Today I wrote to the coroner who thought that being hit by three cars at 40mph+ would somehow have been less fatal if the cyclist involved had been wearing a helmet. It seems endemic of the general attitude to death on the roads, especially of cyclists. Essentially, the verdict says to me: "It was just another accident. What a shame."
I am writing to enquire on what basis you believe that WIlliam Honour may have survived impact by three separate vehicles by wearing a cycle helmet. (See story at http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2091712_cyclist_died_after_being_struck_by_three_cars)
He was travelling on a road with a 70mph speed limit and was hit by one of the vehicles at around 40mph. Since cycle helmets are designed to protect those falling from bicycles at much lower speed, and there is no current scientific evidence to suggest any substantial benefit in impacts at such high speed, I would like to know how you surmised that Mr. Honour might have been protected?
Further, the news story doesn't seem to suggest much investigation was made, during the inquest, into how far, laterally, drivers were from Mr. Honour: that one driver appears to have struck the cyclist doesn't seem to have been the matter of any interest to the court at all.
Thus, I'd like to know why it seems that the coroner's court doesn't appear to have made any investigation into whether drivers were travelling at a suitable distance from non-vehicle road users (i.e. Mr. Honour), and whether their driving / road behaviour contributed to his death.