Helmets and Compensation

[Origamist]

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)

Asterix, it's a bit more than that:

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

However, it's a first instance decision. What's more, in the case detailed the defence failed to prove that a helmet "would have prevented all of his injuries or made them a good deal less severe."

 

[mr_cellophane]

Mr Smith's helmet, which was about 20 years old

So much for change it every 2/3 years.

 

[thomas]

This isn't really anything new. If you don't wear a seatbelt when driving and crash you wouldn't get as full amount of compensation. However, as one is a legal requirement and one isn't, then some questions can be asked.

I have mixed thoughts about this. I think as it's not a legal requirement less of a fuss can be made about it.

 

[justAl]

Who decides what is "contributory negligence"? how do you argue against that? The insurance industry in this country is government backed theft.

 

[CotterPin]

This doesn't sound so bad to me (as someone who is in favour of people choosing whether they wear a helmet whilst cycling). If what is reported is true then the key part is in bold:

Cyclists who "expose themselves to a greater degree of injury" by not wearing a helmet can now be found to be negligent, even though it is not a legal requirement in the UK to wear head protection when cycling. However, for this to happen it would have to be proved – using medical and other evidence – that a helmet would have prevented all of their injuries or made them a good deal less severe.

As far as I can see in most cases a helmet will not protect you, eg travelling above twelve miles, how you land, etc. As each case comes forward it will therefore be shown that helmets offer minimal protection. In time it may become too hard for those who want to make helmets compulsory to argue their case - and they will have to start campaigning for real road safety such as measures to stop, as in this case, a motorcyclist overtaking a cyclist too close and at speed.

 

[hackbike 666]

(as someone who is in favour of people choosing whether they wear a helmet whilst cycling)


I have no problem with this,each to their own.It's a bit too much of a nanny state now.
Oh and another point,I may go out down the canal on a summers day and may not want to wear a helmet.Also I seem to remember in Bangkok I didn't wear a helmet at all.


As far as I can see in most cases a helmet will not protect you, eg travelling above twelve miles, how you land, etc. As each case comes forward it will therefore be shown that helmets offer minimal protection. In time it may become too hard for those who want to make helmets compulsory to argue their case - and they will have to start campaigning for real road safety such as measures to stop, as in this case, a motorcyclist overtaking a cyclist too close and at speed.

Any figures or is this a personal opinion based on what?

Yes I must admit a helmet has never done anything for me and long may it continue.It what I mean is I have never been in a situation where it has been called into action.

 

[magnatom]

This doesn't sound so bad to me (as someone who is in favour of people choosing whether they wear a helmet whilst cycling). If what is reported is true then the key part is in bold:


As far as I can see in most cases a helmet will not protect you, eg travelling above twelve miles, how you land, etc. As each case comes forward it will therefore be shown that helmets offer minimal protection. In time it may become too hard for those who want to make helmets compulsory to argue their case - and they will have to start campaigning for real road safety such as measures to stop, as in this case, a motorcyclist overtaking a cyclist too close and at speed.

Or there will be a campaign to limit cyclists to 12mph......

 

[User169]

This doesn't sound so bad to me (as someone who is in favour of people choosing whether they wear a helmet whilst cycling). If what is reported is true then the key part is in bold:


As far as I can see in most cases a helmet will not protect you, eg travelling above twelve miles, how you land, etc. As each case comes forward it will therefore be shown that helmets offer minimal protection. In time it may become too hard for those who want to make helmets compulsory to argue their case - and they will have to start campaigning for real road safety such as measures to stop, as in this case, a motorcyclist overtaking a cyclist too close and at speed.

You may well be right.

The thing that worries me is the emphasis put on "medical" evidence. I really don't see what a medic (if that's what's meant by medical evidence) could contribute since it seems to me essentially a question of engineering. Once you get medics in court giving evidence, pretty much anything can happen - none of it usually very sensible.

 

[John the Monkey]

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

+1

A very worrying development if it's as reported. We're well on our way to a society where Hi-Viz and reflectives will be sported by everyone not making their way to places by motor car, I think. (Saw a little lad so togged up in the local chippy recently, presumably for his walk there and back - what kind of a f*cked up country are we that that seems necessary because drivers couldn't give a toss about watching where they're going and reducing speed in poor visibility?)

 

[CotterPin]

(as someone who is in favour of people choosing whether they wear a helmet whilst cycling)


I have no problem with this,each to their own.It's a bit too much of a nanny state now.
Oh and another point,I may go out down the canal on a summers day and may not want to wear a helmet.Also I seem to remember in Bangkok I didn't wear a helmet at all.


As far as I can see in most cases a helmet will not protect you, eg travelling above twelve miles, how you land, etc. As each case comes forward it will therefore be shown that helmets offer minimal protection. In time it may become too hard for those who want to make helmets compulsory to argue their case - and they will have to start campaigning for real road safety such as measures to stop, as in this case, a motorcyclist overtaking a cyclist too close and at speed.

Any figures or is this a personal opinion based on what?

Yes I must admit a helmet has never done anything for me and long may it continue.

Well the first point is refered to in the story:

Helmet expert Dr Bryan Chinn examined Mr Smith's helmet, which was about 20 years old, and told the court that neither that model nor a more modern one would have prevented Mr Smith's injuries because he hit the ground in excess of 12mph.

And I have read similar evidence elsewhere. On the latter point I am probably on shakier ground providing supporting evidence but I am sure others will be able to help out here.

One issue that occurs to me is what will be the case if a cyclist wears an inadequately fitted helmet and they suffer an injury where the helmet could have helped if it had been worn correctly?

 

[jamesgibby]

Isn't there some evidence that wearing a helmet can increase the risk of some injuries, like neck injuries. If I am wearing a helmet and get a neck injury could they argue contributory negligence for wearing one?

 

[hackbike 666]

what kind of a f*cked up country are we that that seems necessary because drivers couldn't give a toss about watching where they're going and reducing speed in poor visibility?)

I think some of the driving out there could answer your question.

Isn't there some evidence that wearing a helmet can increase the risk of some injuries, like neck injuries. If I am wearing a helmet and get a neck injury could they argue contributory negligence for wearing one?

You don't have to wear one if these studies say so.The same sort of studies which tell us virtually every day that everything we eat will give us cancer.

 

[Arch]

Or there will be a campaign to limit cyclists to 12mph......

I can't go that fast all the time!

 

[magnatom]

I can't go that fast all the time!

 

[hackbike 666]

I can't go that fast all the time!

I know the feeling.