Helmetless cyclists must share blame for injuries, rules judge

[numbnuts]

This is like saying "if all woman wore chastity belt there would be no more rapes"

 

[swee'pea99]

"There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to risk of greater injury". Simply wrong. There is considerable doubt.

Just another jackass judge, combining ignorance with pomposity to screw up lives.

 

[dodgy]

This is just about to be discussed on R2. I won't listen because it will be the usual irrational outpouring of hatred against cyclists
Let me know if I was wrong.

 

[HLaB]

A bit OT I came accross this in the local rag. Typical shock/horror reporting

who was not wearing a helmet

and a second totall un related accident goes under the same heading. Hope the kids recover though despite the crass reporting.

 

[srw]

More information here :-
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5180

My first problem with that article is that it perpetuates the nonsense that just because standards only test helmets up to a 12mph impact speed so they logically only offer protection up to that impact speed.

My second problem with that article is that it implies that someone is thinking that cyclists should be treated as a special case. If it can be proved that, on the balance of probabilities, wearing a particular sort of protective gear would have reduced the severity of a particular injury, then the law of contributory negligence should apply.

I'd argue the same for any sort of injury. If a car driver ripped out his car's airbags, and was involved in a collision in which a correctly installed airbag would have prevented injury then again contrib should apply.

Reading through to the summary of the judgement, I see that the first howler originated with the judge.

The last paragraph of the summary reminds us all that it's the Defendant (i.e. the driver) who has to prove casuation. As a cyclist, you have nothing to prove. The assumption is that whatever you did was reasonable - it's only if the driver's lawyers can prove that on the balance of probabilities your specific injury would have been mitigated by something else you could have done that contributory negligence will apply.

(edit)
And one quick, but important observation - the title of this thread is wrong. It might be helpful to change it.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

And one quick, but important observation - the title of this thread is wrong. It might be helpful to change it.

srw - I simply copied the headline and put it in the title - what do you suggest te thread title should change to?

 

[MajorMantra]

This is just about to be discussed on R2. I won't listen because it will be the usual irrational outpouring of hatred against cyclists
Let me know if I was wrong.

The debate between the two experts was fairly reasonable. Am currently listening to the phone-in (ugh) and it's a mix of the usual idiots and some quite sensible opinions.

Matthew

 

[dodgy]

Thanks Matthew, I really am not listening because I'll be wound up all day thinking about the mouth breathers in our society. Keep us informed!

 

[MajorMantra]

Thanks Matthew, I really am not listening because I'll be wound up all day thinking about the mouth breathers in our society. Keep us informed!

Nothing original was said. There were the usual mothers phoning in about how their darling was saved by a helmet and therefore they ought to be compulsory, and I don't think the opposing point was made about how that would discourage cycling and increase risk to those who continued to cycle.

I emailed in parroting trsleigh's post above and mentioning the Australian
helmet compulsion but I think it contained too many words to fit in with the other soundbites and terrible music.*

At least no one advocated killing cyclists which makes a nice change from some of the media attention we've had lately.

Matthew

*Seriously, how can anyone bear more than 5 minutes of R2?

 

[asterix]

It's another attempt to limit the legal protection that cyclist have.

My second problem with that article is that it implies that someone is thinking that cyclists should be treated as a special case. If it can be proved that, on the balance of probabilities, wearing a particular sort of protective gear would have reduced the severity of a particular injury, then the law of contributory negligence should apply.

Cars could be made to the same safety standards as Formula 1 vehicles. Where does this logic end?

I'd argue the same for any sort of injury. If a car driver ripped out his car's airbags, and was involved in a collision in which a correctly installed airbag would have prevented injury then again contrib should apply.

Not the same at all. Not all cars have airbags anyway. Is that contributory negligence? Should they have to be retro-fitted?

 

[srw]

Not the same at all. Not all cars have airbags anyway. Is that contributory negligence? Should they have to be retro-fitted?

It's exactly parallel.

Car driver <--> Cyclist
Airbag <--> Helmet (neither is compulsory; neither is universally fitted)
Choice not to have an airbag <--> Choice not to wear a helmet
Proof that the absence of an airbag contributed to an injury <--> Proof that the absence of a helmet contributed to an injury

The judge was doing no more and no less than correctly applying the law, having been asked to make a specific ruling in a specific set of circumstances.

 

[Chris James]

It's exactly parallel.

Car driver <--> Cyclist
Airbag <--> Helmet (neither is compulsory; neither is universally fitted)
Choice not to have an airbag <--> Choice not to wear a helmet
Proof that the absence of an airbag contributed to an injury <--> Proof that the absence of a helmet contributed to an injury

The judge was doing no more and no less than correctly applying the law, having been asked to make a specific ruling in a specific set of circumstances.

What a load of guff.

Consider person A, driving a car that is not fitted with an air bag. Person B drives into person A's car.

You are saying that person A is negligent through not buying a car with an air bag? Have you any examples where this has ever been used successfully as a legal argument?

As regards this specific case and your point about 12mph, how can you state that helmets are effective above 12mph if they are not tested at that speed? There is no evidence either way.

Alos, consider that impacts increase with the square of speed, so the energy absorbed by a helmet at 12mph would equate to a reduction is speed of a car from 40mph to 38.2 mph - i.e. negligible when you are considering a cyclist being hit by a car as opposed to falling off their bike due to having a 'clipless moment'.

 

[swee'pea99]

The judge was doing no more and no less than correctly applying the law, having been asked to make a specific ruling in a specific set of circumstances.

Nonsense. He made an untrue assertion:

"There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to risk of greater injury"

Thereby implicitly proposing:

'that cyclists are partly to blame for their injuries if they fail to wear a helmet, even if the accident was not their fault'.

That's not 'correctly applying the law'; that's effectively creating law; and on the basis of invalid and ignorant assertions.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

Taking it further – wouldn’t it also count as contributable negligence if one just cycles on the road in the full knowledge that there are some idiot drivers out there?

 

[srw]

As regards this specific case and your point about 12mph, how can you state that helmets are effective above 12mph if they are not tested at that speed? There is no evidence either way.

Exactly. Which is why suggesting there is is a howler of the first order.