There is some new research on helmet compulsion which I thought some might find interesting. It seems that compulsion would result in greater health care costs....
magnatom said:There is some new research on helmet compulsion which I thought some might find interesting. It seems that compulsion would result in greater health care costs....
Alembicbassman said: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.
Alembicbassman said:From a legal standpoint not wearing a helmet would be considered as contributory negligence in a personal injury claim against a driver who caused you a head injury unles you could produce compelling medical evidence to the suggest a helmet would have made no difference, such expert witnesses would be very expensive.
Hairy Jock said:Can you actually point to a single case where this has happened? Car insurance company lawyers have tried it on a few times but it has never been proved in court...
MickL said:Here in Holland no one bothers with helmets, because you don't need them for normal cycling. If someone hits a cyclist with their car here they are absolutely crucified, whereas in the UK it is just considered an unfortunate accident.
MickL said:If they took a harder line with careless motorists who hit cyclists it would do far more to reduce head injuries than forcing people to wear helmets, with the added bonus that MORE people would get out there and start cycling."
FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:SHOULD does not mean MUST. A bit like where the HC which says cyclists SHOULD use cycle lanes. Also shame you missed this bit out of that cut and paste job from the CTC site.
Crankarm said:Badge of honour more like it .
Yep 100% agree. It is my belief, correct me if I'm wrong, congraulate me if I'm not , that in Holland when a car is incollision with a cyclist the presumption is that the driver was at fault/negligent and they have to prove they were not. Where as here in the UK the claimant, more often the cyclist, has to show that the driver was at fault/negligent. The driver doesn't have to establish anything merely rebutt what is put to him/her.
If there were a massive attitudinal change in UK to match the Dutch model then we could all cycle without helmets, without clothes even ; but that is never going to happen . So in the meantime move to Holland .