Are helmets compulsory?
- Thread starter 02GF74
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
And if you buy one with a bit of room in it, you could grow greenhouse plants as you cycle.
Elmer Fudd
Miserable Old Bar Steward
- Location
- Durham, and I am the eejit
If helmets became compulsory would sikhs (or others) be exempt on religious grounds ?
Ludwig
Hopeless romantic
- Location
- Lissingdown
Iv'e got a helmet but never wear it. I find them too hot in the summer, too cold in the winter and they still look a bit nerdy. I would argue that all car drivers and passengers should be compelled to wear helmets as there are far more serious head injuries caused in car accidents that could be prevented with helmet wearing.. And why not make all pedestrians wear helmets.
I think wearing a cycle helmet may give people a false sense of security causing them to take unnecessary risks.
I think wearing a cycle helmet may give people a false sense of security causing them to take unnecessary risks.
HJ
Cycling in Scotland
- Location
- Auld Reekie
02GF74 said:Just wondering.
Reason for asking is some dopey woman goes across one of those "dustbin" roundabout without looking right and I was coming from the right!
Anyway, she parks up at sports centre to I pedal up to her to ask here if she was aware of what she did.
So she starts a go at me for not wearing a helmet!
FFS like it is my fault and not hers for not looking!!!
Anyway, hence the question.
I for sure have not heard that it is compulsory by law to wear a helmet - any one know for sure?
The simple reply is "cycle helmets are NOT compulsory by law, but driving with due care and attention is".
In countries where cycle helmet have been made compulsory by law, the result has been to make cycling more dangerous not less, see here for details...
But if you are not wearing a helmet - the injuries are your fault!
THe Cyclists defence fund has fought two cases, one where a young boy was hit by a car in a layby, and the insurers tried to cut the claim because he had no helmet.
The second was a cyclist who was killed after being struck form behind - again there was an attempt to reduce the payments.
THe Cyclists defence fund has fought two cases, one where a young boy was hit by a car in a layby, and the insurers tried to cut the claim because he had no helmet.
The second was a cyclist who was killed after being struck form behind - again there was an attempt to reduce the payments.
Cunobelin said:
That hasn't anything to do with compulsory use and it's wrong to say the suggestion is that no helmet means no damages.
Even prior to seatbelt wearing laws for motorists there was case law that decided that damages to drivers/passengers could be reduced where it could be shown that the wearing of an available seatbelt could have reduced the injury - a typical reduction was in the 15-25% range. The insurers would have been using a similar arguement Re:helmets and are entitled to do so. They would have to prove the possibility of injury reduction - if they could it's fair to reduce the payment by the appropriate percentage as that is the way the law works. Remember though, they would have to prove their assertions and that may be difficult.
BTW, I'm not trying to raise any arguement for helmet use. I wear a helmet but I don't give a toss if others decide it's not for them and could care even less about helmets being made compulsory.
Terminator
New Member
Maz said:
That's terrible.
