Inverness court told helmet could have save cyclist's life
A court has heard that a young cyclist who died after being knocked down by his father on a Loch Ness-side road would have survived had he been wearing a helmet.
Police accident investigator Iain Mathers was giving evidence at the trial of Andrew Tetsill.
He denies causing the death of his 21 year-old son Craig by overtaking him in a transit van at a point where it was unsafe to do so, knocking him off his bike.
The trial began in December. On its third day at Inverness Sheriff Court today (Wednesday), PC Mathers when questioned by defence advocate Barney Ross.
He told the court of he had a conversation with the pathologist who carried out the post mortem on Craig after the tragedy.
PC Mathers said his understanding was that it was the immediate downward pressure on the top of Craig’s head, likely to have been caused by a stone or pebble, which resulted in his death.
"The view was that if he had worn a helmet he would have had a sore head and a sore neck - it was very survivable," said PC Mathers.
The road policing unit officer on the second day of the trial last month discounted a theory that Craig may have been hitching a ride by holding on to the truck being driven by his father.
He also discounted evidence from a witness travelling behind who said Craig had moved into a gravel driveway which formed a bellmouth at the access to a home and that the young man had lost control of his bicycle.
Andrew Tetsill’s workmate George Law (38) said he saw Craig’s handlebars turn sharply 90 degrees then the bike tipped up and Craig went over the handlebars and landed on his head.
Mr Law said the young man twisted in the air and struck the truck’s rearlight cluster before striking his head on the road.
PC Mathers said gouge marks made by the bike on the tarmac when the truck ran over it suggested that Craig could not have been in the driveway entrance.
He told the court that when the bicycle Craig was riding it was found that the brakes were not in the best working order.
But he was adamant that the accident had been caused by Andrew Tetsill driving too close to his son who was cycling ahead of him on a single track road.
PC Mathers conceded that he had been ‘concise’ with some of the contents of his accident report. But Mr Ross accused him of ‘making things up as he went along’.
Mr Ross said he (PC Mathers) had claimed there was no evidence that Craig had come in contact with the transit or been in the bellmouth but they had the evidence of Mr Laws that he had.
Mr Ross also questioned the officer about his theory that Craig, when he lost control of his bike was propelled in a forward direction and never came in contact with the passing truck.
Yet Mr Ross said there was evidence of ‘cleaning’ on the bodywork of the truck which could have been attributed to Craig’s body coming in contact with the vehicle.
PC Mathers stated in the report Craig was thrown from the bike but Mr Ross said evidence had been led that he was entangled in the wheels of the bike after the accident.
The officer said he condensed his report because he was focussing on the victim rather than the bike.
The advocate also questioned the officer about why no tyre marks were found at the side of the road at the point where he concluded Craig had lost control of the bike.
PC Mathers said there was an area of stone and gravel between the tarmac and the soft verge which would not show tyre marks.
"I am stating a fact," he told the court. "I have no axe to grind. All I have is the physical evidence."
Mr Ross suggested one explanation for the tragedy was the deceased’s bike somehow got caught up with the truck but PC Mathers said there was no evidence to suggest that and he had checked the vehicle and could find no evidence of ‘snagging’.
"The fact you failed to find evidence of entanglement doesn’t mean it didn’t happen," said Mr Ross.
"I cannot say 100 per cent. I can say 99 per cent," replied the officer.
"That’s an absurd piece of evidence," said Mr Ross.
The officer maintain that the likely reason for Craig’s loss of control was the close proximity of the Ford Transit.
Police colleague PC Lewis Macdonald (34) who corroborated the report prepared by PC Mathers acknowledged they could not say for certain how Craig came to be thrown over the handlebars and the report didn’t included Mr Law’s evidence that Craig had come in contact with the vehicle.
He agreed with Mr Ross that the theory that Craig had been in the bellmouth lost control of his bike and his resilient works clothing got tangled up on the side of the vehicle causing him to be thrown in the air was ‘plausible and couldn’t be discounted’.
But he said it did not accord with some of the score marks from the bicycle at the scene.
The trial will resume on June 15.