Helmetless cyclists must share blame for injuries, rules judge

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
thomas said:
Say, it was actually a driver who was injured. Say they didn't have their seat belt on (a legal requirement, unlike a helmet). Should the driver be given full compensation then?

Thomas ... as a hackney carriage driver i am legally exempt from wearing a seatbelt (But) if we dont wear one when we have no passengers in the vehicle (which we are entitled to do) then any compensation claims for Fault or Non Fault accidents will be reduced if it can be proven that wearing the seat belt would've prevented or lessened the damage to the driver

I agree that wearing a cycle helmet should remain the riders choice ... but surely if you commute through a busy city then common sense should dictate that the cyclist should wear one

Simon
 

Bollo

Failed Tech Bro
Location
Winch
Jakes Dad said:
I agree that wearing a cycle helmet should remain the riders choice ... but surely if you commute through a busy city then common sense should dictate that the cyclist should wear one

Simon

I'm assuming that the busy city bit is because you're more likely to have a collision with a motor vehicle. Unfortunately that's where the 'magic foam hat' moniker comes from. The amount of energy that a car moving at 30mph is going to deposit in your skull in a collision makes a helmet pretty much irrelevant. Cycle helmets are designed to prevent injury at cycling speeds and at cycling energies, nothing more, and I'm being generous to helmets here.

I'm happy for helmets to be compulsory for cyclists, as long as they're also made compulsory for pedestrians, drivers, ladder users and toddlers at all times. Reduce that risk!
 
OP
OP
TwickenhamCyclist
Jakes Dad said:
I agree that wearing a cycle helmet should remain the riders choice ... but surely if you commute through a busy city then common sense should dictate that the cyclist should wear one

Simon

Hi Jake's Dad. I think the problem is that common sense does initially lead you to that conclusion (just like many well meaning non-cyclists think the that the provision of more cycle paths would benefit cyclists, or that getting traffic and pedestrians to share the same space in city canters would lead to more accidents etc).
But with further research one can often find that what first appears as common sense isn’t actually the best solution and is based on incorrect assumptions.

To state cyclists should ware helmets in city centres makes a lot of assumptions that on further analysis aren’t actually backed up by statistics.
 

thomas

the tank engine
Location
Woking/Norwich
Jakes Dad said:
Thomas ... as a hackney carriage driver i am legally exempt from wearing a seatbelt (But) if we dont wear one when we have no passengers in the vehicle (which we are entitled to do) then any compensation claims for Fault or Non Fault accidents will be reduced if it can be proven that wearing the seat belt would've prevented or lessened the damage to the driver

I've heard rumours about seatbelts for bus driver and coach drivers too, but then I've also heard that that isn't true. Why are you be exempt from wearing one?
 
U

User169

Guest
srw said:
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.

Well they might be considered a special case, or at least a different case, should different conditions apply.

As I understand it, the judge started with the Court of Appeal's decision in Froom which related to seat belts. There, the Court held that it was per se negligent not to wear a seat belt and the argument was predicated on that basis.

When it comes to helmet wearing, and if you accept that helmets may in certain circumstances make things worse, there is an immediate challenge to the initial assumption of Froom.
 
U

User482

Guest
The difference between seat belts and helmets is that seat belts are much more likely to be helpful in reducing the severity of accidents. A more useful analogy would be the more advanced safety systems fitted to modern cars. Say I sustain an injury because someone drives into the side of my fiesta. Did I contribute to my injury because I failed to buy a volvo with airbags in the doors? And what about pedestrians - if I run a red light and knock one down, should they have been wearing body armour?

I think I read somewhere that far more head injuries are sustained by car drivers than by cyclists - sounds like a case for compulsion to me...
 
Now howzabout two cars driving into the fiesta...

One is a normal family car that hits the subframe which absorbs the energy and limits damage to the occupants, and the other is a 4x4 where the bullbars and higher chasssis bypass the subframe and cause injury to the occupants?

Or with the pedestrian, A Jeep Grand Cherokee actually scores zero on the Euro NCap pedestrian protection scale....

If there is a responsibility to protect oneself, shouldn't there be a penalty for those who knowingly make a choice of vehicle that will increase injury?
 
thomas said:
I've heard rumours about seatbelts for bus driver and coach drivers too, but then I've also heard that that isn't true. Why are you be exempt from wearing one?

Thomas ... oddly enough its on the grounds of personal safety ! not in the event of a road accident but so that we can freely defend ourselves against passengers

To those that responded to my suggestion that it would be common sense to wear a helmet whilst cycling through a city centre ... Yes it was a large assumption on my part and after reading through the responses i can see that it perhaps was'nt a very good one

Simon
 

Tynan

Veteran
Location
e4
odd ruling

yes to contributory negligence but there also a very well founded princicple that you take your victims as you find them
 

Tynan

Veteran
Location
e4
So some on here will say that at 11.5 mph a cycle helmet offers protection?

And at 12.5 mph a cycle helmet offers no protection?
 

nilling

Über Member
Location
Preston, UK
Natasha Richardson's relatives have rushed to see her in hospital after she suffered a serious head injury in a skiing accident.

I have not seen the comment "...she was not wearing a helmet" in any article...
 
U

User169

Guest
nilling said:
Natasha Richardson's relatives have rushed to see her in hospital after she suffered a serious head injury in a skiing accident.

I have not seen the comment "...she was not wearing a helmet" in any article...

Really, it's been in both reports I've seen.
 

4F

Active member of Helmets Are Sh*t Lobby
Location
Suffolk.
Tynan said:
So some on here will say that at 11.5 mph a cycle helmet offers protection?

And at 12.5 mph a cycle helmet offers no protection?

Tsk Tynan nice try :biggrin:, I don't recall ever seeing a post by anyone saying that a helmet may not offer protection irrespective of speed more so that the level of protection they may offer is only tested in speeds up to 12.5 mph.
 
Top Bottom