- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Bishop Paul Swarbrick via Lancaster RC Diocese on FacebookBishop fractures skull after being doored while cycling - but says he should have worn his helmet
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Lancaster, Paul Swarbrick, is recovering after sustaining a fractured skull when he was the victim of a car dooring while riding his bike - and said afterwards it was his own fault for not wearing his cycle helmet for a trip to the shops.
According to the Lancaster Guardian, the 61-year-old, who was appointed to the diocese in 2018 by Pope Francis, was left “shaken” by the incident which happened on Friday 8 May, the VE Day bank holiday.
Father Stephen Pearson from the diocese as saying: “The bishop has always been a keen cyclist and he was cycling as his form of exercise in Morecambe when he was involved in an accident.
“In Bare where he lives he was cycling past a parked car and the door opened as he was passing and knocked him off his bike.
“He ended up in the Royal Lancaster Infirmary that Friday afternoon a week ago and on the Sunday he was allowed home.
“He has fractured his skull and damaged his left ear,” Father Pearson continued.
“He is a very fit man but he is sensible and is recovering at this time and will be for three or four weeks.
“A number of services were broadcast during Holy Week from the cathedral and the bishop has been doing a short 10-minute weekly invitation to prayer which was filmed at the cathedral.
“These things are not now possible but hopefully we will see him back very soon.
“His health is very good at 61-years-of-age,” Father Pearson said, but “The severity of the incident was quite a shock and when I spoke to him he sounded quite shaken.
“He will be back as soon as he can. The bishop is forbidden to go near a bike now!,” he added.
Writing on his blog, the Bishop said: "This has not been the week I thought it was going to be. The change came about because I fell off my bicycle on Friday, VE Day.
"That resulted in an ambulance trip to Lancaster Royal Infirmary, where I spent two days under observation. All the NHS staff were professional, kind and attentive. In a time when we are all thanking them for their work I have deep personal reasons for standing at my gate and applauding on a Thursday evening."
He added: "Of course, it was largely my own silly fault. No helmet ... Usually I do wear one but since I was only nipping up to the shops I thought it not necessary. I was wrong.
"As I cycled past vehicles parked outside the shops one driver opened the door and sent me flying. I’ve no idea who that was but I do hope the person finds out I am ok."
That last comment suggests that the driver who opened the car door did not come forward.
Under current legislation, the maximum penalty for anyone convicted of "opening a vehicle’s door, or causing or permitting someone to do so, and thereby cause injury to or endanger any person" is a fine of up to £1,000.
The charity Cycling UK has called for stricter penalties, including imprisonment, in cases where a cyclist has been killed as a result of a driver or passenger opening a door, and for a new offence of causing death or serious injury through opening a vehicle’s door.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- CyclingInGawler 41 min 29 sec ago
As a resident of South Australia I whole-heartedly deny the scurrilous accusation that we're an Eastern State, and/or in any way associated with...
- FatAndFurious 5 hours 37 min ago
I'm not known for my imagination. What are folk hoping to see? We have events, races, leagues, workouts, clubs, free rides, group rides, portals to...
- Geordiepeddeler 5 hours 57 min ago
60mph on a pavement? I would love to see any cyclists doing 60mph EVER!!!!!
- mark1a 6 hours 56 min ago
No problem at all old chap, its successor the CAAD13 is available in mechanical 105 11sp guise (not too shabby a groupset IMO with Shimano trickle...
- David9694 7 hours 50 min ago
Car crashing into Colchester Co-op sees two hospitalised https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24719022.car-crashing-colchester-co-...
- . . 8 hours 2 min ago
I have two of these (I use one on the front with the red LED turned off and taped up) and think they are great, at least in daylight Plenty of...
- Prosper0 8 hours 52 min ago
No offence to Endura, but same advice as to Rapha, I actually have all the kit I need, for probably several years. You need to go and win the next...
- chrisonabike 12 hours 46 min ago
Ah - yes, they've got an American Star the wrong way round (means the child carrier needs rearranged though). Or it could be a Facile but inverted?
- lesterama 14 hours 39 min ago
What a bunch of ases
- quiff 15 hours 32 min ago
It was only your comment in the carousel that first brought me here, and yet I still managed to read most of the page before remembering this isn't...
Add new comment
128 comments
Suppose instead some thug had shoved him for a laugh and, unable to unclip in time, he'd fallen over and bashed his head against the kerb. Would he still say it was his own silly fault that he sustained injury for not wearing a helmet?
With his Christian calling I can understand his willingness to forgive. But for that to happen the other person must realise they need his forgiveness, not be given to understand it was his fault all along. Hope he gets mended soon.
You'll note, from the story, that the person that carried out the assault didn't stick around to find out if he was OK either.
It's doing society no good for the bishop to blame this on himself for not wearing a helmet. The person that "doored" him needs to take responsibility _before_ they they open the door, Dutch Reach and all that.
If someone leaves the doors open on a car ferry we don't blame the passengers for not wearing lifejackets even if it was an accident. It's dangerous negligence that can be avoided by anyone who takes things seriously.
Entirely the fault of the person opening the door. I sincerely hope the Police were called as that is a road traffic accident with injury, and therefore legally MUST be reported withing 24 hrs.
While it may be the case that with a helmet the impact might have been lessened resulting in a lesser or no fracture, the fault lies with the person opening the door.
I know us catholics love our guilt and self-persecution but this was most definitely the drivers fault.
He added: "Of course, it was largely my own silly fault. No helmet ... "
No. No. No. It was entirely the fault of the person opening the door without making sure there was nothing passing. This is the result of thirty years of helmet propaganda when cyclists blame themselves for being knocked off, and excuse the perpetrator.
All be pleased this fool doesn't get to write road traffic laws.
Ridiculously for the 21st century there are 26 Bishops in the House of Lords who can influence legislation.
None of them will be RC though.
That's a bit harsh. Maybe he's just a very forgiving person?
Anyway, wishing him a speedy full recovery.
I hope he recovers well too.... and he is able to get back on his bike.
Still don't want Bishops to influence legislation.
I am not sure they influence things quite as much as you might think, given that there are 26 bishops in the HoL out of 784 total members.
I am not sure they influence things quite as much as you might think, given that there are 26 bishops in the HoL out of 784 total members.
I know it doesn't influence things much, but it is unjustifiable.
That's not being forgiving. That's blaming himself. Quite different.
He means the fractured skull was his fault for not wearing a helmet, not the incident. Imagine you're sitting in a car at the lights and someone drives straight into the back of you. No way on earth is the incident your fault, but if you go flying through the windscreen because you weren't wearing a seatbelt because you think being told to wear them is propaganda and spend your life banging on about this on social media, then that is your own silly fault.
Can you apply the same argument to pedestrians, or is there something different about their situation compared with cyclists that means they would not be at fault for injuring their own head on landing after a car impact?
God that one's so tired - oh yes why don't pedestrians wear helmets, why don't you wear a helmet going up stairs...pedestrians don't run at 20mph plus on the same roads as cars and won't be hurled to the ground with high impact force if someone opens a door in front of them. If they did, I'd say wearing a helmet would be a good idea.
Yet helmets are not designed and tested for 20mph crashes, it is a 1.5m vertical drop. Incidentally that 1.5m drop is pretty much the same as a pedestrian would experience, those same pedestrians who suffer more KSI per mile than cyclists.
Absolute rubbish. Pedestrian casualty rate per billion passenger miles GB 2018, 1657, cyclists 5272.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Apologies, it is the fatality rate that is lower for cyclists compared to pedestrians, not the KSI. 33.7 pedestrian deaths versus 29.7 per billion miles.
The risks of walking, per mile travelled, are the same as cycling.
Do you have shares in a helmet company?
The risks of walking, per mile travelled, are the same as cycling.
Rubbish. As stated above with citation, pedestrian casualty rate per billion passenger miles GB 2018, 1657, cyclists 5272.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Do you have shares in a helmet company?
No, I have shares in my brain and it's the only one I've got, so I like to look after it.
There's a reason why the figures changed in 2016; the police changed the way they collected data and described collisions, but according to the table on this page, the risk of death per billion miles is still similar, but higher for pedestrians. I was talking about risk of death, you are using figures for casualties which is much less reliable, so I could have been clearer; sorry. https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/road-casualties-2018-vital-statistics-cyc...
...and not because whilst the fatality figures show a negligible difference, the injury figures actually do demonstrate that cyclists suffer 300% more injuries than pedestrians - oh doesn't suit your "why not say pedestrians should wear helmets" jibe so they're unreliable. Shouldn't you make a beeping noise when you back up like that? Really, you can't just reject official figures because they don't fit your argument.
The reason I, and others, use the death figures is because they are more reliable. Death is pretty definite, injuries much less so and much more open to mis-reporting.
The trouble with you, EBB, on here and on other platforms you frequent, is that although you are clearly an intelligent chap you are entirely intellectually dishonest: any research that supports your hobby horse, however flawed, non-generalizable or downright biased it may be, is presented by yourself as gospel, whilst official government figures that don't support your contentions are classified as unreliable. It's no way to debate, you know.
The injury figures are known to be much less reliable than the death figures e.g. the police said the cyclist had an injured shoulder, but he actually had a fractured pelvis, fractured spine, dislocated shoulder and ruptured kidneys. https://road.cc/content/news/kent-cyclist-says-hell-never-ride-again-aft...
This isn't quite true.
To be counted as killed you have to die within 30 days of the accident.
Die 29 days later, you're in the stats, die 31 days later you're not.
Advances in medicine mean that many people are surviving for weeks or months after accidents that would previously have killed them in hours or days.
This is especially true of head injuries.
There is also the fact that statistical noise is much harder to eliminate in smaller data sets. (99 fatalities in last year's stats.)
For both these reasons KSI is often the more useful measure.
Oooh, looking at your reference, the very next chart to the one you quote kind of pisses on your argument.
So there is indeed a greater risk of injury cycling, however it appears that there is also a lower risk of fatality... so is the real risk the same or different?
Looking at the difference in casualty rates, is it because we are using per mile travelled as the base? If we changed the base to time spent doing an activity, those numbers would be straightened right out between peds and cyclists.
Is the difference between casualty / fatality due to the fact that pedestrians are unlikely to fall over and fatally hurt themselves without the input of a third party (motor vehicle), where as cyclists can fall off and hurt themselves quite badly all on their own?
Is the fatality rate lower in cyclists specifically because cyclists are generally wearing helmets?
So many questions.
So the two charts show that pedestrian deaths are 10% higher than cycling deaths (three more per billion miles travelled), whereas cycling casualties are over 300% higher than for pedestrians (over 3,500 more per billion miles travelled). Not quite sure how that "pisses on" my argument that EBB's assertion that figures show pedestrianism is as dangerous as cycling is false?
Pages