In all the cases involving riding on the road the Courts have not found a cyclist to blame for not wearing a helmet although the precedent is set that they could be if the defendant could prove it would have made a difference. There has been one case where damages were reduced because the cyclist was not wearing a helmet but that was in a competitive race at a company away-day, not riding on the road with traffic.
Police Acknowledge Drivers at Fault - So Hand Out Hi-Viz!
- Thread starter simon.r
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
In all the cases involving riding on the road the Courts have not found a cyclist to blame for not wearing a helmet although the precedent is set that they could be if the defendant could prove it would have made a difference. There has been one case where damages were reduced because the cyclist was not wearing a helmet but that was in a competitive race at a company away-day, not riding on the road with traffic.
Boris Bajic
Guest
OK. I'll try to say why. I might add that a coroner wouldn't have posted as you did.
The notion I find risible is the one that there is a steady erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users. I will try to explain why.
First, I find the language slightly melodramatic and (in this contecxt) unhelpful. I have some knowledge of areas where rights have been eroded. I do not find this to be one of them. It's a pretty serious thing to write and I find it a little over-egged. You may disagree.
Secondly, I find it inaccurate. I am a frequently-helmetless and always-enthusiastic cyclist. I am what you might refer to as a vulnerable road user, but by choice. I do not feel that I have any fewer rights as a cyclist than I did ten, twenty, thirty or forty years ago. Nor do I find that those rights I enjoy have been narrowed in scope or somehow lessened.
If I'd felt (or observed) that there had been any diminution in the rights of cyclists over the decades, I would not have encouraged my three children to ride. They ride both in Central London and the sticks. I would be a cruel man if I encouraged that behaviour against a background of diminishing rights.
I find most other road users to be courteous, skilled and thoughtful. I have no more 'close passes' or 'near things' now than I did in any of the earlier decades when I was riding. It is not ideal, but it has not changed.
I've been hit many times by other road users and on occasion the emergency services have attended. The last one was a couple of years ago. A little old lady caught me as she came out of a supermarket. I thought she's seen me but she swept out behind me as I passed and took my rear wheel. I was hurt and was at the scene for a long time. Both the police officer and the ambulance crew who attended noted that I was helmetless. Nonetheless, they could see that the collision was not my fault in any way. My rights were not being eroded. My health and wellbeing were being addressed and comment I disagreed with was offered.
I do not know a single cyclist (and I know many) who has told me that his or her rights as a vulnerable road user are being eroded.
That's why I find the notion risible. I may be wrong. Most poster ask me for less comment and explanation, not more.
Sara_H
Guru
The point is - it the fact that you were helmetless shouldn't even be comment worthy - the fact that it is, by coroners, police, press and the public at large indicates an undercurrent that in some way a helmetless rider has contributed to their own msfortune - when of course they haven't.
I see us going the same way with hiviz.
I see us going the same way with hiviz.
Boris Bajic
Guest
I see that you and others think that way and I find it a very reasonable notion as you put it. I disagree, but I may be wrong.
I have little doubt that in tenty years (if I get that far) I'll be riding quite legally along the same roads, similarly helmetless and Hi-Viz-less and attracting no more or fewer wry comments than I do today, or than I have for the past several years.
I think that by then there will be fewer cars and more cyclists, but that as a function of our failing economy and the rising cost of fuel.
Absolutely. You don't expect "you should have had your sidelights on" or "you weren't wearing a nomex suit" comments when you get hit in a car.
I'm confused, you've still ignored my question about the coroner's comments? What would your opinion of the coroner's comments be, especially as they could have implications for your insurance payout were you to suffer injuries on a helmetless ride? In other words, why is the onus placed on cyclists in accidents to take measures that would protect car occupants just as much?
How much was your insurance payout in the incident you described, by the way? Are you saying your lack of a helmet wasn't cited? Did you have a head injury?
How much was your insurance payout in the incident you described, by the way? Are you saying your lack of a helmet wasn't cited? Did you have a head injury?
MrHappyCyclist
Riding the Devil's HIghway
- Location
- Bolton, England
"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."
Good grief. By that logic, if I were walking along and a car mounted the pavement and hit me, I could be considered negligent if I weren't wearing one of these:
It would likely (on the balance of probabilities) have prevented my injuries!
Boris Bajic
Guest
1. I didn't intentionally ignore your questions. I thought I'd addressed them. I do not know the full version of the coroner's comments. I do not know where the emphasis lay in his comments. The point about the blind spot on a bicycle caused by a box or similar seemed rhetorical and out of context.
2. As I cycle without a helmet, I dare say a coroner would question that at an inquest if I were to be severely or terminally bashed up in an RTC. One of the reasons I rarely wear a helmet is that I've never suffered a serious head injury while performing an unplanned dismount from a bicycle. I've had a few facial bashes and still have scars from over a decade ago, but nothing that a helmet would have helped with. I'm not sure why you ask this.
3. Thje onus isn't placed on cyclists to take measures that would protect car occupants just as much. Some judges and coroners have commented on the absence or presence of a helmet in a collision.
4. I didn't seek a pay-out for medical care. I had my bicycle fixed and got a new face for my watch and new sunglasses. I still have a weak right shoulder and some discomfort when lifting above my head, but for me that's all part of getting middle aged. I had no head injury. It didn't go to court. I was sent a form by the constabulary asking whether I'd support a prosecution and I said I wouldn't. She wasn't prosecuted, although I imagine mine was not the decicive opinion.
If you want a fuller answer to your question about the coroner's comments, I'll be happy to oblige if you repeat for me. This is a long thread and I've slightly lost the plot.
Recycler
Well-Known Member
I'd be curious to know what rights have really been reduced for cyclists.
As far as I can see, if anything, we have more rights than a few years ago. We certainly have more access with the growth of off-highway cycle paths, we have greater provision of cycle lanes, we have protected areas at traffic lights. We even have tax savings thought the CTW scheme. None of this was available not so many years ago. We now even have a political will to encourage cycling and many companies actively support it too. During that time we have had no compulsory licencing, training, insurance or even compulsory crash helmets and high-viz despite the increases in road traffic.
The only thing that I can think has changed, and some people seem to think is a retrograde step, is that crash helmets and high viz are now available (30 years ago they hardly existed) and the Highway Code now recommends their use.
As far as I can see, if anything, we have more rights than a few years ago. We certainly have more access with the growth of off-highway cycle paths, we have greater provision of cycle lanes, we have protected areas at traffic lights. We even have tax savings thought the CTW scheme. None of this was available not so many years ago. We now even have a political will to encourage cycling and many companies actively support it too. During that time we have had no compulsory licencing, training, insurance or even compulsory crash helmets and high-viz despite the increases in road traffic.
The only thing that I can think has changed, and some people seem to think is a retrograde step, is that crash helmets and high viz are now available (30 years ago they hardly existed) and the Highway Code now recommends their use.
What would you think if you collided with and killed a pedestrian whilst cycling a cargo bike with a blind spot. You claimed the notion that cyclists' rights were eroded was "risible", so I'm asking what response you'd expect if you offered the "blind spot" excuse. Do you think this would be the result?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...ead-cyclist-svitlana-tereschenko-7711231.html
We both you your excuse would not be accepted. Unless you are claiming you would be let off without a single charge in the incident described I can't see how you think there isnothing wrong with how the justice system treats deaths on the roads.
Boris Bajic
Guest
Sir ,
You've twice suggested in this thread that I'm a troll. I have no idea why.
I continue to find risible the notion that the rights of vulnerable road users have been (and are being) eroded.
I find the hypothetical cargo-bike scenario you present unusual.
I do not for a moment suggest that there is nothing wrong with how the justice system treats deaths on the roads (this with no reference to the case you cite). Far from it. I doubt whether there is a road user alive who finds it perfect in all respects. What I suggest is that your assertion about the erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users is risible.
In order for an erosion of rights to have occured, those rights must have started at a certain level and dropped to a lower level over time. I find that they have not. I think my position as a vulnerable road user is rather stronger than it was forty, thirty, twenty and even ten years ago. Things could be better, but there has been no erosion.
You appear to believe that there has been. I wish you well.
Sir ,
You've twice suggested in this thread that I'm a troll. I have no idea why.
I continue to find risible the notion that the rights of vulnerable road users have been (and are being) eroded.
I find the hypothetical cargo-bike scenario you present unusual.
I do not for a moment suggest that there is nothing wrong with how the justice system treats deaths on the roads (this with no reference to the case you cite). Far from it. I doubt whether there is a road user alive who finds it perfect in all respects. What I suggest is that your assertion about the erosion of the rights of vulnerable road users is risible.
In order for an erosion of rights to have occured, those rights must have started at a certain level and dropped to a lower level over time. I find that they have not. I think my position as a vulnerable road user is rather stronger than it was forty, thirty, twenty and even ten years ago. Things could be better, but there has been no erosion.
You appear to believe that there has been. I wish you well.
What's your view on the coroner's remarks in my hypothecation please?
Fourth time, I know you think my contention is risible so presumably you accept that there should have been no charges in Svitlana's tragic death. Ignoring points is what trolls do, why do you keep ignoring this point?
How come? Isn't the fact that a driver can be chatting on a mobile and fail to see someone nine feet in front of them and run them over and kill them and face no charges anomalous?
Twenty years ago mobile phones were uncommon, they're a recent development and the law hasn't caught up with their use, I see drivers who are as distracted and dangerous as if they were drunk every day, chatting on mobiles whilst driving. You didn't see that twenty years ago. And judging from the comparison of the number of drivers who admit using a mobile whilst driving with the number of convictions and we seem to be barely responding to the problem, only around 4% of these criminals are detected.
So, what you'll have to do is explain why drivers on mobiles do not pose a risk and do not make the roads more dangerous. Good luck with that.
Boris Bajic
Guest
What I'll have to do is not a matter for you. 
You and I might both need to get out a little more.
You and I might both need to get out a little more.
Ok, that's the fifth time you've dodged the question, but you're not a troll, mmmkay.
Cycling is more popular, more people are doing it, it's been pushed up the political agenda, but pretending there isn't a powerful lobby group working against cycling is naive. We have a few beardies from the CTC or Cycle England or whatever, they have the motoring lobby group, insurers and politicians like the fat idiot Mike Penning and his highly dodgy ant-cycling views. They also have the IAM, I'm sure you saw their recent dodgy survey that demonises cyclists.
Cycling is more popular, more people are doing it, it's been pushed up the political agenda, but pretending there isn't a powerful lobby group working against cycling is naive. We have a few beardies from the CTC or Cycle England or whatever, they have the motoring lobby group, insurers and politicians like the fat idiot Mike Penning and his highly dodgy ant-cycling views. They also have the IAM, I'm sure you saw their recent dodgy survey that demonises cyclists.
Boris Bajic
Guest
OK. Answer on the way. I don't want to get sucked into discussions about articles you've mentioned since asking the question. Each case is different.
It is hard to guess what a hypothetical coroner might have to say about a hypothetical and highly unlikely situation the like of which I've never witnessed. I'll have a go:
1. If I could demonstrate that the pedestrian was in a blind spot while I was riding with a safe load and the visibility I could expect to have if riding within the safe-loading parameters set by the manufacturer, I would expect a coroner to include that in his decision.
2. I do not think the fictional coroner would speak as you ask in his fictional comment. I'd already said in the thread that I found some comments from judges or coroners about cycle helmets unhelpful and inappropriate.
I fully accept that some road users put other road users at risk. I'm a cyclist; I frequently see drivers in traffic tapping away at an SMS on their lap. What I do not accept is that the rights of vulerable road users are being eroded.
