Our long custom in the gyro world (dating back to Igor Bensen) is to blame every crash in which low G may have been involved on the low G itself. If low G is usually or always lethal, then the autogyro itself is a fatally flawed design concept, and has been so from Cierva's time. This is exactly what a great many non-gyro fliers have believed all along.
The plain fact is that low G is inevitable in an aircraft, thanks to thermal and mechanical turbulence. These natural, normal atmospheric disturbances simply cannot be avoided. IOW, you are going to encounter low G most times you fly a gyro. If, every time you do, you are dancing on the edge of a fatal crash, then the critics are right -- you (we) are idiotic.
Fortunately, things aren't (or don't have to be) that dire. When a gyro goes haywire in a short-duration low G event, it's not the low G, but fuselage instability in the face of loss off rotor thrust, that usually causes the splat. The airframe must be designed to track straight, and not execute uncommanded aerobatics, when rotor thrust gets low. This requirement means that the frame must not have uncompensated HTL, divergent slip-roll coupling or uncompensated torque roll.
Cierva and his immediate successors worried about all these low-G stability problems, and designed to prevent them. They used CLT engine placement, large H-stabs, differential stab incidence, wings with tremendous dihedral and large dorsal fins (and/or mast fairings). We should do at least as well.
Yes, there's obviously pilot error involved in this crash. In fact, never mind the helmet, it's pilot error to fly that fast and aggressively with such low hours in the aircraft in question.
Still, the behavior of the gyro once things began going south also reveals some needless crashiness, traceable to slip-roll and/or torque roll. These problems can be eliminated by design.