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

[MontyVeda]

You could also ask this solicitor if he means an actual helmet that is fit for purpose, or a polystyrene hat full of holes that is often misconstrued as a helmet.

 

[Drago]

Helmets and solicitors? That's torn it!

 

[ufkacbln]

They have attempted this in the past unsuccessfully

It is simply the odious nature of these companies to find an excuse to weasel out of their obligations


The cyclists defence fund has successfully set ptecedents

 

[ufkacbln]

IIRC it is in the wording

"Should" is an aspired standard and has no
Legal basis
"Must" is an expression of Law and is mandatory

 

[srw]

I think you are correct. I believe there was one case but the initial judgement of contributory negligence was overturned on appeal. I'll see if I can dig out the reference.

Only if your slow WiFi connection lets you, obvs....

 

[Drago]

Reams of information on the Cyclist Defense Fund website.

 

[Racing roadkill]

 

[KnackeredBike]

Reams of information on the Cyclist Defense Fund website.

Thanks, I did read that and it seemed to suggest that generally they will knock 25% off any settlement if you weren't wearing a helmet and had head injuries. But possibly nothing if you took it to court.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Pretty much, if you don't fight it, they'll try to reduce the pay out, if you fight it in court their balls shrink, and they don't try to reduce the settlement. There's no one size fits all though, and some folk have had different experiences of both scenarios.

 

[ufkacbln]

It is so ridiculous..... there was one case where the insurance company tried this... despite the fact it was a knee injury

 

[classic33]

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.

Forget airbags!!

 

[Drago]

Been surfing manufactures websites, neither Bell, Met, Uvex or Giro are claiming their products prefect the wearer from injury in a vehicular impact. In fact, not one claims to offer injury protection at all, nut that's another story.

This being the case, an insurer is going to have trouble proving that any brand of cycle helmet would have reduced or eliminated any such injury.

 

[machew]

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org....ing-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Doesn't the Highway Code say you should also give vulnerable users enough space? If they hit you the driver didn't give you enough space.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

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 thought your Highway Code didn't mandate the wearing of helmets?