Prince Albert Road, London - Prius hit Police rider escorting Prince Harry

[boxbrownie]

Its all pure conjecture, although in the picture the rider is laying on the floor being attended he could just be fine, he might have been "walking wounded" immediatley after the impact and taken his own helmet off, and then told to lay and wait for the ambulance by his colleague.........anyone who was there can tell us please?

 

[boxbrownie]

For another thread but at least the Hybrid batteries did not burst into flames

 

[nick mercedes]

Why did they cut the roof of (and therefore wreck) the Toyota??

All the doors opened.

 

[boxbrownie]

Why did they cut the roof of (and therefore wreck) the Toyota??

All the doors opened.

Perfectly normal procedure, seems the driver was quite injured, they open the roof to enable the driver to be raised directly upwards out of the seating position.

 

[prprandall51]

Why did they cut the roof of (and therefore wreck) the Toyota??

All the doors opened.

I imagine it was because there was a fear of a back injury to the Toyota driver and therefore removing the roof was the best way to prevent any possible spinal injury arising from removing the driver from the car.

I am surprised that the Policemen who removed the rider's helmet didn't then go on to cut the roof off the car with their pen knives.

 

[MancMike]

Why did they cut the roof of (and therefore wreck) the Toyota??

All the doors opened.

Was just about to ask the same thing. Why on earth did they cut the roof off a modern well made NCAP 5 car that's just got some front end damage? The doors would have just opened perfectly normally...

Possibly the ambulance crew said the driver should be lifted out vertically not sideways out of the door, but it couldn't have hurt the driver that much unless he/she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Bike vs car, the weight difference means the majority of the impact is born on the biker...

 

[ShinyF1]

Car driver was rendered unconscious according to the Daily Mail article, which might explain why he was cut out.

Also aren't police helmets open face with a 'flip down' front? Would have made it's removal quite straightforward [aside from any vertebral injury caution of course]

 

[renault12ts]

Was just about to ask the same thing. Why on earth did they cut the roof off a modern well made NCAP 5 car that's just got some front end damage? The doors would have just opened perfectly normally...

Possibly the ambulance crew said the driver should be lifted out vertically not sideways out of the door, but it couldn't have hurt the driver that much unless he/she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Bike vs car, the weight difference means the majority of the impact is born on the biker...

If you come upon the scene of an accident, don't invite any of the walking wounded to sit in your car...the emergency services could well remove the roof to get that person out again because they would not assume there was no neck/back injury.

I know its the DM, but:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...f-offered-shaken-survivors-place-shelter.html

 

[Giantvanman]

How does a helmet restrict air flow?

If there is bleeding - and I assume you mean blood flowing from within the helmet - then this surely is another reason to leave the helmet on.

Thinking about this some more, helmets can suffer huge impacts and show little external signs of damage. If there was evidence on the outer shell of a helmet of a large impact then the chances are that the rider’s body has suffered a massive impact – so all the more reason to keep the helmet on.

I acknowledge that I am not in any way medically qualified – not even done a first aid course – but logic and reasoning indicate that removing a helmet after an incident in which a rider has been thrown over the bonnet of a car and some distance down the road is a job for specially trained medical staff with the right equipment.

Without intending to or meaning to be rude in way whatsoever, is there any way at all, based on the the section in bold, that your reasoning and logic could be flawed?

To give you an analogy, I happened across a collision not long ago whereby a young lad (about 20) had been knocked over by a car. What immediately sprung to my notice was that this young man, lying on his back, unconscious, was turning blue. He was gurgling, gasping, struggling to breathe.
He also had a broken leg.
Priority one, clear his airway, get him into the recovery position. Swift checks for other injuries etc and started to do what was needed.

At this point, his 'friends' and several bystanders, tried to stop me. No amount of calm explanation would make them see sense………….people were using their logic and reasoning. I won't type what I said to get them the hell away from me.

The lad, once repositioned, started breathing normally and normal coloration returned………..the ambulance nineteen minutes later.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. No knowledge and an unwillingness to accept anyone else might actually know what they know what they are doing could have been deadly in this instance.

The "don't touch/move/remove" etc that people ritually quote is incomplete in itself. The next part is 'unless you are trained and know what you are doing'.

 

[prprandall51]

Without intending to or meaning to be rude in way whatsoever, is there any way at all, based on the the section in bold, that your reasoning and logic could be flawed?

To give you an analogy, I happened across a collision not long ago whereby a young lad (about 20) had been knocked over by a car. What immediately sprung to my notice was that this young man, lying on his back, unconscious, was turning blue. He was gurgling, gasping, struggling to breathe.
He also had a broken leg.
Priority one, clear his airway, get him into the recovery position. Swift checks for other injuries etc and started to do what was needed.

At this point, his 'friends' and several bystanders, tried to stop me. No amount of calm explanation would make them see sense………….people were using their logic and reasoning. I won't type what I said to get them the hell away from me.

The lad, once repositioned, started breathing normally and normal coloration returned………..the ambulance nineteen minutes later.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. No knowledge and an unwillingness to accept anyone might actually know what they know what they are doing could have been deadly in this instance.

The "don't touch/move/remove" etc that people ritually quote is incomplete in itself. The next part is 'unless you are trained and know what you are doing'.

I don't think you are being rude at all. But I don't agree with your assertion that a lack of qualifications prevents me from applying logic and reasoning to the situation. I still maintain that there is no medical condition that I can think of that would be eased or addressed by the removal of a crash helmet by an unqualified person - and I don't think you have addressed this either. If necessary, the head and body of the rider could still be positioned to permit breathing and wounds can be tended to without the helmet being removed.
If these policemen were qualified to remove the rider's helmet - and I agree that they look like they know what they are doing (from my position of ignorance) - then maybe it was the best thing to do. But I cannot see what they gained by doing this when they had none of the essential equipment to hand to then stabilise the situation.

If the rider had low-sided then it may also have been a reasonable action, but this rider was thrown high and far.

None of us know any of the answers in this situation. My original assertion was simply that unqualified people shouldn't remove the helmet of an injured rider, and I am sticking to that until somebody here can justify a different stance.

(By the way, in the scenario you describe about the guy with the broken leg, I cannot imagine what reasoning the bystanders were applying in order to not believe that a person who was having difficulty breathing should have not have this issue addressed as the highest priority.)

 

[219]

Why did they cut the roof of (and therefore wreck) the Toyota??

All the doors opened.

So that the driver could be safely extricated on a spinal board .

 

[Dieselman]

So that the driver could be safely extricated on a spinal board .

Is that so the Fire service can substantiate their exorbitant fees for attending an RTA?

I do appreciate that in this case, due to the car being a minicab, the driver wouldn't be wearing a seatbelt and suffered a twisting force into the door or A pillar.

 

[Dieselman]

I used to work with someone who had an accident identical to this. 30mph zone, she was pulling out of a side street and turning right, there was a car coming from the right but she had the clearance to pull out in good time; she just got onto her side of the road into which she was turning and she had a head-on collision with a car that was overtaking the car that she had seen approaching from the right.

Not only was she deemed to be 100% at fault from an insurance point of view, she was done for driving without due car (or careless driving, I cannot remember which).

The injustice of it was - to my mind - outrageous. The fact that the car she hit was comfortably exceeding the speed limit and performing an overtake in an inappropriate place was not relevant, and no action was taken against them at all. This was in a housing estate so all the more reason why I felt that the overtaker should have been found responsible.
.

Your Friend crossed a give way or stop line onto a straight through carriageway, so is automatically at fault.
The other car had the legal right of way.

 

[st13phil]

First: I hope both the rider and the driver make full and speedy recoveries.

Second: Most people (me included) don't know what to do in the event of being first on scene at an RTA. However, it's fair to assume that those present at this RTA, by way of training and experience, would know what to do. They also had the benefit of being on the scene and being in a position to assess the situation - something pretty difficult to do from a few still photo's published in the Daily Mail.

Third: When turning right from a Give Way line into the path of an oncoming vehicle, that the oncoming vehicle was on the "wrong" side of the road is no excuse, any more than turning left into the path of an oncoming vehicle that was on the "wrong" side of the road. FWIW, I'm told that turning left into the path of an oncoming vehicle that was on the "wrong" side of the road is a surprisingly common cause of novice driver collisions.

Fourth: There will be an absolute mountain of paperwork created over the next few days...

 

[Jeff666]

Without intending to or meaning to be rude in way whatsoever, is there any way at all, based on the the section in bold, that your reasoning and logic could be flawed?

To give you an analogy, I happened across a collision not long ago whereby a young lad (about 20) had been knocked over by a car. What immediately sprung to my notice was that this young man, lying on his back, unconscious, was turning blue. He was gurgling, gasping, struggling to breathe.
He also had a broken leg.
Priority one, clear his airway, get him into the recovery position. Swift checks for other injuries etc and started to do what was needed.

At this point, his 'friends' and several bystanders, tried to stop me. No amount of calm explanation would make them see sense………….people were using their logic and reasoning. I won't type what I said to get them the hell away from me.

The lad, once repositioned, started breathing normally and normal coloration returned………..the ambulance nineteen minutes later.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. No knowledge and an unwillingness to accept anyone else might actually know what they know what they are doing could have been deadly in this instance.

The "don't touch/move/remove" etc that people ritually quote is incomplete in itself. The next part is 'unless you are trained and know what you are doing'.

Cool and collected not sure I could do that...

I wish schools would teach First Aid as a skill .. . I think "young" people are more likely to get involved.....

 

[219]

Your Friend crossed a give way or stop line onto a straight through carriageway, so is automatically at fault.
The other car had the legal right of way.

Not to overtake across a junction : overtaking where unsafe to do so , and without a full view of the road ahead ( which includes side openings ) .

If the driver who emerged had fully crossed the centre line and straightened up before being hit then they were fully established on the main road , on their correct side , and had more right to be there than the overtaker .

I would put the police rider , and the overtaker in the other example fully in the wrong , for the simple reason that overtaking through any junction is never OK .

 

[219]

Is that so the Fire service can substantiate their exorbitant fees for attending an RTA?

I do appreciate that in this case, due to the car being a minicab, the driver wouldn't be wearing a seatbelt and suffered a twisting force into the door or A pillar.

Usually done at the request of the medics .

 

[renault12ts]

First: I hope both the rider and the driver make full and speedy recoveries.

Second: Most people (me included) don't know what to do in the event of being first on scene at an RTA. However, it's fair to assume that those present at this RTA, by way of training and experience, would know what to do. They also had the benefit of being on the scene and being in a position to assess the situation - something pretty difficult to do from a few still photo's published in the Daily Mail.

Third: When turning right from a Give Way line into the path of an oncoming vehicle, that the oncoming vehicle was on the "wrong" side of the road is no excuse, any more than turning left into the path of an oncoming vehicle that was on the "wrong" side of the road. FWIW, I'm told that turning left into the path of an oncoming vehicle that was on the "wrong" side of the road is a surprisingly common cause of novice driver collisions.

Fourth: There will be an absolute mountain of paperwork created over the next few days...

Being in the right does not make the rider any less sore.

 

[Giantvanman]

Edit.

 

[markjay]

My understanding is that the helmet is removed and neck support is fitted at the same time?