Research into helmet compulsion

[summerdays]

But there is no evidence that if she had been wearing a helmet it would have made any difference. Donald Dewar tripped and banged his head while walking, but one goes around saying he wouldn't have died if had being wearing a helmet...

It is just irrational, to suggest that everyone who has suffered a head injury should have been wearing a helmet...

I should of made my 8 yo keep his on when after he came back from school yesterday... he did fell over a wall and landed head first on tarmac whilst playing. Hopefully he will have learnt to show the wall a bit more respect.

I was a bit worried this morning when he chose to sleep in by 20 mins which he never ever does.

I do think that a change in the law would be of more benifit than helmets in protecting cyclists and other road users too (I presume the law in Holland applies to pedestrians too?).

 

[semislickstick]

I've cycled around The Hague/ Delft/ Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and a few smaller places, and it's much more pleasant than here with a culture which sees cycling as a normal means of transport and cyclists as being superior beings to motorists! You even get motorists hooting and gesticulating at peds for walking in cycle lanes (which is also illegal I believe)

Yes, late at night after a concert in Amsterdam I walked in a cycle path to avoid building work on the path and got very grumpy cyclists telling me off for something, I assumed it was being in their lane....but it was in Dutch, they weren't happy but they could have been saying anything! I haven't done it since! (plus you have to watch for Scooters using them)
It's good that they stand up and make a point of protecting the lane's use.

 

[MartinC]

Since most PI claims are settled out of court it's unlikely there'll be a imminent ruling on contributory neglignece regarding the wearing of helmets.

In all the cases where this issue has been contested in court no-one has yet won a reduction damages for contributory negligence by not wearing a helmet.

In a recent case (google for it) a Judge ruled that it could be contibutory negligence if the defendant could show that the helmet would've made a difference. He rejected the contributory negligence claim in the case before him. An expert witness would struggle to show that a helmet could've made a difference anyway. More specifically it's also generally accepted that cycle helmets can't protect you in a collision with a motor vehicle or when travelling at more than 12mph - in effect this means that the Judge has more or less precluded the contributory negligence argument in any motor vehicle accident.

The idea that damages will be reduced, or that these cases have never or never will go to court is untrue and is just baseless scaremongering.

 

[MartinC]

"If running the contributory negligence argument as a Defendant, support may be taken from Royal Mail who since October 2003 have required their 37,000 cycling postmen and women to wear helmets. This move was called for following the deaths of 5 cycling post workers in the 3 years up to 2001."

The Royal Mail rescinded this requirement shortly afterwards. It's no longer in place. Not a helpful precedent if you want to argue contributory negligence.

 

[Bollo]

Remember that insurers will use helmet arguments and contributory negligence as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the injured party. Its about horse trading, not the law.

When I was hit in 2007, the driver's insurers tried the helmet argument despite me suffering no head injuries. They also tried to reduce the claim based on the fact that I wasn't wearing Hi-Viz (remember that hi-viz is another HC 'should') even though it was a bright sunny day, I was wearing a light top and I was clearly visible to the driver - he just failed to look. I instructed my solicitor that I would fight any argument based on contributrary negligence. His insurers accepted that their gambit wasn't going to change anything and caved for the full amount.

While a claim is being settled out of court, its a free for all and insurers on both sides will try it on using arguments both fair and foul. Ultimately they're interested in minimising their exposure. Morality, fairness and legal precident have nothing to do with it until the case hits a court where, up until now at least, helmet cases have been thrown out.

 

[very-near]

I have emailed http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/ this morning as they test and rate motorcycle helmets asking whether they have plans to test cycle hats to offer a rating on them also. Whether I get a favourable response is anyone's guess though..

 

[Alembicbassman]

In a recent case (google for it) a Judge ruled that it could be contibutory negligence if the defendant could show that the helmet would've made a difference. He rejected the contributory negligence claim in the case before him.

Granted, if you broke a leg a helmet would not have helped, or if the car ran over your skull.

The wearing of a helmet is to mitigate head injuries, so the case has to be one involving a head injury where 'on the balance of probabilities' a helmet would have had an effect on the outcome.

If the insurers persuade the court 51% to 49% that a helmet would have reduced the injury then you lose.

Each case turns on its own merits, that's why legal teams have a right of rebuttal when a previous judgment is used as a precedent in any case brought.

 

[HJ]

That is just more scaremongering... it would be very hard to show that 'on the balance of probabilities' a helmet would have had an effect on the outcome give the body of evidence out there that cycle helmets proved little protection in the first place...

The real problem is the laws in this country make cyclist second class citizens. Traffic regulations and laws are very different in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany compared to the UK. Motorists are generally required to anticipate the movements of cyclists and avoid potentially dangerous situations. Further, unless it can be proved that a cyclist deliberately caused a crash, motorists are held legally responsible for most collisions. Traffic regulations covering all road users are in general more rigorously enforced than in the UK ensuring greater compliance among both cyclists and motorists. It is likely that this approach to traffic regulations helps to increase the real and perceived safety of cycling, thus addressing one of the most frequently stated barriers to cycling...

 

[Tynan]

same tired old nonsense

the helemt protects up to 12mph or whatever and then suddenlt offers no protection? yeah ok

and falling/coming off a bike is not the same level of risk as falling over while walking or scootering, you;re far more liable to go down hard, that bike will trip you up and stop you recovering as you fall

why bother with these threads, it's so bloody old by now surely?

 

[Dan B]

Kinetic energy in a collision doubles between 12mph and 17mph, so while I doubt that it "suddenly" offers no protection, the protective ability does trail off pretty rapidly ...

Coming off a bike is not the same level of risk as falling over while walking, but for ordinary utility cycling the two are both unlikely enough that the need for a helmet in either case is pretty debatable.

 

[ufkacbln]

Even a low speed head injury can be fatal, e.g. Natasha Richardson's skiing accident. A British Standard helmet is less than £20 (I got a Bell Venture from Amazon for £18.47) Granted, it will not protect in all accidents, but head injuries are very complex. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Once again - that is the reason why the group that suffers the most head injuries should wear them...............Pedestrians.

 

[4F]

Once again - that is the reason why the group that suffers the most head injuries should wear them...............Pedestrians.

Cunobelin, welcome to the thread

 

[ufkacbln]

I have emailed http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/ this morning as they test and rate motorcycle helmets asking whether they have plans to test cycle hats to offer a rating on them also. Whether I get a favourable response is anyone's guess though..

There is no interest....

Helmets have become less and less eficient over the last ten years, and the standards "dumbed down" to suit fashion.

As you increase the number of vents you decrease tha amount of material available to absorb energy and aslo have to "stiffen" the remainder. his increased density further compromises theit effectiveness.

The "Gold Standard" of (both cycle and motorcycle helmets) - Snell Foundation testing used to be the B95, and there are now NO helmets on the UK market that can pass this test and a few which will pass the lower B90

THe much inferior EN1078 allows these inefficient helmets to be marketed with an illusion of safety that many people simply accept.

 

[Bollo]

There is no interest....

Helmets have become less and less eficient over the last ten years, and the standards "dumbed down" to suit fashion.

I've nothing other than anecdote to support this, but I'd heard that the helmet manufacturers lobbied hard when a European standard was proposed to water it down in order to keep production and testing costs low and margins high.

 

[Baggy]

It hasn't. It's scaremongering and FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) which is one of the main reasons people decide to wear a helmet. That and the belief that it must only help prevent injuries and couldn't possibly make otherwise innocuous injuries worse (google: cycle helmet torsional neck injury).

Don't get me wrong, I'll never criticise someone for wearing a helmet. It's their choice and I'm pro-choice. Under most circumstances I'll chose not to, sometimes I do. I just hate (yes hate) people who blather on about someone being "stupid" for not wearing one.

Greenbank, thank you for expressing this so well.

I'm sick to death of being told that I "really should wear a helmet", particularly when it comes from someone who last went near a bike when they sneaked behind the shed for a ciggie inbetween lessons...