Can accident compensation be reduced if you don't wear a helmet?

[KnackeredBike]

I was speaking to a solicitor today (I know, short straws) and they said that because the Highway Code recommends wearing a helmet if you have an accident when not wearing a helmet then any compensation can be reduced by the percentage that non-helmet wearing contributed to the injury.

A quick Google shows that this is a common assertion on solicitor websites.

I was wondering whether this actually happens or if it is a misconception. Certainly when I was knocked off my bike the Wiggle solicitors asked if I was wearing a helmet, but didn't infer that it would negatively affect the claim.

I ask because if the worst happened and I was confined to the vegetable drawer for the rest of my life I wouldn't want some knob car insurance company refusing to pay for my nappies because I wasn't wearing a helmet. It would probably make me wear a helmet if this was the case.

N.B. I am not asking about helmet safety in general, just compensation.

 

[ianrauk]

Had no bearing at all in my case.

 

[jefmcg]

Had no bearing at all in my case.

Did you have a head injury?

 

[I like Skol]

Let's look at it another way. I drive an older car that doesn't have airbags. If some pillock loses control of his car and crosses the road to crash head on into me, would my compensation for any injuries incurred be reduced as I wasn't using an airbag equipped vehicle?
IMO my injuries, and injuries likewise suffered as a result of being knocked off my bike, are the result of and responsibility of the idiot that knocked me off unless the collision was my fault.

 

[Tin Pot]

Uhoh

 

[ianrauk]

Did you have a head injury?

The medic report has me down as being knocked out.

 

[HertzvanRental]

Let's look at it another way. I drive an older car that doesn't have airbags. If some pillock loses control of his car and crosses the road to crash head on into me, would my compensation for any injuries incurred be reduced as I wasn't using an airbag equipped vehicle?
IMO my injuries, and injuries likewise suffered as a result of being knocked off my bike, are the result of and responsibility of the idiot that knocked me off unless the collision was my fault.

The trouble is that you are looking at this from a common-sense , rational perspective, and very often, the law ain't quite like that!

 

[jefmcg]

The medic report has me down as being knocked out.

Normally I'd just "like" a post to acknowledge my question had been answered. But obviously I'm not going to "like" this.

Thanks for answering my question.

 

[Slick]

There's no right or wrong answer here, it's now just down to both sets of lawyers to argue any finer point regarding percentages. The prosecution will be looking for 100% obviously and the defence will do what they are good at which is spread the blame far and wide to reduce their own liability.

 

[Milkfloat]

My understanding is that nobody is brave enough to say that a helmet would certainly reduce the head injury as they would be forced to prove those claims - which they cannot.

 

[classic33]

Asked if I was wearing one. Main damage was to the leg that got caught between bike and front of the car.

Told it may have made the neck injury worse, whilst at A&E. Other than the cost of replacement, it never came into the claim.

 

[KnackeredBike]

Let's look at it another way. I drive an older car that doesn't have airbags. If some pillock loses control of his car and crosses the road to crash head on into me, would my compensation for any injuries incurred be reduced as I wasn't using an airbag equipped vehicle?
IMO my injuries, and injuries likewise suffered as a result of being knocked off my bike, are the result of and responsibility of the idiot that knocked me off unless the collision was my fault.

Not quite the same. In law there is the concept of "contributory negligence" which is what I assume the solicitor was banging on about. You need to take reasonable steps to ensure your safety. Retrofitting airbags to a car is obviously a different amount of reasonableness to wearing a helmet.

 

[I like Skol]

Not quite the same. In law there is the concept of "contributory negligence" which is what I assume the solicitor was banging on about. You need to take reasonable steps to ensure your safety. Retrofitting airbags to a car is obviously a different amount of reasonableness to wearing a helmet.

Yes, but surely that argument can be simply countered by saying that under that assumption anyone that crosses a road without a helmet and gets a head injury as a result of being knocked down has contributed to their own injuries through negligence, there is absolutely no difference between that scenario and a cyclist being knocked off.

 

[KnackeredBike]

Yes, but surely that argument can be simply countered by saying that under that assumption anyone that crosses a road without a helmet and gets a head injury as a result of being knocked down has contributed to their own injuries through negligence, there is absolutely no difference between that scenario and a cyclist being knocked off.

Except as I said the solicitor was saying it is reasonable because it is in the Highway Code, which is also often used to show that a drivers actions were unreasonable/careless even if not specifically illegal.

 

[srw]

Except as I said the solicitor was saying it is reasonable because it is in the Highway Code, which is also often used to show that a drivers actions were unreasonable/careless even if not specifically illegal.

I don't think the solicitor has a leg to stand on. To demonstrate contributory negligence you have to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the specific action of the injured person contributed to the occurrence or the seriousness of the specific injury. Airily waving the Highway Code won't cut the mustard.

My understanding is that there has never been a case where contrib. neg. has successfully been argued in an English court for a non-helmet-wearing cyclist riding on the roads in normal circumstances. Because there is not enough evidence to demonstrate, either in the specific or in general, that helmets have a material impact on safety.