A legal perspective on cycle helmets

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Link not working for me.
 

MontyVeda

a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
Contributory negligence my arse... would a victim of a stabbing also have exhibited contributory negligence by not wearing a stab proof vest?
What we have in the OP is a bollox perspective on Cycle Helmets.
 
OP
OP
F

format

Über Member
Location
Glasgow.
Contributory negligence my arse... would a victim of a stabbing also have exhibited contributory negligence by not wearing a stab proof vest?
What we have in the OP is a bollox perspective on Cycle Helmets.

It's fair enough that you disagree with it, but it's not wrong per se as it does cite actual court cases that are quite likely to set a strong precedent.

Bear in mind this is civil court only, nothing to do with criminality.
 

MontyVeda

a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
It's fair enough that you disagree with it, but it's not wrong per se as it does cite actual court cases that are quite likely to set a strong precedent.

Bear in mind this is civil court only, nothing to do with criminality.
Recently in Lancaster, a driver suffered a seizure at the wheel and his car mounted the pavement, hitting a couple of pedestrians... one of which suffered a head injury and was taken to A&E. The very same courts would find it laughable if the driver's insurance company claimed contributory negligence against the injured pedestrian.
 
OP
OP
F

format

Über Member
Location
Glasgow.
Recently in Lancaster, a driver suffered a seizure at the wheel and his car mounted the pavement, hitting a couple of pedestrians... one of which suffered a head injury and was taken to A&E. The very same courts would find it laughable if the driver's insurance company claimed contributory negligence against the injured pedestrian.

That's a fair point. I suppose the only difference is that cyclists are regularly and enthusiastically told to wear a helmet because it'll keep you safe (whether true or not) and pedestrians are not.

So to accuse a pedestrian of being negligent would come out of the blue, whereas almost every cyclist is aware that wearing a helmet is good to protect against some injuries, even if those injuries occur very infrequently.

It's not an easy topic to have a conclusive argument on, imo.
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
Recently in Lancaster, a driver suffered a seizure at the wheel and his car mounted the pavement, hitting a couple of pedestrians... one of which suffered a head injury and was taken to A&E. The very same courts would find it laughable if the driver's insurance company claimed contributory negligence against the injured pedestrian.

Though your point is completely valid, there are some cyclists even, who think it it stupid not to wear a helmet, but silly to suggest pedestrians should. Unfortunately judges are typically not well informed, so if an insurer suggests cyclist should "obviously" have been wearing a helmet, as "encouraged" by the highway code, judge might conceivably be swayed but this . The insurer's brief could easily be more slick than the claimant, especially if the later is dead. The statistical argument that they don't make a differnce would only sway scientifically minded people - judges are typically not scientifically minded - hey doctors are typically (but not invariably) inumerate in thes things, so there's even less hope from judges.

This isn't to say, "wear a helmet", but more to stress that we need to be constantly vigilant against creeping compulsion,
 
That's a fair point. I suppose the only difference is that cyclists are regularly and enthusiastically told to wear a helmet because it'll keep you safe (whether true or not) and pedestrians are not.

So to accuse a pedestrian of being negligent would come out of the blue, whereas almost every cyclist is aware that wearing a helmet is good to protect against some injuries, even if those injuries occur very infrequently.

It's not an easy topic to have a conclusive argument on, imo.

What is in fact happening i that a large part of the population are being fed a lot of misinformation and lies by the usual suspects (BHIT, Headway etc) and taking it as some sort of truth

The evidence is unequivocal that more head injuries would be prevented by pedestrian helmets
 

deptfordmarmoset

Full time tea drinker
Location
Armonmy Way
The conclusion of the article is why I often wear a helmet. I accept that I may make a mistake and get injured or killed, but I can't stand the idea of getting injured or killed by someone who drives dangerously who then manages to reduce liability because I wasn't wearing one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom