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

[User16625]

Why?

Because wearing a helmet while walking round Tesco doing your shopping and you will look something like this:

Wear a helmet while setting a speed record on your push bike and you will look more like this:

Of-course there's nothing legally or even morally wrong with wearing a helmet while walking around Tesco's any more than it is to make babies while wearing a bullet proof vest, but you will look a bit if you do.

On the contrary, I do not think not wearing a cycle helmet should affect compo payments if some arse bandit rams you up the chuff while cycling.

 

[classic33]

Because wearing a helmet while walking round Tesco doing your shopping and you will look something like this:

View attachment 350706

Wear a helmet while setting a speed record on your push bike and you will look more like this:

View attachment 350707

Of-course there's nothing legally or even morally wrong with wearing a helmet while walking around Tesco's any more than it is to make babies while wearing a bullet proof vest, but you will look a bit if you do.

On the contrary, I do not think not wearing a cycle helmet should affect compo payments if some arse bandit rams you up the chuff while cycling.

That bit is nice to know, even if it is personal opinion. There's some who have to wear helmets every day. Through no fault of their own.

 

[srw]

Wear a helmet while setting a speed record on your push bike and you will look more like this:

Like the overwhelming majority of cyclists I won't be going anywhere near setting a speed record, so I look much more like this:

 

[subaqua]

All cycle helmets are speed rated for a maximum of 14kph ( from memory) so if your RTC was at a speed greater than that this then a 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 pluss discounts ect from shops).

but they use slayer and gormless who from experience of my off last year are funking awful. i had to do most of the work and they walked away in the end . CTC or cycling UK got a rather stern letter detailing my displeasure

 

[subaqua]

Like the overwhelming majority of cyclists I won't be going anywhere near setting a speed record, so I look much more like this:
View attachment 350709

you wish

but yes , agree on sentiment .

 

[srw]

you wish

but yes , agree on sentiment .

...apart, that is, from the brown shoes with the suit.

 

[tommaguzzi]

That's just your individual experience, i know someone who had a really positive outcome and the 3rd party insurance alone must be worth it some. I was for him.

 

[I like Skol]

.... any more than it is to make babies while wearing a bullet proof vest, but you will look a bit if you do.

Will it matter as long as you have the lights off? Besides, what you get up to in the privacy of your own bedroom is your business but can I suggest you choose a less dangerous partner, perhaps one that will not shoot you or get you shot!

 

[Shortandcrisp]

Sorry, just don't get this.


Mod plea: Please don't create a helmet debate within a thread about, er, well, er, helmets.

To clarify, there is a thread designed specifically to add your thoughts on the efficacy or otherwise of cycle helmets. Here is not the place.

 

[jefmcg]

Sorry, just don't get this.

Wow. It got to page 5 before someone said this. Impressive work, everyone else.

We are now firmly strayed into the territory of helmet discussion per see. There is a thread for that.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-cyclechat-helmet-debate-thread.187059/
and you have to read all five thousand, seven hundred and ninety-six posts before adding your own.

Mod note. Indeed.

 

[spen666]

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.

My body is of the older type it never came with a helmet fitted as standard

Why is it less reasonable to expect a motorist to retro fit airbags than it is to expect me to retrofit a helmet to my body?




PS I was not being serious- please don't start a helmet debate

 

[MontyVeda]

My body is of the older type it never came with a helmet fitted as standard

...

I was born with a skull... it's bloody brilliant at protecting my brain

 

[classic33]

Wow. It got to page 5 before someone said this. Impressive work, everyone else.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-cyclechat-helmet-debate-thread.187059/
and you have to read all five thousand, seven hundred and ninety-six posts before adding your own.

Mod note. Indeed.

Done that!

 

[classic33]

I was born with a skull... it's bloody brilliant at protecting my brain

That's just something to wrap/stretch the skin over!

 

[boydj]

That's just something to wrap/stretch the skin over!

With skin to provide a slippable, peelable layer over a hard protective surface, the skull does its job very well.

On another tack, I wish people would stop comparing cycle helmets with seat belts. Seat belts have been extensively tested and have been proven to provide considerable protection in vehicle collisions. The same cannot be said for helmets.