Father demands answers after son is found by road in Benfleet

11:00am Friday 20th July 2012 in Local News By Laura Smith

A GRIEVING father says he still does not know how his son came to be fatally injured while riding his bike in Benfleet .

Alex Fryer, 22, suffered head and chest injuries in Essex Way.

His father, Steven Fryer, 46, of Waarem Avenue, Canvey , fears he will never know what happened.

He said: “It’s the not knowing that’s difficult. We have been treated appallingly by the police.”

Alex had been cycling in Rayleigh with a friend and was returning home alone at about 10.30am on Sunday, May 27.

He was found at the side of the road and was flown by air ambulance to Queen’s Hospital, Romford, where he died the next day.

His father says he cannot understand why it took until the following Wednesday for police to take photographs of the scene and why he had to keep asking them to put up witness appeal signs.

He called police on the Tuesday night to give them the phone number of a witness who had come forward and was told it was now an issue for the coroner.

Mr Fryer said: “There’s not a scratch on his bike, nothing.

“The police said to me there were no other vehicles involved, so I asked for his bike back, but they said no in case he had been hit by a car and they could check the paintwork. It doesn’t tie up.”

He said one witness had told police it appeared Alex had been hit by a car, but others had contradicted this.

The hardest part for Mr Fryer was no one took a statement from him at the time, so he had to go back more than a week later to identify Alex’s body.

Mr Fryer said a police officer had been to see him to apologise, but what he really wanted to know was how his son had died.

He said: “He was my son and my best friend. We did everything together.

“He had many, many friends.

“He was just a bubbly, outgoing boy, and he never had any enemies.”

Essex Police said they were still appealing for information.

A spokesman added: “We have taken receipt of a complaint from a family member in connection with this crash and it’s being looked into.”

Anyone with information should call the serious collision investigation unit on 101, or e-mail collision appeal@essex.pnn.police.uk

Comments (12)

2:20pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Dan_ says...

This is unbelievable! This poor man. How on earth in the year 2012 can we be in a situation where an unexplained death is not being investigated properly, immediately, and with proper resources?? Outrageous. If ever there were things for echo readers to get behind, this is one of them.
Essex police website front page;
Robbery at lakeside, gadget to curb exhaust noise from cars?????....a 22 year old died and nobody knows why? PRIORITIES!!!
This is unbelievable! This poor man. How on earth in the year 2012 can we be in a situation where an unexplained death is not being investigated properly, immediately, and with proper resources?? Outrageous. If ever there were things for echo readers to get behind, this is one of them. Essex police website front page; Robbery at lakeside, gadget to curb exhaust noise from cars?????....a 22 year old died and nobody knows why? PRIORITIES!!! Dan_

2:22pm Fri 20 Jul 12

RJD_Wiz says...

My thoughts go out to Mr Fryer & his family. As he says the worst thing is not knowing....
Something just doesnt add up here does it?
No other cars were involved?...No scratches on the bike??
And yet, we're expected to call the Serious Collision Investgation Unit??

The spokesman said "We have taken receipt of a complaint from a family member in connection with this crash"...So...it is a crash? Or isn't it?
I have come off my bike at low speed & my bike definitely bore the battle scars of that ! If Mr Fryer's son had lost control & crashed, his bike would definitely show signs of impact somewhere...especial
ly if this was severe enough to cost him his life...

I hope that someone can shed some light on this for the sake of closure for the Fryer Family....
Rest in Peace Alex.
My thoughts go out to Mr Fryer & his family. As he says the worst thing is not knowing.... Something just doesnt add up here does it? No other cars were involved?...No scratches on the bike?? And yet, we're expected to call the Serious Collision Investgation Unit?? The spokesman said "We have taken receipt of a complaint from a family member in connection with this crash"...So...it is a crash? Or isn't it? I have come off my bike at low speed & my bike definitely bore the battle scars of that ! If Mr Fryer's son had lost control & crashed, his bike would definitely show signs of impact somewhere...especial ly if this was severe enough to cost him his life... I hope that someone can shed some light on this for the sake of closure for the Fryer Family.... Rest in Peace Alex. RJD_Wiz

2:39pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

Dan_ wrote:
This is unbelievable! This poor man. How on earth in the year 2012 can we be in a situation where an unexplained death is not being investigated properly, immediately, and with proper resources?? Outrageous. If ever there were things for echo readers to get behind, this is one of them.
Essex police website front page;
Robbery at lakeside, gadget to curb exhaust noise from cars?????....a 22 year old died and nobody knows why? PRIORITIES!!!
Firstly my sincerest condolences to Alex Fryer's family and friends at this terrible time. I hope the police get their finger out and start giving this case the attention it deserves, and give you the peace of closure.

Secondly, to answer Dan's questions, as someone who has campaigned for better road safety and more appropriate penalties for those who cause road deaths, it is my opinion that the law in the UK gives little more priority to people killed on roads than it does to animal roadkill.

Kill someone with a knife or a gun you'll get properly tried and sentenced. Kill someone with a motor vehicle and you'll get a small fine, perhaps points on a licence, or a ban. Only in very extreme circumstances are people jailed for killing on UK roads.

Also, the police simply do not take knocked-down cyclists seriously, and almost always trot out a 'not enough evidence' line if a complaint is made. This is why so many cyclists now wear helmet cameras or fit cameras to their bikes.
[quote][p][bold]Dan_[/bold] wrote: This is unbelievable! This poor man. How on earth in the year 2012 can we be in a situation where an unexplained death is not being investigated properly, immediately, and with proper resources?? Outrageous. If ever there were things for echo readers to get behind, this is one of them. Essex police website front page; Robbery at lakeside, gadget to curb exhaust noise from cars?????....a 22 year old died and nobody knows why? PRIORITIES!!![/p][/quote]Firstly my sincerest condolences to Alex Fryer's family and friends at this terrible time. I hope the police get their finger out and start giving this case the attention it deserves, and give you the peace of closure. Secondly, to answer Dan's questions, as someone who has campaigned for better road safety and more appropriate penalties for those who cause road deaths, it is my opinion that the law in the UK gives little more priority to people killed on roads than it does to animal roadkill. Kill someone with a knife or a gun you'll get properly tried and sentenced. Kill someone with a motor vehicle and you'll get a small fine, perhaps points on a licence, or a ban. Only in very extreme circumstances are people jailed for killing on UK roads. Also, the police simply do not take knocked-down cyclists seriously, and almost always trot out a 'not enough evidence' line if a complaint is made. This is why so many cyclists now wear helmet cameras or fit cameras to their bikes. Lefty Cyclist Type

8:06pm Fri 20 Jul 12

John T Pharro says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Dan_ wrote:
This is unbelievable! This poor man. How on earth in the year 2012 can we be in a situation where an unexplained death is not being investigated properly, immediately, and with proper resources?? Outrageous. If ever there were things for echo readers to get behind, this is one of them.
Essex police website front page;
Robbery at lakeside, gadget to curb exhaust noise from cars?????....a 22 year old died and nobody knows why? PRIORITIES!!!
Firstly my sincerest condolences to Alex Fryer's family and friends at this terrible time. I hope the police get their finger out and start giving this case the attention it deserves, and give you the peace of closure.

Secondly, to answer Dan's questions, as someone who has campaigned for better road safety and more appropriate penalties for those who cause road deaths, it is my opinion that the law in the UK gives little more priority to people killed on roads than it does to animal roadkill.

Kill someone with a knife or a gun you'll get properly tried and sentenced. Kill someone with a motor vehicle and you'll get a small fine, perhaps points on a licence, or a ban. Only in very extreme circumstances are people jailed for killing on UK roads.

Also, the police simply do not take knocked-down cyclists seriously, and almost always trot out a 'not enough evidence' line if a complaint is made. This is why so many cyclists now wear helmet cameras or fit cameras to their bikes.
Of course my sympathy is with the family, but is it not members of this family who are campaigning for helmets for cyclist to be made compulsory?
I agree with everything you say, but why cyclist do not wear helmets is beyond me. I was told that helmets were provide free to post workers who cycle, but none of them would wear one. In fact I was told they had to sign to say if they were injured it was their own responsibility.
If that is true then don't you think helmets should be made compulsary?
I have first hand experience of a helmets effectiveness my nephew still keeps the crushed helmet that saved his life.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan_[/bold] wrote: This is unbelievable! This poor man. How on earth in the year 2012 can we be in a situation where an unexplained death is not being investigated properly, immediately, and with proper resources?? Outrageous. If ever there were things for echo readers to get behind, this is one of them. Essex police website front page; Robbery at lakeside, gadget to curb exhaust noise from cars?????....a 22 year old died and nobody knows why? PRIORITIES!!![/p][/quote]Firstly my sincerest condolences to Alex Fryer's family and friends at this terrible time. I hope the police get their finger out and start giving this case the attention it deserves, and give you the peace of closure. Secondly, to answer Dan's questions, as someone who has campaigned for better road safety and more appropriate penalties for those who cause road deaths, it is my opinion that the law in the UK gives little more priority to people killed on roads than it does to animal roadkill. Kill someone with a knife or a gun you'll get properly tried and sentenced. Kill someone with a motor vehicle and you'll get a small fine, perhaps points on a licence, or a ban. Only in very extreme circumstances are people jailed for killing on UK roads. Also, the police simply do not take knocked-down cyclists seriously, and almost always trot out a 'not enough evidence' line if a complaint is made. This is why so many cyclists now wear helmet cameras or fit cameras to their bikes.[/p][/quote]Of course my sympathy is with the family, but is it not members of this family who are campaigning for helmets for cyclist to be made compulsory? I agree with everything you say, but why cyclist do not wear helmets is beyond me. I was told that helmets were provide free to post workers who cycle, but none of them would wear one. In fact I was told they had to sign to say if they were injured it was their own responsibility. If that is true then don't you think helmets should be made compulsary? I have first hand experience of a helmets effectiveness my nephew still keeps the crushed helmet that saved his life. John T Pharro

8:20pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
Dan_ wrote:
This is unbelievable! This poor man. How on earth in the year 2012 can we be in a situation where an unexplained death is not being investigated properly, immediately, and with proper resources?? Outrageous. If ever there were things for echo readers to get behind, this is one of them.
Essex police website front page;
Robbery at lakeside, gadget to curb exhaust noise from cars?????....a 22 year old died and nobody knows why? PRIORITIES!!!
Firstly my sincerest condolences to Alex Fryer's family and friends at this terrible time. I hope the police get their finger out and start giving this case the attention it deserves, and give you the peace of closure.

Secondly, to answer Dan's questions, as someone who has campaigned for better road safety and more appropriate penalties for those who cause road deaths, it is my opinion that the law in the UK gives little more priority to people killed on roads than it does to animal roadkill.

Kill someone with a knife or a gun you'll get properly tried and sentenced. Kill someone with a motor vehicle and you'll get a small fine, perhaps points on a licence, or a ban. Only in very extreme circumstances are people jailed for killing on UK roads.

Also, the police simply do not take knocked-down cyclists seriously, and almost always trot out a 'not enough evidence' line if a complaint is made. This is why so many cyclists now wear helmet cameras or fit cameras to their bikes.
Of course my sympathy is with the family, but is it not members of this family who are campaigning for helmets for cyclist to be made compulsory?
I agree with everything you say, but why cyclist do not wear helmets is beyond me. I was told that helmets were provide free to post workers who cycle, but none of them would wear one. In fact I was told they had to sign to say if they were injured it was their own responsibility.
If that is true then don't you think helmets should be made compulsary?
I have first hand experience of a helmets effectiveness my nephew still keeps the crushed helmet that saved his life.
Helmets are only designed to survive an impact equivalent of an adult falling to the ground from a stationary standing position. A polystyrene hat will do very little if anything when a couple of tons of fast moving metal hits a person. It won't stop massive internal injury, it won't stop broken limbs and ruptured arteries, it won't stop crushed ribcages or punctured lungs etc.
The gold standard for cycle helmets is the Snell B90a standard. That ensures a helmet will survive an impact of "100J for all testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 2.2+ meter drop of 5 kg"

You can read the standard for yourself here:

http://www.smf.org/s
tandards/b/b90astd

The sections you're looking for are E 4.3 and E 4.4.

Add to that the fact that helmet compulsion actually makes cycling more dangerous. The reason for this is that compulsory helmet law reduces the amount of people who cycle by about 85%.
That means there are fewer cyclists on the roads, fewer people who cycle and drive, and so much less public awareness of cyclists.

Helmet compulsion also puts a much larger burden on a nations health costs. This is because it discourages people from cycling so obesity, and cardio-
vascular disease - and their associated costs to society - increase.

The evidence for all this is already proven. In the 1990s Australia introduced cycle helmet compulsion. Overnight 95% of children who cycled to school stopped doing so. Instead their parents drove them. Now Australia is suffering an obesity epidemic and they are proposing to scrap the cycle helmet compulsion law.

In contrast, there is no helmet compulsion law in the Netherlands and Denmark, almost everyone cycles, they have extremely low rates of obesity and cardio-vascular disease, and they are the two safest countries in the world in which to cycle.


So to answer your question, no I don't think helmets should be made compulsory. They should remain a choice, because helmet compulsion would only result in more deaths, either on the roads or from obesity and cardio-vascular disease.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan_[/bold] wrote: This is unbelievable! This poor man. How on earth in the year 2012 can we be in a situation where an unexplained death is not being investigated properly, immediately, and with proper resources?? Outrageous. If ever there were things for echo readers to get behind, this is one of them. Essex police website front page; Robbery at lakeside, gadget to curb exhaust noise from cars?????....a 22 year old died and nobody knows why? PRIORITIES!!![/p][/quote]Firstly my sincerest condolences to Alex Fryer's family and friends at this terrible time. I hope the police get their finger out and start giving this case the attention it deserves, and give you the peace of closure. Secondly, to answer Dan's questions, as someone who has campaigned for better road safety and more appropriate penalties for those who cause road deaths, it is my opinion that the law in the UK gives little more priority to people killed on roads than it does to animal roadkill. Kill someone with a knife or a gun you'll get properly tried and sentenced. Kill someone with a motor vehicle and you'll get a small fine, perhaps points on a licence, or a ban. Only in very extreme circumstances are people jailed for killing on UK roads. Also, the police simply do not take knocked-down cyclists seriously, and almost always trot out a 'not enough evidence' line if a complaint is made. This is why so many cyclists now wear helmet cameras or fit cameras to their bikes.[/p][/quote]Of course my sympathy is with the family, but is it not members of this family who are campaigning for helmets for cyclist to be made compulsory? I agree with everything you say, but why cyclist do not wear helmets is beyond me. I was told that helmets were provide free to post workers who cycle, but none of them would wear one. In fact I was told they had to sign to say if they were injured it was their own responsibility. If that is true then don't you think helmets should be made compulsary? I have first hand experience of a helmets effectiveness my nephew still keeps the crushed helmet that saved his life.[/p][/quote]Helmets are only designed to survive an impact equivalent of an adult falling to the ground from a stationary standing position. A polystyrene hat will do very little if anything when a couple of tons of fast moving metal hits a person. It won't stop massive internal injury, it won't stop broken limbs and ruptured arteries, it won't stop crushed ribcages or punctured lungs etc. The gold standard for cycle helmets is the Snell B90a standard. That ensures a helmet will survive an impact of "100J for all testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 2.2+ meter drop of 5 kg" You can read the standard for yourself here: http://www.smf.org/s tandards/b/b90astd The sections you're looking for are E 4.3 and E 4.4. Add to that the fact that helmet compulsion actually makes cycling more dangerous. The reason for this is that compulsory helmet law reduces the amount of people who cycle by about 85%. That means there are fewer cyclists on the roads, fewer people who cycle and drive, and so much less public awareness of cyclists. Helmet compulsion also puts a much larger burden on a nations health costs. This is because it discourages people from cycling so obesity, and cardio- vascular disease - and their associated costs to society - increase. The evidence for all this is already proven. In the 1990s Australia introduced cycle helmet compulsion. Overnight 95% of children who cycled to school stopped doing so. Instead their parents drove them. Now Australia is suffering an obesity epidemic and they are proposing to scrap the cycle helmet compulsion law. In contrast, there is no helmet compulsion law in the Netherlands and Denmark, almost everyone cycles, they have extremely low rates of obesity and cardio-vascular disease, and they are the two safest countries in the world in which to cycle. So to answer your question, no I don't think helmets should be made compulsory. They should remain a choice, because helmet compulsion would only result in more deaths, either on the roads or from obesity and cardio-vascular disease. Lefty Cyclist Type

9:00pm Fri 20 Jul 12

John T Pharro says...

So why do all cyclist wear them in the Tour de France and all the Olympic Cycling events?
So why do all cyclist wear them in the Tour de France and all the Olympic Cycling events? John T Pharro

9:06pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

John T Pharro wrote:
So why do all cyclist wear them in the Tour de France and all the Olympic Cycling events?
For the same reason all drivers wear them in Formula 1, RAC rallies etc.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: So why do all cyclist wear them in the Tour de France and all the Olympic Cycling events?[/p][/quote]For the same reason all drivers wear them in Formula 1, RAC rallies etc. Lefty Cyclist Type

9:43pm Fri 20 Jul 12

John T Pharro says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
So why do all cyclist wear them in the Tour de France and all the Olympic Cycling events?
For the same reason all drivers wear them in Formula 1, RAC rallies etc.
For safety reason is what you have not added.
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: So why do all cyclist wear them in the Tour de France and all the Olympic Cycling events?[/p][/quote]For the same reason all drivers wear them in Formula 1, RAC rallies etc.[/p][/quote]For safety reason is what you have not added. John T Pharro

9:54pm Fri 20 Jul 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
So why do all cyclist wear them in the Tour de France and all the Olympic Cycling events?
For the same reason all drivers wear them in Formula 1, RAC rallies etc.
For safety reason is what you have not added.
No, the reason is that it is an extreme version of an everyday, very safe activity.
Do thousands of drivers die in crashes? Yes. Do we call for compulsory helmets while driving? No.
It's the same for cycling. It is an extremely safe, everyday activity. Making helmets compulsory would be detrimental to cycling and to health generally, and on the whole would make cycling more dangerous, for the reasons I have posted previously.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: So why do all cyclist wear them in the Tour de France and all the Olympic Cycling events?[/p][/quote]For the same reason all drivers wear them in Formula 1, RAC rallies etc.[/p][/quote]For safety reason is what you have not added.[/p][/quote]No, the reason is that it is an extreme version of an everyday, very safe activity. Do thousands of drivers die in crashes? Yes. Do we call for compulsory helmets while driving? No. It's the same for cycling. It is an extremely safe, everyday activity. Making helmets compulsory would be detrimental to cycling and to health generally, and on the whole would make cycling more dangerous, for the reasons I have posted previously. Lefty Cyclist Type

1:58pm Sat 21 Jul 12

John T Pharro says...

Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
So why do all cyclist wear them in the Tour de France and all the Olympic Cycling events?
For the same reason all drivers wear them in Formula 1, RAC rallies etc.
For safety reason is what you have not added.
No, the reason is that it is an extreme version of an everyday, very safe activity.
Do thousands of drivers die in crashes? Yes. Do we call for compulsory helmets while driving? No.
It's the same for cycling. It is an extremely safe, everyday activity. Making helmets compulsory would be detrimental to cycling and to health generally, and on the whole would make cycling more dangerous, for the reasons I have posted previously.
But seat belts are compulsary for the same reason - safety.Put it simply, do helmets make it more safe or less and if you fall off your bike and hit your head on the kerb would you want one on or not?
[quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: So why do all cyclist wear them in the Tour de France and all the Olympic Cycling events?[/p][/quote]For the same reason all drivers wear them in Formula 1, RAC rallies etc.[/p][/quote]For safety reason is what you have not added.[/p][/quote]No, the reason is that it is an extreme version of an everyday, very safe activity. Do thousands of drivers die in crashes? Yes. Do we call for compulsory helmets while driving? No. It's the same for cycling. It is an extremely safe, everyday activity. Making helmets compulsory would be detrimental to cycling and to health generally, and on the whole would make cycling more dangerous, for the reasons I have posted previously.[/p][/quote]But seat belts are compulsary for the same reason - safety.Put it simply, do helmets make it more safe or less and if you fall off your bike and hit your head on the kerb would you want one on or not? John T Pharro

6:47pm Sat 21 Jul 12

Lefty Cyclist Type says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:
John T Pharro wrote:
So why do all cyclist wear them in the Tour de France and all the Olympic Cycling events?
For the same reason all drivers wear them in Formula 1, RAC rallies etc.
For safety reason is what you have not added.
No, the reason is that it is an extreme version of an everyday, very safe activity.
Do thousands of drivers die in crashes? Yes. Do we call for compulsory helmets while driving? No.
It's the same for cycling. It is an extremely safe, everyday activity. Making helmets compulsory would be detrimental to cycling and to health generally, and on the whole would make cycling more dangerous, for the reasons I have posted previously.
But seat belts are compulsary for the same reason - safety.Put it simply, do helmets make it more safe or less and if you fall off your bike and hit your head on the kerb would you want one on or not?
Helmets don't make a difference. As I said earlier, there are many reasons they must not be made compulsory/

The Cycle Touring Club of the UK, the CTC are against helmet compulsion too. Read more here:

http://www.ctc.org.u
k/desktopdefault.asp
x?tabid=4688
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lefty Cyclist Type[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: So why do all cyclist wear them in the Tour de France and all the Olympic Cycling events?[/p][/quote]For the same reason all drivers wear them in Formula 1, RAC rallies etc.[/p][/quote]For safety reason is what you have not added.[/p][/quote]No, the reason is that it is an extreme version of an everyday, very safe activity. Do thousands of drivers die in crashes? Yes. Do we call for compulsory helmets while driving? No. It's the same for cycling. It is an extremely safe, everyday activity. Making helmets compulsory would be detrimental to cycling and to health generally, and on the whole would make cycling more dangerous, for the reasons I have posted previously.[/p][/quote]But seat belts are compulsary for the same reason - safety.Put it simply, do helmets make it more safe or less and if you fall off your bike and hit your head on the kerb would you want one on or not?[/p][/quote]Helmets don't make a difference. As I said earlier, there are many reasons they must not be made compulsory/ The Cycle Touring Club of the UK, the CTC are against helmet compulsion too. Read more here: http://www.ctc.org.u k/desktopdefault.asp x?tabid=4688 Lefty Cyclist Type

8:22pm Mon 23 Jul 12

Truth Will Prevail says...

My sincere condolences to Alex's family.
.
One or two points not covered, research had shown that you are more likely to have an accident if you are wearing a helmet as drivers tend to drive closer to helmet wearers, possibly seeing them as less vulnerable than cyclists who are not wearing helmets.
There are two reasons why Holland has such a good record for cyclist safety, firstly there are many more cyclists on their roads so drivers are much more bike-aware, and secondly, in Holland the law says that if a car hits a cyclist the car driver is always at fault, much the same as our law on rear end shunts.
Many years ago I used to race cycles and we always wore helmets in high risk situations - such as on a banked hard track and in road races where many cyclists are jostling for position at high speeds. However, in normal situations such as training or time trials the vast majority preferred not to wear helmets for maximum cooling and maximum awareness, so the scrunch of polystyrene doesn't obscure the sound of a quiet car creeping up behind, mind you we were also experts at looking behind every two seconds. A good mirror helps too, both in daylight and at night, because if anyone is going to hit you it will probably be the car coming up behind.
My sincere condolences to Alex's family. . One or two points not covered, research had shown that you are more likely to have an accident if you are wearing a helmet as drivers tend to drive closer to helmet wearers, possibly seeing them as less vulnerable than cyclists who are not wearing helmets. There are two reasons why Holland has such a good record for cyclist safety, firstly there are many more cyclists on their roads so drivers are much more bike-aware, and secondly, in Holland the law says that if a car hits a cyclist the car driver is always at fault, much the same as our law on rear end shunts. Many years ago I used to race cycles and we always wore helmets in high risk situations - such as on a banked hard track and in road races where many cyclists are jostling for position at high speeds. However, in normal situations such as training or time trials the vast majority preferred not to wear helmets for maximum cooling and maximum awareness, so the scrunch of polystyrene doesn't obscure the sound of a quiet car creeping up behind, mind you we were also experts at looking behind every two seconds. A good mirror helps too, both in daylight and at night, because if anyone is going to hit you it will probably be the car coming up behind. Truth Will Prevail

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