TwickenhamCyclist
Guest
Helmetless cyclists must share blame for injuries, rules judge
From Sunday Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5908387.ece
A HIGH COURT judge has ruled that cyclists are partly to blame for their injuries if they fail to wear a helmet, even if the accident was not their fault.
The ruling, which has caused consternation in the cycling world, could see damages for injuries cut by 15%. Critics believe it could be a backdoor means of forcing cyclists to wear helmets.
Boris Johnson, the London mayor, has said cyclists have the right to choose between “hatless, sun-blessed, wind-swept liberty” or “helmeted security”.
“In my efforts to do the right thing I have ended up giving offence to both opposing factions,” he said.
“As soon as I started wearing a helmet I was denounced as a wimp. As soon as I was pictured not wearing a helmet, I was attacked for sending out the wrong signal.”
The judge ruled on a case brought by Robert Smith, who was riding to a friend’s house in Brightlingsea, Essex, on a summer’s evening in 2005 when a motorcycle ridden by Michael Finch collided with his bicycle. As a consequence, Smith sustained a serious brain injury.
Mr Justice Griffith Williams accepted Smith’s case that he was close to the centre of the road, preparing to turn right into a driveway, when the motorcyclist, travelling at excessive speed in the same direction, tried to overtake him on the offside.
However, Smith had not been wearing a cycle helmet. The judge is the first to express sympathy for the view that this omission put the cyclist at fault and made him partly responsible for his own brain damage.
“There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to risk of greater injury,” he ruled. Subject to limitations, “any injury sustained may be the cyclist’s own fault”.
Smith’s head hit the ground at more than 12mph and the judge therefore concluded that wearing a helmet would not have made any difference.
But by establishing the principle of “contributory negligence” in cases involving hel-metless cyclists, the ruling could open the door to attempts to reduce damages by insurers.
Critics say there is no evidence that the rise in use of helmets has contributed to a decline in cyclists’ deaths.
When they were made compulsory in Western Australia the number of cyclists fell by one-third yet the incidence of head injuries dropped by just 10%.
Chris Boardman, the former British racing cyclist and Olympic gold medallist, said: “It’s ludicrous that someone should be penalised for not wearing a helmet. Helmets are not designed to take anywhere near the level of damage incurred in a crash.”
Martin Porter, a personal injury lawyer, said: “It’s really very worrying. It is a retrograde step to blame innocent cyclists for not wearing a helmet. There is an interesting parallel between a cyclist not wearing a helmet and a pedestrian not wearing a helmet.
“By the same logic, pedestrians not wearing helmets are also at risk of contributing to their own injuries.”
The British Medical Association, which wants cycling helmets to be made compulsory, said: “Doctors working in accident and emergency see at first hand the devastating impacts cycling injuries can have.”
Boris’s ‘naked’ streets
Boris Johnson, the London mayor, has declared his intention to impose “naked streets” on the British capital. But this was no appeal for nudity.
Johnson plans to strip away traffic lights, kerbs and road markings to create “shared streets”.
Under the proposals, pavements will be removed so traffic and people share the same flat surface. Roadside railings, road humps and unnecessary signposts will also be banished from streets popular with pedestrians.
Johnson said he envisaged “a future where pavements would blend seamlessly with roads”.
The conversion of Exhibition Road in Kensington, west London, would be the first step in a London-wide roll-out.
Trials of the naked streets concept in the Netherlands led to a dramatic reduction in accident rates. At one junction in the town of Drachten, accidents fell from 36 to just two.
From Sunday Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5908387.ece
A HIGH COURT judge has ruled that cyclists are partly to blame for their injuries if they fail to wear a helmet, even if the accident was not their fault.
The ruling, which has caused consternation in the cycling world, could see damages for injuries cut by 15%. Critics believe it could be a backdoor means of forcing cyclists to wear helmets.
Boris Johnson, the London mayor, has said cyclists have the right to choose between “hatless, sun-blessed, wind-swept liberty” or “helmeted security”.
“In my efforts to do the right thing I have ended up giving offence to both opposing factions,” he said.
“As soon as I started wearing a helmet I was denounced as a wimp. As soon as I was pictured not wearing a helmet, I was attacked for sending out the wrong signal.”
The judge ruled on a case brought by Robert Smith, who was riding to a friend’s house in Brightlingsea, Essex, on a summer’s evening in 2005 when a motorcycle ridden by Michael Finch collided with his bicycle. As a consequence, Smith sustained a serious brain injury.
Mr Justice Griffith Williams accepted Smith’s case that he was close to the centre of the road, preparing to turn right into a driveway, when the motorcyclist, travelling at excessive speed in the same direction, tried to overtake him on the offside.
However, Smith had not been wearing a cycle helmet. The judge is the first to express sympathy for the view that this omission put the cyclist at fault and made him partly responsible for his own brain damage.
“There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to risk of greater injury,” he ruled. Subject to limitations, “any injury sustained may be the cyclist’s own fault”.
Smith’s head hit the ground at more than 12mph and the judge therefore concluded that wearing a helmet would not have made any difference.
But by establishing the principle of “contributory negligence” in cases involving hel-metless cyclists, the ruling could open the door to attempts to reduce damages by insurers.
Critics say there is no evidence that the rise in use of helmets has contributed to a decline in cyclists’ deaths.
When they were made compulsory in Western Australia the number of cyclists fell by one-third yet the incidence of head injuries dropped by just 10%.
Chris Boardman, the former British racing cyclist and Olympic gold medallist, said: “It’s ludicrous that someone should be penalised for not wearing a helmet. Helmets are not designed to take anywhere near the level of damage incurred in a crash.”
Martin Porter, a personal injury lawyer, said: “It’s really very worrying. It is a retrograde step to blame innocent cyclists for not wearing a helmet. There is an interesting parallel between a cyclist not wearing a helmet and a pedestrian not wearing a helmet.
“By the same logic, pedestrians not wearing helmets are also at risk of contributing to their own injuries.”
The British Medical Association, which wants cycling helmets to be made compulsory, said: “Doctors working in accident and emergency see at first hand the devastating impacts cycling injuries can have.”
Boris’s ‘naked’ streets
Boris Johnson, the London mayor, has declared his intention to impose “naked streets” on the British capital. But this was no appeal for nudity.
Johnson plans to strip away traffic lights, kerbs and road markings to create “shared streets”.
Under the proposals, pavements will be removed so traffic and people share the same flat surface. Roadside railings, road humps and unnecessary signposts will also be banished from streets popular with pedestrians.
Johnson said he envisaged “a future where pavements would blend seamlessly with roads”.
The conversion of Exhibition Road in Kensington, west London, would be the first step in a London-wide roll-out.
Trials of the naked streets concept in the Netherlands led to a dramatic reduction in accident rates. At one junction in the town of Drachten, accidents fell from 36 to just two.
it works both ways
