Cyclists not wearing helmets can be guilty of contributory negligence (UK)

blorg

And it begins...

kenmc

How retarded is that? Next they'll say that everyone is guilty of contributory negligence because they didn't leave 1 minute earlier than they did....

Irish_Army01

blorg wrote: »

And it begins...

Wow, I was going to post a thread yesterday on who wears a lid and what type..guess it will soon become mandatory:eek:


although with some of the drivers out there, ABC--Always Be Covered.

blorg

If someone runs into you, you should not be liable for anything, full stop. I wear a helmet myself on these icy days, and mountain biking, in case I fall over, but if someone drives into you it cannot be your fault for not wearing a helmet.

Gavin

I was thinking we haven't had a good aul helmet debate in a while.

uberwolf

take the other perspective - if you were run into in the car, and you got whiplash say. If you weren't wearing a seatbelt you contributed to your own injury.

In cycling though, where do you draw the line? I have the full range of knee, elbow and back protectors for my occasional snowboarding - given these practical safety devices are available should I also wear these?

Irish_Army01

My commute is 13.5K and I have never used a Lid...But I'm gonna get one...

Jumpy

Being brought up in Australia, where its illegal not to wear one, I would have serious doubts about someones intelligence if I saw them without one.
Its been drilled into me at this stage.

kenmc

uberwolf wrote: »

take the other perspective - if you were run into in the car, and you got whiplash say. If you weren't wearing a seatbelt you contributed to your own injury.

In cycling though, where do you draw the line? I have the full range of knee, elbow and back protectors for my occasional snowboarding - given these practical safety devices are available should I also wear these?

Don't be silly. The solution is obviously to never ever leave the safety of your house fallout shelter.

Gavin

I don't think the ruling is particularly relevant to be honest. The point made was that it must be proved that the helmet would have prevented injury.

Firstly, this is going to be very hard to prove and secondly, if it's a cyclist/motorist collision, well a helmet is not designed to prevent injury in this scenario, rendering the argument somewhat moot.

kenmc

Gavin wrote: »

I don't think the ruling is particularly relevant to be honest. The point made was that it must be proved that the helmet would have prevented injury.

Firstly, this is going to be very hard to prove and secondly, if it's a cyclist/motorist collision, well a helmet is not designed to prevent injury in this scenario, rendering the argument somewhat moot.

The very fact that someone has proposed it is scary enough though.

Gavin

Jumpy wrote: »

Being brought up in Australia, where its illegal not to wear one, I would have serious doubts about someones intelligence if I saw them without one.
Its been drilled into me at this stage.

Have you read up on the subject?

I was always told that one should absolutely never swim an hour after eating for fear of cramps.. and I find out it's a load of crap ! The intuitive or taught answer is not always the correct one.

kenmc

Jumpy wrote: »

Being brought up in Australia, where its illegal not to wear one, I would have serious doubts about someones intelligence if I saw them without one.
Its been drilled into me at this stage.

So by inference then you associate someone wearing a helmet as being intelligent enough to what... read the law? remember the law? obey the law?

Irish_Army01

Gavin wrote: »

Have you read up on the subject?

I was always told that one should absolutely never swim an hour after eating for fear of cramps.. and I find out it's a load of crap ! The intuitive or taught answer is not always the correct one.

I actually read somewhere that your more likely to be involved in an accident wearing a lid than not:eek:

Gavin

kenmc wrote: »

The very fact that someone has proposed it is scary enough though.

True. The whole helmet thing is a scary example of how easy it is to indoctrinate people. It is unfortunately one of those things the public and politicians can jump on, enforce, and then feel good for saving the lives of those irresponsible cyclists who don't know what's good for them.

Gavin

Irish_Army01 wrote: »

I actually read somewhere that your more likely to be involved in an accident wearing a lid than not:eek:

I don't know if there are actually any stats to backup that statement, but it goes back to the risk compensation theory. I'm wearing a helmet, therefore I am safer, therefore I can cycle faster and take more risks.

There is also rudimentary research showing that if you wear a helmet, drivers don't give you as much space.

Just reading up more on the risk stuff now, it's interesting.

edit - attached a good quality scientist bitchfest document about risk compensation

kenmc

Gavin wrote: »

There is also rudimentary research showing that if you don't wear a helmet, drivers don't give you as much space.

Is it not the other way round?

stuf

Gavin wrote: »

There is also rudimentary research showing that if you don't wear a helmet, drivers don't give you as much space.

Actually the other way around:

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

Drivers think you're protected so don't give you so much space.

But of course a friend of a friend of mine would/wouldn't be dead/alive now if he was/wasn't wearing a helmet

Gavin

kenmc wrote: »

Is it not the other way round?

Yes ! Thank you, confused myself. Must have been from that crash the other day where I didn't wear me helmet

petethedrummer

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

The countries with the lowest rates of injury and fatalities per km cycled don't have mandatory helmet laws. Its approaching to problem from the wrong end. Like trying to pull a tooth anally.

barrabus

the egg shell skull must now wear a helmet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

Gavin

petethedrummer wrote: »

Like trying to pull a tooth anally.

Nice

Jumpy

kenmc wrote: »

So by inference then you associate someone wearing a helmet as being intelligent enough to what... read the law? remember the law? obey the law?

...understand that you generally cant survive your brains being scattered across the road?

A different sport I know, but I took my helmet off after a speed skating race once, had it off for no longer than 10 seconds when I was taken out by a guy warming up with his head down. I lost 3 days worth of memory and I was only moving at about 5 km/hr coming off the track.

If I hit a gutter moving at 40km/h without a helmet, then they would be reconstructing my skull for months.

stuf

Jumpy wrote: »

If I hit a gutter moving at 40km/h without a helmet, then they would be reconstructing my skull for months.

if you read some of the links the evidence seems to be that if your head is moving at >12mph at the collision then the helmet isn't going to help.

Would like to add to the point about eating and swimming and announce that I'm the survivor of several chewing gum swallowing incidents and my mother was never proved right in any of them

DARKIZE

As a regluar road-cyclist and racer, I'm mystified by some of the attitudes here. To me, not wearing a helmet is like not wearing a seat-belt or not wearing a life-jacket at sea. Cycling is a risky activity at any level, be it commuting in traffic or racing in a bunch; accidents happen, wheels touch, cars cut corners, pedestrians stroll out without warning. By leaving your head unprotected, you risk your most vital organ, your mental faculties and ultimately your life. Why would you purposely choose not to avail of some protection ? Claiming as some posters have, that it won't protect you if a car hits you head on, misses the point. That may be true, but it WILL protect you if you slip on that patch of gravel at the next sharp corner.

The argument in this case is similar to that which applies if you hit another car where the driver had no seatbelt.....in the case of any injuries inflicted, the receiving driver has to take some liability.

The arguments against helmets (straps could choke me, drivers are more careless) all seem to be in the same vein as the "I drive better when I'm drunk" scenario.

kenmc

@jumpy

I disagree. Reading the available literature and then making an informed decision one way or the other would be more intelligent no? Just blindly deciding one way or the other, even if it is based on the law, is just being a sheep.

I personally choose to wear a helmet. I am under no illusions that because I wear one I will never die. If my head gets run over by a truck, or probably even a car, helmet or no helmet, I'm in trouble. If I somehow manage to hit my head on a kerb if I fall over awkwardly at traffic lights *chances are* I'll walk away unharmed, but I might not, who's to tell? If I come off the bike at speed the helmet may save my head from getting bashed but might cause my neck to snap due to an awkard roll - who's to know?

Jumpy

kenmc wrote: »

@jumpy

I disagree. Reading the available literature and then making an informed decision one way or the other would be more intelligent no? Just blindly deciding one way or the other, even if it is based on the law, is just being a sheep.

I personally choose to wear a helmet. I am under no illusions that because I wear one I will never die. If my head gets run over by a truck, or probably even a car, helmet or no helmet, I'm in trouble. If I somehow manage to hit my head on a kerb if I fall over awkwardly at traffic lights *chances are* I'll walk away unharmed, but I might not, who's to tell? If I come off the bike at speed the helmet may save my head from getting bashed but might cause my neck to snap due to an awkard roll - who's to know?

Hey its up to you, natural selection will improve the human race over time.

Irish_Army01

DARKIZE wrote: »

As a regluar road-cyclist and racer, I'm mystified by some of the attitudes here. To me, not wearing a helmet is like not wearing a seat-belt or not wearing a life-jacket at sea. Cycling is a risky activity at any level, be it commuting in traffic or racing in a bunch; accidents happen, wheels touch, cars cut corners, pedestrians stroll out without warning. By leaving your head unprotected, you risk your most vital organ, your mental faculties and ultimately your life. Why would you purposely choose not to avail of some protection ? Claiming as some posters have, that it won't protect you if a car hits you head on, misses the point. That may be true, but it WILL protect you if you slip on that patch of gravel at the next sharp corner.

The argument in this case is similar to that which applies if you hit another car where the driver had no seatbelt.....in the case of any injuries inflicted, the receiving driver has to take some liability.

The arguments against helmets (straps could choke me, drivers are more careless) all seem to be in the same vein as the "I drive better when I'm drunk" scenario.

Excellent post..it is really a no brainer..

blorg

I wear a helmet myself in any situation I would consider risky, e.g. mountain biking, icy roads, walking home this evening on ice after I left my bike in for repair...

Gavin

DARKIZE wrote: »

Why would you purposely choose not to avail of some protection ? Claiming as some posters have, that it won't protect you if a car hits you head on, misses the point. That may be true, but it WILL protect you if you slip on that patch of gravel at the next sharp corner.

This is essentially the crux of it. One assesses the potential risk and then chooses an appropriate level of protection. When on the mtb I wear a helmet, knee and elbow pads. When on the road bike I generally wear a helmet. When commuting, I usually don't bother with a helmet. Each scenario is different, each requires a different risk assessment.

To assume that one must wear a helmet whenever one mounts a bicycle is illogical. Following this poor logic through, it statistically makes sense to wear a motorbike helmet in a car as this will save more lives than cyclists wearing helmets. Do car drivers wear helmets ? No, generally not, because the cost (consisting of inconvenience, monetary cost, mockery, whatever) is too high.

The issue I have is ill-informed people blithely mocking those that choose not to wear a helmet. Mocking those that have informed themselves of the facts and assessed the real effect a helmet will have.

Hey its up to you, natural selection will improve the human race over time.

This sort of comment in other words, simply irks me. It is unresearched, non-factual crap.

The facts of helmets are:
1. They are designed to absorb the energy from an impact of 12mph by an object of 5kg (a human head).
2. They are not designed for impact with a motor vehicle.

A helmet will prevent minor injury in minor accident. In a major accident it will not save your life and to think so is uninformed.

Civilian_Target

Personally, I wear a helmet only in conditions where I am likely to be the cause of my own demise (ie. it's slippery, or I am sleepy)
I notice that I get visibly more space from cars without one, particularly using on-road cycle lanes.

Plus, I spent a night reading a balance of research and figured I was better without. What little research there is supporting use of helmets in traffic, and as a scientist myself, I can say only one presented a good helmet argument to me, and it was in 1992.

So, go and wear your helmets, I have my court defence for cases of accident. But don't force me to wear one. Natural selection, etc.

petethedrummer

Irish_Army01 wrote: »

Excellent post..it is really a no brainer..

well could you lads use some of your brains to read the link I posted above?

Found this quote which sums it up for me..........

"It is a constant regret to me that as a civilised society we seem to have lost the desire to prioritise the rights of weaker members ("steam gives way to sail"). The message is that people driving motor vehicles should be allowed to drive as fast and close as they like, so long as people riding bicycles, horses, or just walking, wrap themselves up or preferably stay at home. "

These people are more informed than any of us on the subject.... http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/318/7197/1505/a#3406

Lumen

Suggestions...

Reading the FAQ should be a pre-requisite of participating in these threads.

Any new threads should suggest this in the first post.

As penance for starting it, the OP should have to update the wiki once the thread has reached page 10 of spittle-flying debate.



Other than that, may I add that I crashed many times at the weekend, yet my magic hat bears not a scratch, whereas the rest of my body is scabby and bruised. Either I'm doing something wrong, or my hat really is magic.

jimmycrackcorm

Gavin wrote: »

T Following this poor logic through, it statistically makes sense to wear a motorbike helmet in a car as this will save more lives than cyclists wearing helmets. Do car drivers wear helmets ? No, generally not, because the cost (consisting of inconvenience, monetary cost, mockery, whatever) is too high.

Statistically speaking being wrapped with 12 inches of bubble wrap in a car is also a life saver - does that make sense?

If you want to make a valid comparison with a car then compare wearing a seat belt to wearing a cycling helmet. You don't need to almost die for a seat belt to help prevent injury.

TinyExplosions

Personal. Choice. People.

I don't tell you what to do, you don't tell me what to do (unless you're a policeman, or judge or there's a law against it).

seamus

On this, I did read all of the research that has been posted, and I would say that wearing a helmet is safer, provided that you're aware of the effect that it has on your attitude and the attitude of those around you.

In the case of this ruling, I would be skeptical on it being upheld here. As pointed out, you could be found guilty of contributory negligence if you weren't wearing your seatbelt, or your car doesn't have airbags, side impact protection, a rollcage or ABS. The possible amount of, "You could have done more to protect yourself" scenarios is infinite.
Perhaps they'll make the same ruling for cyclists who might be lit up like a Christmas tree but weren't wearing a high-vis, because wearing the high-vis might have made the difference between being seen or not.

I very much doubt that the ruling can/will be applied in any cases, especially here. Sounds like the judge spoke before he thought.

blorg

OK, sorry I didn't put this in the original post, but could we stick to the topic, that is whether a cyclist driven into should be guilty of contributory negligence.

Less about the bubble wrap, Darwin, THEY ARE IDIOTS, etc please, it has all been gone over before.

A good analogy was brought up about seatbelts. A key difference there is that wearing a seatbelt is a legal requirement while wearing a helmet is not.

Caroline_ie

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Personal. Choice. People.

I wear my helmet all the time, whether it's on the fixie or on the road bike. I had many self inflicted spills that resulted in headaches, bruises, blood, breaks etc .. i really protcting myself from ... myself.
Then again when I was 13, I wasnt wearing one.

Chips Lovell

Mr Justice Griffith Williams ruled that the cyclist could have been found partly liable if wearing a helmet would have prevented or reduced his or her injuries.

It throws up some interesting questions. As others have pointed out, there's no legal obligation to wear a helmet in the UK. Does this now mean that if it can be proven that if wearing a crash helmet while driving would have prevented or reduced a motorist's injuries in a crash, then they do would be found partially liable?

As an aside, the only country I've cycled in that does have a mandatory helmet law is Spain. However, you see a lot less people wearing helmets over there. I think for many it interferes with the whole hair gel/sunglasses look.

kenmc

el tonto wrote: »

It throws up some interesting questions. As others have pointed out, there's no legal obligation to wear a helmet in the UK. Does this now mean that if it can be proven that if wearing a crash helmet while driving would have prevented or reduced a motorist's injuries in a crash, then they do would be found partially liable?

And conversely, if they discover that during a crash where someone was wearing a helmet and the helmet actually caused someones neck to break, whereas without it they just would have had cuts and a headache, does that mean that it's STILL they cyclists fault for wearing one, when NOT wearing one in this case would have saved their life?

Raam

el tonto wrote: »

As an aside, the only country I've cycled in that does have a mandatory helmet law is Spain. However, you see a lot less people wearing helmets over there. I think for many it interferes with the whole hair gel/sunglasses look.

I've read that professional cyclists are excluded from that law.
http://www.oregoncyclingaction.com/2008/12/spanish-cops-stop-horner-for-no-helmet.html

Chips Lovell

Raam wrote: »

I've read that professional cyclists are excluded from that law.
http://www.oregoncyclingaction.com/2008/12/spanish-cops-stop-horner-for-no-helmet.html

That's right. But these wouldn't be pros, unless every second rider I pass is a pro (which would be nice).

niceonetom

most people seem to have missed the point of this ruling, or at least chosen to take the easier, and much more obvious, path of turning this into a 'helmets? yes/no' thread.

the question isn't "are helmets a good idea?".

the question is "if you are injured in a collision that is not your fault should you bear some of the responsibility for your injuries if you are not wearing a helmet?".

what about if you get clipped while not wearing high-viz?

what about if you get beaten up in the street? walking down the street is notoriously dangerous and safety equipment such as bubble-wrap, body armour, and american football helmets are easily available? should you not take the precaution? if you don't, shouldn't you be responsible for such an omission?

i my opinion a judge who sees a cyclist who has been hit by a car (through no fault of his/her own), and says the cyclist is partly responsible for his/her injuries, is using the same time of fallacious reasoning that says a woman in a short skirt walking alone must also take some of the responsibility for what ever happens to her. essentially, blame the victim. he should have been wearing a helmet. she shouldn't have worn that skirt. etc. etc. sadly these judges exist. and they set precedent.

irishmotorist

I think I agree with the judge's sentiment on this. Helmets are quite a commonplace piece of equipment, affordable and while not standard, they are worn by a lot of cyclists and the benefit of having something protecting your head is obviously better than not. Bearing these in mind, I think that to not wear one, you are deciding to increase your risk of head injury - regardless of whose fault an accident may be.

Stark

I wonder if the ruling also applies to pedestrians who suffer head injuries when hit by a car. Since the legal requirement for wearing a helmet is the same in that case and all...

Ghost Rider

Another interesting aspect to this ruling is the comment by the medical expert that, due to the "scalloped shape" of most modern helmets, they might not protect the back of the head from certain injuries.

Steering clear of the usual helmets debate and instead relating this to the stated subject of the thread, would that mean any contributory negligence I might be adjudged to have would be mitigated by wearing a helmet that did not have that "scalloped shape"? What sorts of helmets would that include? The more rounded, skateboard-style helmets, for example?

Controversially, would this signal some kind of vindication for our full-face-helmet-wearing friend in Ranelagh?

Gavin

irishmotorist wrote: »

I think I agree with the judge's sentiment on this. Helmets are quite a commonplace piece of equipment, affordable and while not standard, they are worn by a lot of cyclists and the benefit of having something protecting your head is obviously better than not. Bearing these in mind, I think that to not wear one, you are deciding to increase your risk of head injury - regardless of whose fault an accident may be.

But as the others have pointed out, where do you draw the line ? Stark's example is a good one.

TinyExplosions

niceonetom wrote: »

pertinent stuff...

Tom, speaking of helmets, I need to get mine back sometime -would prefer to MTB in the cheap one

stuf

Given the amount of contradictory evidence surrounding the helmet debate, I doubt that this untested precedent could stand up to appeal if it was ever applied.

petethedrummer

If we could start suing the state for contributory negligence for the state of the cycle lanes and general road design, it might not be long before we get proper cycle paths.

seamus

Of course then the State can sue for contributory negligence for having the gall to cycle at all, when of course it's far safer to walk or drive.

This is awesome, we can just ignore all of our responsibilities because everyone else has f*cked up by failing to protect themselves from me.