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

[KnackeredBike]

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

Rule 59
Clothing. You should wear

• a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

"Should" being the operative word. Things that are legal requirements are "must".

That is presumably the legal argument, if you should do something then you are negligent if you don't do it.

 

[jefmcg]

"Should" being the operative word. Things that are legal requirements are "must".

Just to be clear @Shut Up Legs lives in Victoria, Australia.

Personally, I bought the HC from WH Smiths, and studied it, but didn't pick up the should/must dichotomy by just reading the document. They gave me a UK license anyway - simple swap.

Edit: They didn't test me. My effort to read and understand the highway code was me being a good citizen. It did not explain nearly everyone ignoring box junctions. And it did not explain the bizarre practice of moving to the middle of the road when doing a right turn onto a busy road when the carriage way you are joining is moving. I do it too, but under duress.

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

There is another question about being reasonable
There is a measure of car "safety" called EuroNCAP

They also show how safe it is for pedestrians in an incident

If a driver buys a car with a 5 star rating then they have done all they can to reduce that injury.

If they buy a car with a 1 star or Zero rating then that have arguably chosen to inflict greater injury

Surely a decision to buy a vehicle that you know will inflict greater injury is unreasonable behaviour?

 

[subaqua]

There is another question about being reasonable
There is a measure of car "safety" called EuroNCAP

They also show how safe it is for pedestrians in an incident

If a driver buys a car with a 5 star rating then they have done all they can to reduce that injury.

If they buy a car with a 1 star or Zero rating then that have arguably chosen to inflict greater injury

Surely a decision to buy a vehicle that you know will inflict greater injury is unreasonable behaviour?

only if you set out to inflict injury upon somebody.

I buy a car with the intent of NOT driving it into things that can a) get hurt b) hurt me ( notice the order )

 

[ufkacbln]

only if you set out to inflict injury upon somebody.

I buy a car with the intent of NOT driving it into things that can a) get hurt b) hurt me ( notice the order )

Arguably I cycle with the intent of NOT being driven into by things, but not always successfully, equally in driving it will not always be possible to avoid incidentsl and it a responsible attitude to plan for these contingencies

Is it reasonable that when it does happen that individual has taken a decision that has increased my injuries?

That is the point, it is an expectation that the cyclist should take steps to to reduce the level of injury caused by the vehicle, why should we not expect the vehicle driver to take steps to reduce injury as well?

 

[subaqua]

personally I would be happy for a fark off big spike to be present on the steering wheel. that would concentrate the drivers attention on not driving like a ellbend.

maybe compensation should be reduced for those with the protective stuff in cars as they drive knowing they wont get hurt as much....

 

[MontyVeda]

personally I would be happy for a fark off big spike to be present on the steering wheel. that would concentrate the drivers attention on not driving like a ellbend.

...

How about one sticking out from your stem too? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[subaqua]

How about one sticking out from your stem too? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

yup no probs with that.

 

[fossyant]

Most solicitors will try anything to wriggle out of a full claim (road position, whether you could stop, visibility of clothing, blah blah) As has been said I don't think there has been any reductions in liability due to not having a helmet.

But an injury severe enough to paralyse you, a helmet won't protect you from that severity on impact. At best they are a good gravel rash protector/bump on head reducer.

When my spine was broken, I was lying there telling them it was my back and not my head or neck - pointing to the unscathed block of polystyrene that had been on my head.

 

[subaqua]

Before cars had seat belts, crumple zones, seat belt pre-tensioners, air bags, etc people died in car crashes more than they do now. It was regarded with a fatalistic attitude and certainly never concentrated the mind to any noticeable level.

true. but has all the modern safety stuff made it worse for concentrating ?

 

[tommaguzzi]

All cycle helmets are speed rated for a maximum of 14kph ( from memory) so if your RTC was at a higher speed then the helmet would have no effect. I believe this has been successfully argued in court by CTC lawyers.
This maybe after the horse has bolted i know but all cyclists could do worse than joining the ctc ( renamed we are cycling or some something) costs 40 quid a year they give you automatic 3rd party insurance and legal cover for things like this and send you 6 magazines a year plus discounts ect from shops).

 

[swansonj]

I don't know. I believe it has been measured that improvement in cornering and breaking translates into people tending to drive faster into corners. This may be myth though.

Not a myth - measured and reported in a report by TRL iirc - all part of the risk compensation framework we operate within.

 

[User16625]

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.

There is a significant difference. It is normal and reasonable to wear a helmet when riding a bike. It is not normal or reasonable to wear a helmet when walking. I'm not pedantic enough to go into statistics. I also hate statistics.

Lets use another analogy, you would wear a belt in a car for safety reasons, but you only wear a belt when walking to hold your trousers up.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

It is no more reasonable to wear a helmet when riding a bike than it is to wear one when walking.

 

[classic33]

There is a significant difference. It is normal and reasonable to wear a helmet when riding a bike. It is not normal or reasonable to wear a helmet when walking. I'm not pedantic enough to go into statistics. I also hate statistics.

Lets use another analogy, you would wear a belt in a car for safety reasons, but you only wear a belt when walking to hold your trousers up.

The use of belt in the car is a legal requirement. Would you expect any reduction in compensation if injured in an accident whilst not wearing one?
This sort of thing keeps on being recommended to me, for normal everyday wear, due to epilepsy. Should I be one of two hit, whilst crossing the road, should I expect a lower compensation payout because I wasn't wearing/using one.

Its use, or one of similar design, is recommended, but no-where does it say I must wear one.

Note the cost, which I'd have to meet.