Report this post »

sheddie says...
11:27am Tue 20 Apr 10

"It wasnt a statement in response to the article"

Eh? It's a comment right under the article in question. About a man with head injuries.

No objection to people wearing helmets. I do object to anyone trying to inflict them as compulsory for cycling when there is considerable evidence that such a move would do more harm than good.

Re seat belts: no.

Report this post »

nibnob says...
11:37am Tue 20 Apr 10

what about protection for your private parts in an accident? is this not important too?

Report this post »

voiceofreality says...
11:43am Tue 20 Apr 10

omg, what a load of tosh being spoken here! 1 coment is moaning about limited protection of a helmit!, its still protection you mupit, even in it is minimal, wearing no helmit is more dangerous. And the comment about car drivers thinking a person with a helmit on means car drivers overtake faster and closer. do you work for cyc doing stupid surveys that seem completely made up?
And then there's the posts talking about a ton car, well how much is the curb weight when tested with a persons head hitting it from a metre at 12mph, i assure you a ton car that is a movable object is a safer bet than hitting your head on a solid piece of the earths crust that won't move under any circumstance.
The point is, as usual there is no real story reporting here apart from a cyclist had an accident with a car. Not a moving car, Not a moving cyclist. it says nothing so nobody knows who's at fault. hope the guy is ok and the car driver.

Report this post »

Stiltzkin says...
11:50am Tue 20 Apr 10

Helmets if the wrong size and/or old and slightly damages are something close to useless. the helmet has to be in tip top condition and fit like a glove to achive the protection desiered.
This is terrible news, it's only just starting to get warm so the main cycling season is just getting started ( lets face it a lot of people only jump on the bike in the good weather) That junction on cemetary road is a nightmare at the best of times, i hope the injuries are not to serious and i hope this is not the first of many news stories of this type of incident happing in York.

Report this post »

MCWM says...
12:33pm Tue 20 Apr 10

True, I was knocked off my bike at that junction a few years ago by someone who pulled across from Fulford Road into Cemetery Lane and somehow didn’t see me coming. I was very fortunate and was unharmed (if a bit shaken), my bike on the other hand was pretty much a write-off having got crushed under the bumper of the car. I hope the guy gets well soon.

Report this post »

invisibleman says...
12:36pm Tue 20 Apr 10

Not that I am saying the cyclist wasn't paying attention and I am not blaming either party for the accident, but I don't think safety helmets or any other safty equipment should be the priority. What should be the most important message is that when cycling on a road, you must give it your full attention ie no i-pods or phones etc. When I was learning to ride a motor cycle my instructor drummed into us that you cannot argue who's fault the accident was when you are nocking on st Peters gates

Report this post »

Mullarkian says...
1:39pm Tue 20 Apr 10

High time that pedestrians were equipped with full face helmets and foam suits in case they fall over.
On the other hand , why not let people choose for themselves what they wear when travelling, or is that seditious revolutionary talk.

Report this post »

keepsgettingbanned says...
2:22pm Tue 20 Apr 10

Mullarkian wrote:
High time that pedestrians were equipped with full face helmets and foam suits in case they fall over. On the other hand , why not let people choose for themselves what they wear when travelling, or is that seditious revolutionary talk.
get over it.

Report this post »

Saywhat says...
3:29pm Tue 20 Apr 10

lmao!!! I've stopped reading the news, I just log on to see who's arguing with who!!

Report this post »

greenmonkey says...
4:04pm Tue 20 Apr 10

On a more serious point, 3.30pm is when the road is jammed up with school run traffic - any cyclist using the cycle lane has to be really wary of cars cutting across into Cemetery Rd through the line of standing traffic. The cyclist should have right of way according to the highway code, but not much consolation once you are laid up in a hospital bed.

Report this post »

sun seeker's says...
4:17pm Tue 20 Apr 10

greenmonkey wrote:
On a more serious point, 3.30pm is when the road is jammed up with school run traffic - any cyclist using the cycle lane has to be really wary of cars cutting across into Cemetery Rd through the line of standing traffic. The cyclist should have right of way according to the highway code, but not much consolation once you are laid up in a hospital bed.
Cyclist should have lights fitted at night, according to the law!!! But most choose not to.

Report this post »

Mr Udigawa says...
4:34pm Tue 20 Apr 10

Saywhat wrote:
lmao!!! I've stopped reading the news, I just log on to see who's arguing with who!!
No you don't.

Report this post »

pedalling paul says...
4:40pm Tue 20 Apr 10

Of course, the injured cyclist may have been wearing a helmet, whether through personal choice or as an employee insurance requirement......

Report this post »

Silver says...
4:57pm Tue 20 Apr 10

Saywhat wrote:
lmao!!! I've stopped reading the news, I just log on to see who's arguing with who!!
It's long lost the actual story this thread hasn't it? I think it diverted from the story from the first post and hasn't headed back hehe. Obviously a lot of people bit angry today and will snap at anyone. Hope the guy gets better

Report this post »

Stiltzkin says...
5:14pm Tue 20 Apr 10

greenmonkey wrote:
On a more serious point, 3.30pm is when the road is jammed up with school run traffic - any cyclist using the cycle lane has to be really wary of cars cutting across into Cemetery Rd through the line of standing traffic. The cyclist should have right of way according to the highway code, but not much consolation once you are laid up in a hospital bed.
As a cyclist and a driver this situation is becoming all too frequent.
Drivers seam to forget that cyclists may still be travelling down a road of standstill traffic. This has happened to me on many cross road's and left turns etc. It's about awareness for both the drivers and cyclists.
One thing that does concern me with a large number of the new cycle lanes being put in on various roads in York is that people dont really understand how they work.
Better education on cyclists and for cyclists is needed i believe.

Report this post »

Caecilius says...
6:08pm Tue 20 Apr 10

MCWM wrote:
True, I was knocked off my bike at that junction a few years ago by someone who pulled across from Fulford Road into Cemetery Lane and somehow didn’t see me coming. I was very fortunate and was unharmed (if a bit shaken), my bike on the other hand was pretty much a write-off having got crushed under the bumper of the car. I hope the guy gets well soon.
I've had a couple of near misses at that junction too, one due to someone turning into Cemetery Lane across Fulford Road and the other because of a driver pulling out. Either they didn't see me (and yes, I did have lights, and a bright yellow jacket) or they didn't care. As you say, hope this cyclist makes a quick recovery.

Incidentally, I've never seen any more about the accident, just before Christmas, in which a cyclist was killed by a car on the roundabout at the junction of Eastholme Drive and rawcliffe Lane

Report this post »

coshgirl says...
11:43am Wed 21 Apr 10

Once again, cycle helmets were not designed to be effective in impacts with cars, but were originally designed for off road conditions. Therefore speculation as to whether or not this man was wearing a helmet is completely irrelevant. In fact, studies have consistently shown that helmets make you more likely to be hit as drivers pass by more closely, and cyclists wearing them take more risks. This is because cycle safety is seen purely in terms of a bit of polystyrene and plastic - which is utterly ridiculous. You are more likely to get a head injury while walking, gardening, doing housework etc, yet nobody is arguing for compulsory helmet wearing for those activities. Nobody knows the circumstances of this accident, yet this victim blaming of the cyclist is akin to blaming a female rape victim that happened to be attired in a manner deemed provocative. Also, in every country where helmets have been made compulsory levels of cycling have plummeted - making it less safe for the remaining cyclists. Why is it that in Holland where hardly any cyclists wear helmets you are significantly less likely to be injured while cycling than in Australia, where helmets are compulsory and which incidentally has the highest obesity rate in the world. That is why all the cycling groups in the UK are against cycle helmets being made compulsory! As a non-helmet wearing cyclist with 35 years experience, I feel I have probably got more right to comment on this story than most of you.

Report this post »

UsernameNotAvailable says...
10:13am Fri 23 Apr 10

To the 'helmets should be compulsory' brigade, do you feel that 5 point harnesses in cars should be compulsory? They have been proven to be much safer than 3 point harnesses. People don't install them because they are inconvenient and uncomfortable, just like some cyclists view helmets. Leave the choice to the cyclists and stop interfering.

Report this post »

skeifr says...
4:41pm Fri 23 Apr 10

As a helmet-wearing cyclist with 32 years experience I feel I have as much right to comment on this story as you have, coshgirl. That's right, wearing helmets for most of that 32 years, because when I started riding as an adult, I wasn't bound by any notions of appearance or narrow, parochial thinking. I thought that wearing a helmet while biking was common sense, and couldn't understand why there were only sweaty skateboarding designs available in the UK, so I imported one from the USA. The accident that took out some of my teeth failed to take out my brains too; it seems to have vindicated my decision.

I suspect the sheer number of cyclists in the Netherlands, and the on- and off-road cycleways available to them may have something to do with the accident rates there. I wonder what the cyclist accident rate was in York back when the Carriageworks and Rowntrees and Terry's disgorged hordes of cyclists onto the roads? I'm still struggling to see any correlation between Australian rates of obesity and compulsory wearing of cycle helmets.

There are a lot of good reasons why wearing cycle helmets in the UK should not be compulsory, one of which is that other road users should not be able to mitigate their liability for their own incompetence by pointing to an unhelmeted or helmeted cyclist. The helmet is irrelevant, it's the determination of liability for the RTA itself that matters.

And I hope the cyclist involved in this case is on the road to full recovery.

Report this post »

◙ says...
4:41pm Sat 24 Apr 10

voiceofreality wrote:
omg, what a load of tosh being spoken here! 1 coment is moaning about limited protection of a helmit!, its still protection you mupit, even in it is minimal, wearing no helmit is more dangerous. And the comment about car drivers thinking a person with a helmit on means car drivers overtake faster and closer. do you work for cyc doing stupid surveys that seem completely made up?
And then there's the posts talking about a ton car, well how much is the curb weight when tested with a persons head hitting it from a metre at 12mph, i assure you a ton car that is a movable object is a safer bet than hitting your head on a solid piece of the earths crust that won't move under any circumstance.
The point is, as usual there is no real story reporting here apart from a cyclist had an accident with a car. Not a moving car, Not a moving cyclist. it says nothing so nobody knows who's at fault. hope the guy is ok and the car driver.
When many more children cycled to school, and workers on bikes poured out of numerous factories, there were significantly fewer vehicles on the roads in York, less congestion, and fewer impatient drivers.
I'm not sure if it was statistically safer then; but I personally feel there is more risk now.

The junction where this accident happened is particularly risky; others to watch out for are traffic coming out of Townend St. onto Clarence St; and cars jumping the lights or mistaking the filter arrows at St. Leonards/Bottham/Gil
lygate and Barbican Rd/Lawrence St.

To voiceofreality
11:43am Tue 20 Apr 10

Reality is subjective.

1) An impact with a moving vehicle, unless it is moving away directly from you, incurs greater force (is worse) than an impact with a stationary object, the speed is increased, therefore the force of impact is increased.
2) Tarmac deforms by about 0.7mm when hit by a person's head at 15mph.

Report this post »

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