£850 fine for causing brain damage

[SquareDaff]

The cyclist was caught on camera RLJ'ing and showing no regard for other road users. Let's just hope this air head doesn't own a car!!

 

[hoopdriver]

But interestingly should he have reduced compensation for not having worn a helmet? This would seem a situation where a helmet would be most likely to have improved the outcome. It has already been established that in those circumstances the victim, if a cyclist, is contributory negligent so why not a pedestrian?

That is a facile statement.

 

[lordloveaduck]

No it hasn't. Marting Porter has done a good analysis of cases in this paper.

Thank you for the link, although it makes me feel more confused than ever, as to wearing a helmet. The high code part of the paper says that i should wear something of high visibility and a helmet. Is it a legal requirement or a choice?

 

[Hawk]

Thank you for the link, although it makes me feel more confused than ever, as to wearing a helmet. The high code part of the paper says that i should wear something of high visibility and a helmet. Is it a legal requirement or a choice?

Both are a choice, the highway code is not law. Sections that use the word "must" are a reference to law, the rest is effectively advice.

What people are discussing here is contributory negligence - for example, if a pedestrian was to stand in the road and eventually got hit by a car - yes the car driver might have been driving without due care and attention and so the pedestrian might pursue compensation from him. However, such a pedestrian might not get all the compensation he would have got if he was just crossing the street at a traffic light, because he was negligent in standing in the road.

There is a fairly substantial legal debate as to whether cyclists who don't wear helmets are not taking good enough care of themselves and could be deemed negligent in a collision where a helmet might have helped them. This has been raised in a few court cases....

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence/ may be of interest

 

[Miquel In De Rain]

Those cycling figures are worryingly high really. How many miles are covered by cars in the UK compared to bicycles?

Its sometimes too easy to get caught up in trying to ride fast and to start taking chances. It doesnt change anything, but i imagine what that guy did barrelling through pedestrians happens a lot. 26mph through a red light is a bit of a piss take too far though :/

A workmate and I saw a cyclist do that at a set of lights at Bethnal Green and how she got away with it I will never know,luck pure luck.Jump a straight red I mean.

 

[Red Light]

I don't think it has. The only case to go to the court of appeal was the Burridge one, which went in favour of the cyclist

The precedent has been set that if it can be shown that a helmet would have made a difference to the outcome, the cyclist would be contributory negligent and have their damages reduced. What has not happened on the road so far is a case where the Court has been persuaded it would have made a difference, mainly because of the speeds involved being above the design limits for helmets. Pedestrians falling over and hitting their heads is about as close to the ideal conditions for where a helmet has been designed to work.

 

[lordloveaduck]

Both are a choice, the highway code is not law. Sections that use the word "must" are a reference to law, the rest is effectively advice.

What people are discussing here is contributory negligence - for example, if a pedestrian was to stand in the road and eventually got hit by a car - yes the car driver might have been driving without due care and attention and so the pedestrian might pursue compensation from him. However, such a pedestrian might not get all the compensation he would have got if he was just crossing the street at a traffic light, because he was negligent in standing in the road.

There is a fairly substantial legal debate as to whether cyclists who don't wear helmets are not taking good enough care of themselves and could be deemed negligent in a collision where a helmet might have helped them. This has been raised in a few court cases....

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence/ may be of interest

Thank you for the link and the reply. So would it be best to wear a helmet just in case i do get into an accident?

 

[downfader]

Thank you for the link and the reply. So would it be best to wear a helmet just in case i do get into an accident?

Not the best place to ask such a question... if you look at the helmet section of the forums you'll see why. All we can really advice is - its down to your choice.

 

[User269]

This incident has nothing really to do with speed people cycle/drive at.
The guy jumped a red light and cycled into a pedestrian crossing the road, the cyclist even had the nerve to tell the pedestrian to get out of his way. Hopefully the civil courts will take him to the cleaners.

Jumping a red light and telling pedestrians to get out of the way is all about speed.

 

[User269]

Those cycling figures are worryingly high really. How many miles are covered by cars in the UK compared to bicycles?

As a part time pedestrian, and based on the figures, I'm rather inclined to take my chances with the cyclists rather than the motorists.
Which part of 452 pedestrians killed or injured by cyclists, versus 49740 pedestrians killed or injured by cars is that you don't understand? Oh how silly of me, cars do more miles, so that's alright then.

 

[Hawk]

As a part time pedestrian, and based on the figures, I'm rather inclined to take my chances with the cyclists rather than the motorists.
Which part of 452 pedestrians killed or injured by cyclists, versus 49740 pedestrians killed or injured by cars is that you don't understand? Oh how silly of me, cars do more miles, so that's alright then.

He has a fair point. By your logic, taking cyanide pills is safer than driving because not many people die from taking cyanide pills every year.

 

[lordloveaduck]

Not the best place to ask such a question... if you look at the helmet section of the forums you'll see why. All we can really advice is - its down to your choice.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[GrasB]

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

• Killed by cycles: 18
• Seriously injured by cycles: 434
• Killed by cars: 3,495
• Seriously injured by cars: 46,245

Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transport

There's 2 critical pieces of information missing - how many cyclist/pedestrian collisions were there & how many car/pedestrian collisions were there. It doesn't matter if cyclists rode 10'000 miles & cars traveled 1'000'000 miles if there were 50'000 collisions between cars & pedestrians & 5'000 collisions between cyclists & pedestrians.

 

[downfader]

As a part time pedestrian, and based on the figures, I'm rather inclined to take my chances with the cyclists rather than the motorists.
Which part of 452 pedestrians killed or injured by cyclists, versus 49740 pedestrians killed or injured by cars is that you don't understand? Oh how silly of me, cars do more miles, so that's alright then.

Its not about the miles traveled when talking of criminal acts. Its about the numbers of acts per sub-population.

Remember.. most of those miles traveled will be on the motorways for motorists. That alone discounts mileage as a factor here.

These are the figures I have for the cycling related collisions: http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/1110_Cyclists-behaviour-and-law__4M__brf_rev_.pdf

 

[BSRU]

Jumping a red light and telling pedestrians to get out of the way is all about speed.

It is not necessarily about speed more to do with saving precious seconds.