Coroner suggests cycle helmets be worn for Halfords test rides following death of pensioner

"What an affront to common decency to call this unfortunate gentleman a 'wally'."

i'm not sure he can be classified as unfortunate as i cant really see where fortune or luck comes into it so much. Probably regrets his choice with hindsight (up in heaven obvs  and actually, I think to say that he made a misjudgement would be a more accurate representation of what happened. Overestimated his ability to ride in a confined space. Ultimately tho, he made a concsious choice to request a test ride in the shop and upon receiving permission conciously chose to proceed without safety gear and in a nutshell....f@cked it up....pretty much everyone has fallen off a bike at some stage in there life, its not unusual. Are you suggesteing there is responsibility on the owner of the shop to ensure the injured party was pre-assessed on his ability to ride a bike in a shop environment (perhaps fill out a Physical readiness questionnaire.. ..have u suffered any blackouts /episodes of vertigo recently, heart related physical exercise issues etc). I dont think such measures would help alleviate the already horrendous halfords checkout queues on a saturday afternoon.  The guy could have had a couple of pints before hand, are you suggesting we breathalize people who want to do this in the shop, after all , if the shop has a duty of care to other customers, they could be at risk of being run over by a drunk cyclist in the shop. I havent got any stats but i'd be pretty sure to bet some money someone has died test driving a car at some stage over the last 30 years and probably of head injuries too but coroners wouldnt recommend a helmet for that. Why should the shop have to offer head protection that is not legally required when riding a push bike?

it makes me laugh that those types (u now, the H&safety-lawyery ones) who mention an elaborate string of totally unrealistic steps (unrealistic, unless u happen to work in law or H&S) which need to be analyzed and adhered to by the shop/individual before preceeding with a taking a test ride in the shop then come out with 'its common sense' to do such things. Not in my opinion. The guy probably went 3 miles away from his house to collect the malfunctioning bike which had alledgedly been fixed and was thinking along the lines of....."mmmm.....i hope they have fixed this correctly...what if they havent?...ill have to drive another 3 miles home and then 3 miles back to re-fix it, and traffic is terrible cos everyone uses the car too much, i know, ill just have a quick check in the shop to save me having to come all the way back into town again in the event they havent fixed it properly to my satisfaction." this is the kind of logical but slightly cynical thought process u have when u reach 79 years old and importantly it is more like common sense to me. ......"Is it ok if i just ride it around the store to check asks mr smith....yes, sure mr smith says assistant (the customer is always right of course), this will help everyone in a common sense way. u get to test ure bike out for peace of mind and we dont have n angry customer returning 2 hours later demanding to see the manager. Have thousands of people done this since i started working in the store (answer: yes). Has anyone ever died of doing this or come even remotely close to dying from this (answer:no). Is it reasonable to assume mr smith can ride a bike seeing as he has bought one and had it brought back to fix and also most 4/5 year old kids can ride one too (answer:yes). Is mr smith a bit of a wally for falling off (answer; yes). should everyone be made to wear a helmet because of one wally (answer:no). 

Helmet aside for a moment. Riding a bicycle around a shop, tight turns, shiny painted concrete floor (if it is anything like my local Halfords), pointy shelf ends, and other customers who are very unlikely to be looking out for approaching cyclists as they concentrate on browsing for whatever it was they came into the store for. Allowing that to happen is stupidity enough and something that the store staff could have requested Mr Norton not to do.

Had Mr Norton wanted to wear a helmet, he would have taken one with him and put it on before riding the bike. I am not aware that Halfords have any policy that prevents their customers using their own helmets, gloves or other cycle clothing even if not bought in store and I think that it is wrong to move the onus of personal choice from customer to retailer. At most Halfords might decide to offer the loan of a helmet for a test ride, but that opens a can of worms about fitting and proving the helmet was fit for purpose, checked and with inspection records etc should an incident occur.

R.I.P. Tragic set of circumstances. 

But but the answer is simple. Everyone at all times must wear a full on motorbike style helmet unless wearing a sport specific variant. Head injurys will decrease and we will have to find something else to argue over, there's always disc brakes. 

Where is the helmet coming from? 

If prospective customers need to bring their own, that immediately acts as a barrier to trying/buying (for those that don't own one or don't want to own one - or even to a helmet-owner who happened not to be carrying his helmet with him). 

If Halfords are going to loan a helmet... Cooties!

And who is going to check the fit of the helmet to ensure its correctly fitted (remember this is Halfords, with a "not great" record of building safe bikes...) - as we know an ill-fitting helmet could be somewhere between worthwhile & actively negative in protection offered. Obviously the fitting provision is probably something Halfords will insist on for Health & Safety reasons.... So they'll want to fiddle with your helmet too.

The militancy on this site is really disappointing.

During every one of these helmet threads someone will point out that 'helmets are only effective at low speeds'.

When someone then suggests that helmets are worn in a very specific set of circumstances where there are both low speeds and a higher chance of falling the self same people go apoplectic.

Even if test rides were moved outside of the store you'd still have a potentially novice cyclist on an unfamiliar bike in an unfamiliar environment.

There's a time and a place for anti-helmet ranting. This is not it.

Some of you have fallen into the road.cc trap of responding to the clickbait headline rather than the substance of the article. Of the coroner, it says:

'His recommendations will include: reviews of staff training and whether bikes should be ridden in stores; a suggestion of a dedicated area for testing bikes; and the need for risk assessments.
..
Davies said he would also suggest that helmets be worn whenever bikes are tested'.

So first and foremost do proper risk assessments and don't ride in a cluttered environment.

Secondly, it is his belief that a helmet could have limited the injury and he could still be alive had he been wearing one. I'm not sure you can ever prove this, (as you can only die once), but I don't think he needs to.

The militants on here have jumped on the coroner for coming out with a fairly reasonable recommendation for this situation and don't offer any alternative. The standard of proof should not be 'prove beyond all possible doubt the efficacy of helmets in all situations before you make a recommendation that might prevent further injury or death'. If it was you'd never come out with any findings - findings which may be of some small comfort to the bereaved or which may give a glimmer of hope that further tragedies could be avoided in future.

The scope of this is limited to company policy for test riding bikes on their premises, over which you can have reasonable control of policy and process, (and be found liable in the event of a failure). Not commuting, not road racing, not about public roads with cars, infrastructure, transport etc.

It seems reasonable that a rider might benefit from the limited protection that a helmet could offer here: a scenario whereby suffering low speed falls are more likely, especially as they could be unfamiliar with the equipment or distracted testing gears or whatever.

Instead of being personally affronted, how about some common sense?

A similar fatality in 2007 when a local teacher fell on a level crossing, and banged his head - dying some 24 hours later after a developing headache was not recognised as a blood clot associated with the concussion injuries in his fall

The crossing had a local reputation, despite it being on many popular road club ride routes - it even brought down Roger St Pierre's brother breaking his arm the same year, and as a result of the fatal crash an improvement notice was served on the railway operator to deal with the worn-out crossing surfaces.

The coroner should have made a far greater point that Halfords must deliver a clear in-store policy on any incident involving harm to a non-employee on the premises, not least because of the liability of the directors (ie potential jail term) if a case for a Section 3 (HSAWA 1974) prosection is brought to court.

At the very least the store staff should have insisted on the deceased having a proper check of his injuries, by offering to accompany him to the local A&E, or, when recording the incident in the store accident book (which it must have) noted his choice to refuse medical attention.

We then move to the core issue of risk management, where PPE (helmets, padding, eyewear etc) is the measure of last resort, and indicates the failure of the site/activity/person to deal with the risk of harm by a hierarchy that starts with the removal of the hazards as the primary action, and in most cases this removes the need to wear or use PPE. Here, the hazards of riding cycles around the constricted space of a retail store, on smooth and potentially low friction flooring, with other customers and staff walking around with nothing to prevent a collision or conflicting movement, with resulting harm or damage, must be addressed, probably by a strict prohibition of any riding or scooting of bikes and other wheeled equipment within the store. 

Given the bungling of the initial management of the incident and serious delay in processing the RIDDOR (Reporting of Infectious Diseases & Dangerous Occurrences Regulations) report, I'm surprised that Halfords has not been prosecuted or at least warned by HSC over this incident.    

Photo - driver waits to allow cycle club run to safely navigate level crossing before remedial work completed (2013)

What a hare-brained lot you are.

Do you not understand that a significant proportion of people buying bikes from Halfords might be very inexperienced cyclists, or might possibly be people who have never actually ridden a bike before? Indeed, this elderly gentleman might well have fitted into the 'novice cyclist' category.

I don't know if Halfords offer prospective customers test riding one of their bikes the use of a helmet, but it would be sensible to do so. I think that is one of the things the Coroner is suggesting, and rightly so. Perhaps other cycle retailers might also heed Coroner Guy Davies' advice.

You lot seem to be badly afflicted by this militant, at all costs and in all scenarios, anti-helmet psychology. But what's right for experienced cyclists is not necessarily right for inexperienced cyclists.

People who see a lot of dead bodies, amongst them a fair few cyclists killed in RTA's, are generally really worth listening to. If a Coroner makes a suggestion that a road junction or a gyratory or a whatever stretch of road needs making safer after a cyclist has been killed, you all want to listen then, don't you?

Elderly gent has slow speed fall. Doesn't complain about injury. Des some time later.

It is understandably difficult to accept this, but maybe it was an accident and you can't do much about it?

Cycling IN a store? With 90 degree turns and pointy shelving units to avoid? Well that's the problem there.

Surely that's the lesson rather than the helmet advice. What if a little old lady walked round the corner of the aisle?

All shoppers to wear helmets?

Naah. Just dont ride a bike in a shop.

Jesus. The poor gentleman was eighty years old. He would just of likely tripped walking on a perfectly smooth footpath and died as well - would the coroner have recommended a helmet then? Let's be honest, probably not. 

Sad news and condolences to the family. 

Will the coroner be advising Halfords what standard of helmet should be used?

while they are at it maybe halfords can issue helmets for use on the stairs in their shops as far more people suffer injuries in falls on stairs than in slow test ride cycling.

Riding a bike in a Halfords store with all the furniture and fixings would be difficult for anyone to do.

Tragic, and condolences to all.
Maybe the Coroner could also advise that proper bike shops are also used. 

99% of household accidents happen in houses

A very sad story but the coroner seems to fall into the usual trap of thinking cycling is inherently dangerous - even in motor traffic-free environments!

It would be more sensible all round not to test ride bikes inside the store - surely that would be a health and safety failing in the first place (probably more for the possibility of absent-minded shoppers stepping into the path of indoor cyclists)?

There was another terrible story of a child killed by a falling item in TopShop the other week: should he have been wearing a helmet?