Helmets and Compensation

[gavintc]

The following is an article published on Bike Radar and suggest that we may effectively have a helmet law by default:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/court-judgment-has-major-implications-for-cyclists-20250

 

[Danny]

Perhaps Patrick has a view on whether this is really setting some sort of precedent.

 

[buggi]

this is one of the reasons that there was such a debate about the wording in the highway code. There was another case where a young boy was knocked off his bike and suffered a serious head injury (for life) and wasn't wearing a helmet and the insurance company tried to get off paying compensation, saying the parents were partly liable.

 

[Dave5N]

Christ I'm gonna turn into Cunobelin.

I have a helmet but I don't wear it walking down the road. If I get hit by a car will I be guilty of contributary negligence?

Anyway FWIW I don't trust BR (where are the supporting views from BC and the CTC etc?) and even if the report is accurate a judge's opinion is not law. Easy enough to get a ruling overturned if it is wrong in law.

The story is a complete journalists ****-up. He is spinning it to get it published. I quote: ' the motorcyclist was fully liable.'

 

[Smokin Joe]

I don't believe the accuracy of the report either. What if the rider had shattered his elbow? Elbow protectors are available for cyclists, yet I doubt if anyone could get out of paying compensation because the rider wasn't wearing any.

 

[Globalti]

Contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet!

Here: http://info.beachcroft.co.uk/ve/ZZ7230J72Cj62Bw73n

 

[User169]

Gotta love the comments from the solicitors' link:

"Whilst this was a first instance decision, the application of Froom v Butcher principles to the wearing of cycle helmets is a welcome development."

I don't suppose they'll find it so welcome when those principles get extended to pedestrians (or intrude on their skiing holidays).

 

[LLB]

"This High Court judgment confirms that a cyclist who fails to wear a helmet will be guilty of contributory negligence if the helmet would have prevented all of his injuries or made them a good deal less severe. "

So someone else causes the accident, and the cyclist carries some of the liability if not wearing a lid

 

[User169]

I quoted that part because it seems that someone has a grasp of the helmet argument -whether or not it would prevent all injuries or make them a good deal less severe.

It's an interesting one. If you were in a no-fault accident on your motorbike and were helmetless, would it not be fair that you only received compensation to the level of injury that would likely have been acquired had you been wearing one?

It is an interesting argument as you say MrP. This from the cyclists' defence fund:

"Further, the Froom argument was predicated on an acceptance that passengers ought to be wearing a seat belt – that it was negligent not to do so. Cyclists have powerful arguments to support a challenge to this initial assumption."

www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-law

 

[Wolf04]

Helmet Compulsion:- It begins

As reported on Bike Radar
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/court-judgment-has-major-implications-for-cyclists-20250

Thin end of the wedge!

 

[Cab]

Dreadful. This especially:

Dr Chinn's evidence was that neither S's actual helmet nor a modern one would have afforded him any protection from the injury sustained due the speed at which S hit the ground, in excess of 12 mph. The court accepted Dr Chinn's evidence on this basis. The judge recorded that both parties' failure to call expert medical evidence amounted to a "fundamental evidential omission". F would only be able to persuade a court that an injury would not have occurred or would not have been so serious with the support of expert medical evidence.

So... You'd have to prove that wearing the helmet wouldn't have helped much? That there isn't good evidence wearing an entirely optional accessory would have helped isn't enough?

Awful.

 

[BentMikey]

It seems very unlikely that that will stand for long. The evidence against such a stance is plenty strong enough.

 

[Cab]

It seems very unlikely that that will stand for long. The evidence against such a stance is plenty strong enough.

The evidence is plenty strong, but the perception that cycle helmets are undoubtedly worthwhile may be even stronger.

 

[asterix]

Defendants' solicitors will try whatever tactics they can to reduce payouts and spook out the claimant's side.

Bike Radar should know better than to fall for it. Maybe that's why it's a cycling site I have little to do with. (Don't think much of their product reviews either)

 

[Origamist]

The evidence is plenty strong, but the perception that cycle helmets are undoubtedly worthwhile may be even stronger.

If it goes to appeal, evidence will carry more weight than perception.