Police Acknowledge Drivers at Fault - So Hand Out Hi-Viz!

[Boris Bajic]

http://road.cc/content/news/34847-c...ree-cars-should-have-worn-helmet-says-coroner

Thanks. That was illuminating.

In this case (as far as one can tell through the unusual jounalistic style of the writer) the coroner made no link between the absence of a helmet and the causes of the collisions or his decision on same. He noted that the rider was helmetless and made some comments on the topic. This was not linked to his decision on the causes of the collisions.

The deceased appears not to have been blamed and his not wearing a helmet appears in no way to have affected the coroner's decision on culpability.

In that sense, the link you provided doesn't match your earlier statement: "...we've already seen motorists/police/judges/coroners using the "he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument to shift the blame in serious accidents involving cyclists"

I'd be very happy (in my ignorance) to read of a case in the UK where what I quote in red is shown to be the case. I suspect there is no such case, but I am wrong about most things.

 

[Sara_H]

Thanks. That was illuminating.

In this case (as far as one can tell through the unusual jounalistic style of the writer) the coroner made no link between the absence of a helmet and the causes of the collisions or his decision on same. He noted that the rider was helmetless and made some comments on the topic. This was not linked to his decision on the causes of the collisions.

The deceased appears not to have been blamed and his not wearing a helmet appears in no way to have affected the coroner's decision on culpability.

In that sense, the link you provided doesn't match your earlier statement: "...we've already seen motorists/police/judges/coroners using the "he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument to shift the blame in serious accidents involving cyclists"

I'd be very happy (in my ignorance) to read of a case in the UK where what I quote in red is shown to be the case. I suspect there is no such case, but I am wrong about most things.

I read it very differently to you - but probably because I'm reading between the lines - I personally think that whats insinuated is as important a\s what is actually said.

 

[dawesome]

Unless you think a helmet offers protection from a car running you over at 40mph the comments about helmets are completely irrelevant. The coroner said:

​

I do feel wearing a helmet would have increased Mr Honour’s chances of survival.​

Which is a load of old trousers. I think you're trolling boris.

 

[Dan B]

Has there been a case in the UK where blame has been shifted in part or in whole onto the cycling party in a collision on the bsais that he/she was not wearing a helmet?

Not to my knowledge, but we're getting there:

This High Court case concerned the liability for the serious injuries suffered by Robert Smith, a cyclist, following a collision with a motorbike ridden by Michael Finch.

The judge ruled that Finch was liable for the injuries sustained by Smith. He also ruled against an award of “contributory negligence” against Smith, as claimed by Finch, (which could have lead to a reduction in the compensation award to Smith by up to 15%) on the grounds that Smith had not been wearing a cycle helmet acknowledging that a helmet worn by Smith could not have been expected to prevent the particular injuries he suffered.

However in making this ruling, Mr Justice Griffith also commented that cyclists who are not wearing helmets when they suffer head injuries should in principle be held liable for those injuries if it can be shown (on the balance of probabilities) that a helmet would have prevented them.

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org....ing-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence

It should be noted that far more cases are settled out of court than ever get there, and "you weren't wearing a helmet" is a pretty standard gambit for insurance companies to knock a significant percentage off their offer.

 

[benb]

Not to my knowledge, but we're getting there:

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org....ing-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence

It should be noted that far more cases are settled out of court than ever get there, and "you weren't wearing a helmet" is a pretty standard gambit for insurance companies to knock a significant percentage off their offer.

That makes me so angry. If someone was shot in a robbery, would they be liable for contributory negligence because they weren't wearing a bulletproof vest?

 

[Boris Bajic]

Which is a load of old trousers. I think you're trolling boris.

I'm not. I was querying a post that said "...we've already seen motorists/police/judges/coroners using the "he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument to shift the blame in serious accidents involving cyclists".

The coroner made that comment you offer, but it was not connected with the decision of the coroner in terms of blame or culpability for the collisions. It was an additional comment.

I do not defend the coroner or attempt to validate his comments. I simply separate them (as he did) from any attempt to shift the blame.

Dan B has understood the essence of my query and said he believes there is no such case. His argument that we are 'getting there' is well made.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Not to my knowledge, but we're getting there:

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org....ing-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence

It should be noted that far more cases are settled out of court than ever get there, and "you weren't wearing a helmet" is a pretty standard gambit for insurance companies to knock a significant percentage off their offer.

This was an interesting read. I note that in both Smith/Finch and Jorgensen/Moor, the issue of helmets did not affect the verdict.

In the latter case, the absence of a helmet was offered and accepted in mitigation, which I find puzzling and up to a point wrong-headed.

I can well see why the comment (I paraphrase) in Smith/Finch was made by the judge that failure to wear a helmet may be seen as a contributary factor where injuries can be shown on balancce of probability to result from same. I disagree with it, but I disagree with most major decisions made by most UK Governments for most of my adult life.

What is significant to me is that in neither case is there an argument made that the absence of a helmet affected the decision on blame. I've said too much on this topic now (meaning I'll try to restrict myself to no more than seven further posts and only four mentions of my time as a motorcycle courier).

 

[dawesome]

The coroner made that comment you offer, but it was not connected with the decision of the coroner in terms of blame or culpability for the collisions. It was an additional comment.

Read it again. Where does the coroner lay the emphasis?

This is a steady erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users, shiny hi vis or helmets or ipods or age or youth or anything you can think of can be attributed a mythical status in discussing deaths on the roads so that a wistful "if only" scenario can be imagined where everyone's swaddled in cushions like a sumo wrestler every time they venture near the roads. It's a misplaced emphasis, the single most important factor in making roads safer is addressing driver behaviour,not peds or cyclists. Suppose you were cycling to work with a box in your front pannier and you hit an elderly person, killing them. In court, you say "They were in my blind spot!" Do you think the coroner would waffle on a load of old squit about how the pedestrian should have been wearing a plastic hat? After all, quite a large number of pedestrians' lives could be saved!

 

[Dan B]

I can well see why the comment (I paraphrase) in Smith/Finch was made by the judge that failure to wear a helmet may be seen as a contributary factor where injuries can be shown on balancce of probability to result from same.

OK, I'll bite. If I were carrying a ladder down the pavement and, on turning round when a friend called my name, accidentally smacked you in the mouth with it causing you to lose a tooth, should your failure to wear a gum shield be regarded as a contributory factor? I would wager (although I would not wager very much) that you - and the judge - would regard this as an unusual event which you could not reasonably have mitigated against and find entirely in your favour.

Given that the risk of head injury in normal everyday cycling is roughly comparable to walking - i.e. basically negligible - why should the situation be any different for protective headwear than protective dental wear? The cyclist is not doing anything inherently risky, it's the idiot with the ladder analogy that brings the danger

 

[benb]

OK, I'll bite. If I were carrying a ladder down the pavement and, on turning round when a friend called my name, accidentally smacked you in the mouth with it causing you to lose a tooth, should your failure to wear a gum shield be regarded as a contributory factor? I would wager (although I would not wager very much) that you - and the judge - would regard this as an unusual event which you could not reasonably have mitigated against and find entirely in your favour.

Given that the risk of head injury in normal everyday cycling is roughly comparable to walking - i.e. basically negligible - why should the situation be any different for protective headwear than protective dental wear? The cyclist is not doing anything inherently risky, it's the idiot with the ladder analogy that brings the danger

True dat (as the kids say)

 

[Boris Bajic]

OK, I'll bite. If I were carrying a ladder down the pavement and, on turning round when a friend called my name, accidentally smacked you in the mouth with it causing you to lose a tooth, should your failure to wear a gum shield be regarded as a contributory factor? I would wager (although I would not wager very much) that you - and the judge - would regard this as an unusual event which you could not reasonably have mitigated against and find entirely in your favour.

Given that the risk of head injury in normal everyday cycling is roughly comparable to walking - i.e. basically negligible - why should the situation be any different for protective headwear than protective dental wear? The cyclist is not doing anything inherently risky, it's the idiot with the ladder analogy that brings the danger

I cannot advisie you on placing bets.

Strangely, you cut from my post the sentence immediately following the passage you quoted.

The whole paragraph reads:

I can well see why the comment (I paraphrase) in Smith/Finch was made by the judge that failure to wear a helmet may be seen as a contributary factor where injuries can be shown on balancce of probability to result from same. I disagree with it, but I disagree with most major decisions made by most UK Governments for most of my adult life.

I highlighted in red my disagreement with the comment. I said only that I could see why the judge made it.

What I do see is a tendency in some quarters for some establishment figures to make unusual and occasionally inappropriate mention of the absence of protective headgear following an RTC.

What I do not see is dawesome's "steady erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users" or Sarah-H's "motorists/police/judges/coroners using the "he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument to shift the blame in serious accidents involving cyclists".

I realise that I may be in a tiny minority on this, but I write as a keen (usually helmetless) cyclist and the father of three keen teenage cyclists. I find some of the language and arguments offered in this debate slightly melodramatic.

I've been cycling for forty years (London and rural Herefordshire) and have suffered no steady erosion of my rights. Nor, when I or anyone I know has been walloped by a car when helmetless, has any authority or insurer tried to shift the blame in my direction.

I do find the judge's comments unusual and I do disagree with them. Nonetheless, I can see why he spoke as he did.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Read it again. Where does the coroner lay the emphasis?

I've read it again. It is not the coroner's report; it is the report of an inquest as published on an online cyclists' website.

It is not clear where the coroner lay the emphasis.

I accept that I may be wrong in my blindness to the steady erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users that you detect. I find the notion risible, but I may be wrong and can live with that if I am.

I have been wrong many times.

 

[Dan B]

For the avoidance of doubt, is "I can see why he spoke as he did" being used here to mean "he is holding a defensible position but not one that I agree with" or "I can see that he must be ill-informed on this subject"? I interpreted your comment to mean the former, but it now occurs to me that you might simply be assuming that the judge was an idiot and that his comment was entirely explicable in that light - in which case we are much closer to agreement

 

[dawesome]

I find the notion risible

Why don't you forget the whimsy and stupid smileys and say why. Otherwise there's not much point. Just saying "That's risible" is trolling. What would you think of a coroner who made the comments I posted?

 

[Boris Bajic]

For the avoidance of doubt, is "I can see why he spoke as he did" being used here to mean "he is holding a defensible position but not one that I agree with" or "I can see that he must be ill-informed on this subject"? I interpreted your comment to mean the former, but it now occurs to me that you might simply be assuming that the judge was an idiot and that his comment was entirely explicable in that light - in which case we are much closer to agreement

Gosh. I disagree with his comments. I was explicit in saying so more than once.

Nonetheless, I accept that he may have made them as a result of drawing on sources that I may not weight as he weights them. I cannot say what his thinking is; I can only comment on what is quoted of what he said.

I do not find him an idiot. In my estimation, he is wrong on this point.

He may not be ill-informed; he may simply think in a way that differs from our thinking or he may choose his sources as selectively as many of us do.