A recent court ruling said that cyclists who do not wear helmets will be eligible for less compensation because they are partly at fault for not taking protective measures.
The ruling, by Mr Justice Griffith Williams, came in a case brought by 29-year-old Robert Smith who was knocked off his bike by a speeding motorcyclist in Brightlingsea, Essex in 2005. Mr Smith, who was not at fault, sustained a serious brain injury.
But the judge ruled: “There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to risk of greater injury.” He added that, in some cases, “any injury sustained may be the cyclist’s own fault”
In this case compensation was not reduced because the judge accepted evidence that a helmet would not have made any difference because of the speed of travel. Evidence suggests cycle helmets are most effective at low speed less than 12mph.
Alot has been made of this ruling and the CTC have said they will challenge the ruling in court. As some have pointed out, pedestrians and even car passengers could have injuries reduced if they wore helmets whilst walking or travelling in a car.
I don’t agree with the ruling, but, it doesn’t sound a back door to making helmets compulsory.It suggested compensation payments may be reduced by 15%.
I have previously written on whether cycle helmets should be made compulsory so I won’t go through the arguments again.
WestfieldWanderer – I personally don’t think you can take the view that “I cycle on pavements because car drivers are aggressive”. I have no problem with Children on pavements but the vast majority of adults who ride on pavements do so because they are impatient and feel that they have some right to continuously move forward and not have to wait in a queue of traffic.
I agree that many drivers are very agressive. I got told my a driver this morning to get off the road and onto a cycle path. This was in Richmond Park were I was riding with a friend. The cycle path was actually the footpath. I was going 18 mph and the speed limit in RP is 20mph but I was still holding her up so I got an ear full. But that does not give me the right to become aggressive or to endanger pedestrians.
I walk my daughter to school each morning and when standing at the zebra crossing and the predestrian crossing only 1 in every 4 riders will stop even when its obvious we want to cross or the lights are red. How can I teach my daughter to be safe when its not safe to cross even when the green man is on. We cyclists can’t blame drivers for everything.
Lessons to be learned:
1. Always wear your helmet.
2. Legal system is based on opinions, not facts, and sometimes contrary to facts.
3. Cars are being equipped with more and more airbags precisely to reduce head injuries, e.g., side impact airbags, so the helmeted car passenger is already a reality.
Simon: Do you ask the pavement cyclists why they think that they want to cycle on the footway? Do you ask the red-light-jumpers why they jump red lights?
Perhaps with a bit more give-and-take and a little less belligerent and aggressive behaviour from the drivers then the more nervous cyclists might feel more comfortable cycling on the road.
This is such a red herring. Whilst I always wear a helmet, putting any effort into making cyclist wear them is of little use. The focus of any government campaign should be on making cyclist obey the law (when I’m cycling I confront other riders who go on pavements) and educating drives and motorbike riders to use their sodding mirrors and to be patient.
This case is really interesting, we’ve been looking at it in some detail and have written a blog on it at http://blog.pannone.com/personal-injury/cyclists-may-lose-some-of-their-compensation-for-failing-to-wear-a-helmet-34/