Why wearing a helmet could effect your legal status

[Mad at urage]

I have had 4 accidents in the last 12 months each of which caused serious damage to the helmet I was wearing at the time. That would have been 4 severe head injuries had my helmet not taken the impact. 'a piece of ineffective styrofoam' in my case I think not! Didn't stop arm, hip and hand injuries but I don't think dressing up in American football gear would help my cycling any

Did you have yourself checked for concussion each time?

 

[Red Light]

One thing that I'm not seeing in the report is the way the reduction was calculated. How much related to the dangerous cycling and how much to the lack of helmet.

Not easy to say - the case report does not seem to have made it to Bailli yet. Be interesting to see what the reasoning of the Judge was, who the expert witness was and what they said.

 

[twobiker]

The idea of compulsion is always going to be there, but its like Speed Cameras, if we didn't speed ,there would be no Cameras/cash machine, The people who feel that a helmet has saved them SHOUT about it more than the people who think it would not save them, so eventually like water dripping on a rock it will eventually force HMG to introduce compulsion.

 

[dellzeqq]

it's a lower court, isn't it?

 

[Norm]

I have had 4 accidents in the last 12 months each of which caused serious damage to the helmet I was wearing at the time. That would have been 4 severe head injuries had my helmet not taken the impact. 'a piece of ineffective styrofoam' in my case I think not!

I wonder how many you'd have had if you hadn't been wearing the ineffective Styrofoam. Thus also avoiding the injuries to the hip, arm etc

 

[Red Light]

it's a lower court, isn't it?

The Guardian says it was a High Court case and the High Court sets precedents on the High Court and all lower Courts unless and until its overturned by the Court of Appeal. That is if its in the ratio decidendi part of the judgement.

 

[david k]

Because apparently you are not entitled, as being anti compulsion is unreasonable and unacceptable

The logic is this:

This is applying your logic, are you now claiming you have a different view on it? Its difficult to keep up with your ever changing views and angles

 

[david k]

The article misses the point totally!!

He was according to the article cycling dangerously.

Therein lies the real issue. Wearing a helmet would not have made him any safer.

A helmet is not designed to make people cycle safer, just as a seat belt is not designed to make you drive safer. Their intention is to prevent or reduce injury should a fall or crash happen.

You claim people not wearing helmets therefore cycle safer, that was not the case in this instance as he was cycling dangerously, therefore the link between helmet wearing and more risk is not apparent in this case.

If as you say wearing a helmet would not have made a difference to how he cycled, the claim of cycling less dangerously without a helmet argument is flawed.

 

[ufkacbln]

This is applying your logic, are you now claiming you have a different view on it? Its difficult to keep up with your ever changing views and angles

The logic, my old fruit is not mine - the claim is yours!

I have remained clear.

1. I have no problem with whether people wear helmets of not
2. I believe that they should be able to make that choice with a full knowledge of the pros and cons
3. I do not believe in compulsion
4. I do have a problem with people making stupid and irresponsible claims about their efficiency and will challenge those claims

The problem only arises when you get people with the attitude that anyone who dares to question these irresponsible claims or is not fully behind the agenda of compulsion hates people who wear helmets and is anti-helmet.

 

[ufkacbln]

A helmet is not designed to make people cycle safer, just as a seat belt is not designed to make you drive safer. Their intention is to prevent or reduce injury should a fall or crash happen.

He was riding dangerously, the helmet would not have made his actions any safer. It is the unsafe cycling that led to the accident -had he been cycling in a safer manner then the chances are the accident would not have happened. The fortunate thing here is that no-one else was seriously hurt.

You claim people not wearing helmets therefore cycle safer, that was not the case in this instance as he was cycling dangerously, therefore the link between helmet wearing and more risk is not apparent in this case.

Where was this claim made in that post??

That is your assumption and entirely your misinterpretation.

The post is clear - he was cycling dangerously and this contributed to the accident.... he was dangerous, and a hazard to himself and others whether he was wearing a helmet, a tutu or a clown outfit!

If as you say wearing a helmet would not have made a difference to how he cycled, the claim of cycling less dangerously without a helmet argument is flawed.

I said nothing of the sort... this is another misinterpretation.

 

[ufkacbln]

A little more information:

On another website, there is a post from a "local" who reports that in fact this guy tried to block anther rider by cutting across him, misjudged it and hitthe other rider.

So entirely down to the stupidity of this rider. As above, the saving grace is that there are no reports that the other rider was seriously injured

 

[Ian 74]

company day out company pay the out..... whipping up employees into a competitive frenzy what not they are about to get somewhat over enthusiastic...

 

[ufkacbln]

company day out company pay the out..... whipping up employees into a competitive frenzy what not they are about to get somewhat over enthusiastic...

Also comes back to the basics of primary and secondary assessment

Primary - is the activity safe, are the participants suitably trained and competent and are they properly briefed as to the hazards. Then a system to audit and insure that this is exactly what is practiced

Secondary - Where the above fails then consider PPE


Once again we have the jump to PPE and absolutely no regard whatsoever for the primary prevention.

I bet this Company is laughing their socks off at having their negligence and failure whitewashed.

 

[Davidc]

I wear one of the silly things to avoid complaints from family members.

I am in little doubt that had I been wearing one years ago when I came off at 40 mph in a collision in Bristol's Bridge Valley Road I would either be dead, possibly decapitated, or have suffered severe brain stem damage. I can't prove that any more than any of the "Helmet Saved Me" group can prove their claims, but as my head simultaneously touched the ground and underside of the car as it went under it you can work out what a helmet would have done. Fortunately no-one had thought of cycle helmets back then so I walked away afterwards with a nasty graze and repaired the bike next day. That was the worst incident I've ever had on a bike.

If compulsion comes in I will await the government being sued when someone else is killed in a similar incident.

In the meantime I've given in and wear one except when it's too hot to do so, but I have no illusions over the stupidity of doing so.

 

[JonnyBlade]

I wonder how many you'd have had if you hadn't been wearing the ineffective Styrofoam. Thus also avoiding the injuries to the hip, arm etc

Just the one I think!!!! The first one