Mandatory Helmets?

[accountantpete]

Following the courts' decision to reduce the amount of damages awarded to an innocent cyclist because he was not wearing a helmet I am concerned that this is just another step towards the compulsory wearing of helmets.

I hope there is an appeal.

 

[dodgy]

Yes, fantastic! Another helmet thread!

 

[col]

I cant see how it would reduce the damages if there was no head injury. Unless the insurance company stipulates that a cyclist must wear a helmet to be insured by them, what about leg and arm injuries, will we be required to wear knee/ elbow pads too? Seems insurance companies go to great lengths to avoid paying out, this seems a ploy of that nature to me. And any good solicitor would stop this drop in damages, unless telling people they cant have as much money because they were doing something lawfull will work for them.

 

[yello]

Following the courts' decision to reduce the amount of damages awarded to an innocent cyclist because he was not wearing a helmet.

Was that the decision though? I thought damages were given at the full amount. I thought the judge accepted that the lack of a helmet made no difference in this particular accident but had remarked that they could/would/should in other cases. I also understand that those remarks are neither binding nor precedent.... I think a link was posted to a CTC article on this very subject.

 

[srw]

It's being discussed up in Commuting, where that CTC article was linked to.

The words storm and teacup spring to my mind.

 

[Blue]

Seems insurance companies go to great lengths to avoid paying out, .

It is their duty as custodians of the funds they administer to pay no more than they should when dealing with claims - otherwise everyones premiums would be even higher.

Let's face it - if they treated their funds like the banks treated theirs people would still be moaning.

 

[atbman]

Which case was this? The only one I'm aware of is that where the judge made a ruling on the general subject of contributory liability, but didn't do so in the case in front of him

 

[ufkacbln]

THe Jeep Grand Cherokee had the "distinction" of being the first vehicle to ever score zero onthe Euro NCappedestrian safety tests.

Should there be an increased liability and insurance for someone who buys a vehicle inthe full knowledge that it will cause more harm to others?

 

[byegad]

Was that the decision though? I thought damages were given at the full amount. I thought the judge accepted that the lack of a helmet made no difference in this particular accident but had remarked that they could/would/should in other cases. I also understand that those remarks are neither binding nor precedent.... I think a link was posted to a CTC article on this very subject.

That was my impression after listening to the Radio 4 report too!