Cycling - wearing a helmet is now a legal requirement

[Crankarm]

According to the idiot judge/magistrates in this case. Depressing.

http://road.cc/content/news/69591-c...ined-careless-driver-calls-harsher-sentencing

This case should be appealed. It is not the injured party who is on trial but the defendant. Absurd reasoning and PATHETIC sentencing. The fact the driver admitted the offence would have lead to a reduced sentence. But still PATHETIC. Perversely the driver gets to keep his driving license where as the cyclist he hit loses his. Absolutely perverse and absurd. The courts deliberately disadvantage and treat cyclists unfairly.

 

[clarion]

That's perverse.

 

[BrianEvesham]

Wrong, so wrong.

 

[Saluki]

That's just wrong. Sure he had taken his lid off but wearing one is not going to stop broken arms and legs! I really have no idea how the legal system works, but has this cyclist got not way of appealing the decision. I read that he was to persue damages from the driver but that will end up as payment of £2 a week until the driver 'forgets' about it and the poor victim will never see another penny.
Maybe they should force Judges and all legal people to ride a bike for a year, commuting to work and then see how they see the world of the cyclist.

 

[Cubist]

I'm afraid what everybody is mixing up is the difference between the action of the driver and its consequences. Leaving aside the matter of the helmet, (even that's a red herring in the story,) the driver cannot be found to have driven anything other than carelessly, and therefore even if the court had wanted to, it must consider the standard of driving, not what it led to. If there is no evidence that the driving was deliberately intended to cause the cyclist harm, then the evidence must be examined to consider reckless or careless driving. The standard of proof required to establish reckless driving is way above what has happened in this instance, and so the only legal option open is careless driving.

The range of punishments open to a court are limited, and no matter how much the populus of Cyclechat bay for blood, I'm afraid fines and penalty points are the only available sentences in this case.

Now, the driver has pleaded guilty, and been convicted, which is where civil action takes over. The cyclist will be able to make a substantial claim against the driver, which is likely to be contested only in the amount, not the purpose of that action. Any decent solicitor worth his or her salt will overcome the red herring of the helmet, because they know as well as we do that it's bollocks, and won't be taken into account in a civil claims case.

So, pitchforks back in the cupboards folks, this was a crap bit of reporting designed to get you all stirred up, and frothing at the mouth, and it seems to have worked. Subscription to the Daily Wail anybody?

 

[Crankarm]

Errrr ............ Cubist which bit of this is not clear?

Ledger pleaded guilty to careless driving, but the court took into account the fact that Mr Barclay had taken off his helmet because he was close to home

So gave him a more lenient sentence.

I am not confused about who is on trial or between criminal and civil actions. The point of highlighting this case was to tell others ie cyclists that idiot judges and magistrates are giving more lenient sentences to drivers who knock down or kill cyclists who themselves aren't wearing helmets. PERVERSE and ABSURD. Read the comments below the article.

 

[machew]

The offence of careless driving attracts between 3-9 penalty points, a fine of up to £5,000 and discretionary disqualification.

 

[Cubist]

Even the solicitor in your article agreed that the consequences of the driving could not be considered by the court. Since when did comments under a reported article on the web have any relationship with reality?

A magistrate can only sentence based on HO guidelines, and there is nothing in HO guidelines that will make helmet wearing an issue in careless driving cases. Magistrates cannot and will never set legal precedent. The matter of the helmet is utterly irrelevant to the case, but the Beak's comment has been seized upon by Road CC as it will cause indignation and outrage. Your own banner headline is as spurious as it is incorrect. The magistrate in this case is indeed a clueless tosser of the highest order, but he hasn't made helmet wearing any more a legal requirement than you have.

 

[Bromptonaut]

It's a stand alone decision by a magistrate on one case and one set of facts. Fact that victim was helemetless should have no effect on sentence but case has zero value as a precedent so not worth getting too wound up over.

As Cubist points out the action moves to civil courts which will decide laibility for and sum of compensation. The claimant will be able to rely on plea and conviction as strong evidence on laibilty. Driver's insurers may also play the helmet card in court as indicating contributory negligence. Hopefully victim will be well advised and able to refute such a claim.

 

[Cubist]

A quick google.on the subject finds Road.cc and a local paper as the only reporters of this story. In both articles we only have Nigel Barclay's word that the sentencing was influenced by the helmet issue. Does anyone ha e a link to the court transcripts to see exactly what was said?

 

[Bromptonaut]

A quick google.on the subject finds Road.cc and a local paper as the only reporters of this story. In both articles we only have Nigel Barclay's word that the sentencing was influenced by the helmet issue. Does anyone ha e a link to the court transcripts to see exactly what was said?

Significant judgements go on the judiciary website www.judiciary.gov.uk. many more or reported on BAILII http://www.bailii.org/ Neither is going to report this sort of case and I doubt there's any transcription.

 

[Cubist]

Magistrates courts do not produce transcripts.

Thanks User, as I kind of suspected. Looks like well never know the truth then.

 

[Andrew_Culture]

This is in spite of helmets only being certified to help prevent injuries at low speeds below 12mph.

Is that correct? If so then I've waste far too much money on helmets!

 

[jonny jeez]

I'm afraid what everybody is mixing up is the difference between the action of the driver and its consequences. Leaving aside the matter of the helmet, (even that's a red herring in the story,) the driver cannot be found to have driven anything other than carelessly, and therefore even if the court had wanted to, it must consider the standard of driving, not what it led to. If there is no evidence that the driving was deliberately intended to cause the cyclist harm, then the evidence must be examined to consider reckless or careless driving. The standard of proof required to establish reckless driving is way above what has happened in this instance, and so the only legal option open is careless driving.

The range of punishments open to a court are limited, and no matter how much the populus of Cyclechat bay for blood, I'm afraid fines and penalty points are the only available sentences in this case.

Now, the driver has pleaded guilty, and been convicted, which is where civil action takes over. The cyclist will be able to make a substantial claim against the driver, which is likely to be contested only in the amount, not the purpose of that action. Any decent solicitor worth his or her salt will overcome the red herring of the helmet, because they know as well as we do that it's bollocks, and won't be taken into account in a civil claims case.

So, pitchforks back in the cupboards folks, this was a crap bit of reporting designed to get you all stirred up, and frothing at the mouth, and it seems to have worked. Subscription to the Daily Wail anybody?

Well said.

 

[Norm]

Is that correct? If so then I've waste far too much money on helmets!

Yes, to a point, they may offer some protection above that speed but they may also just split and do nothing.

And therein lies the core issue for many who have been labelled as anti-helmet, the things are just not a blanket protection from head injuries.