Safe Speed Forums

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... ists-20250

I know what tone will say .... and the swiss et al ... not sure on weepee ... and i never go out without a helmet, even just down the road when tweaking/testing gears etc.

The (non legal) jury has been out on helmets for some time but if the courts decide its negligent not to wear one, will a law follow ?

Is there any similar precedent for those already illegally riding without lights etc ? (because i know we've had that debate plenty of times already)

Why single out cyclists from other road users? Nor wearing a helmet could lead to more sever head injuries to a car driver, passenger or even a pedestrian. Is failing to wear a kevlar jacket contributory negligence in a knife attack?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

mmmm i think thats my question really... if it is a provable benefit.. why isnt it law ?
(like seatbelts, motorcycle helmets)

Does it need to be provable for a court to make a judgement? I think it should be, but that's just a personal view.

I've never seen any unequivocal (is that the right word? or even spelling?!) evidence that cycle helmets offer a benefit, and I'm quite sure if there was the likes of Giro, Met, and the other helmet manufacturers would be shouting about it from the roof tops.

Even if it could be demonstrated statistically that wearing helmets reduces the incidence and severity of head injuries in cyclists you would still have difficulty in establishing the degree of culpability in any particular case.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

A peer reviewed article from an Australian Uni (Melbourne?) suggested benefit and safety for helmets. It became a legal obligation in Oz as a result.

By the way - rally drivers/racing drivers/skiers/speed skaters/bobsleighers are required to wear helmets - but as one slalom skier remarked on the radio - she can ski at 90 mp legally - but not driver her car at 70 mph. She said she "feels the speed in her car as "slow" as a result" (Heard on R2 the other night. UK's top slalomist on the prog) . I noted that when learning various moves in that Ice Dance thing .. that the skaters were wearing helmets at first too


But normally - cars as cyclists keep pointing out are "steel cages". They have crumple panels.. air bags etc.. which are all designed to protect the occupants - but reduce damage to those outside the car on foot, in particular and in theory , if hit at 30 mph (hence the "30 for reason" stuff )

By the way - if we are in a dangerous situation and not "In Full Gear" - then questions are asked as to whether or not injuries would have been less had we been wearing protective clothing.

Fact remains - these bikes are now capable of much higher speeds than in the past. Thus the dangers of injury from any fall are increased and polystyrene lined - they may be - that polystyrene can still be a pretty effective shock absorber most of the time. Not all of the time as impact and other factors are teh real causers of KSI. But for fairly low impcat falls/collsions - Melbourne's peer reviewed study showed a clear leaning in favour of the helmet's protective effectiveness


Hence the logic of that judgement. As the shock aborbency of quality polystyrene has been peer reviewed long since because of its effectiveness in packaging of other "fragiles"

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Well ... we are not privy to all the facts before that court. It may well be that there was some liability on the part of th cyclist and the injury was compounded by his not wearing the helmet.

If this was a civil claim and the cyclist was claiming compo for a head injury - then the inusrers will quite rightly be seeking to mitigate their costs by suggesting that the injury may have been less severe had the helmet been worn

As said - study from Australia suggests that helmets are a valid safety tool. I quite like my helmet. Unfortunately a rather pregnant feline keeps teasing me about "lending it to her when in some urgent need". Wimmin :roll; Some wimmin

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Unsurprisingly sensationalist wording on the part of BikeRadar. The hypothetical cyclist is not going to be "found guilty" of anything. It merely states that if someone does not take all reasonable steps to protect/mitigate against injury from a foreseeable potential outcome of their actions then they cannot blame the entirety of their woes on someone else. Seems remarkably like common sense to me, and the mind boggles at a society where such a concept is so alien.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Would you say that some who suffered gunshot wounds in the crossfire of a drug war was culpable for not wearing a kevlar jacket. After all being shot is a "foreseeable potential outcome " of being in the inner city on a Saturday night.

Would you say that a car passenger who suffers a head injury due to illegal or careless driving by another driver is culpable for not wearing a helmet. After all being injured by a bad driver is a "foreseeable potential outcome " of being in a motor car.

Would you say that an airline passenger who suffers severe burns in a crash landing is partially culpable for not wearing a fireproof apron. After all a firey crash is "foreseeable potential outcome " of air travel.

Common sense tells me that if people are the victims of illegal, reckless or careless behaviour on the part of another their own circumstances should not be relevant to the compensation they receive and the mind boggles at a society where such a concept is so alien.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I suspect a motorcyclist found to be not wearing a helmet might find his compensation reduced. Even if the potential risks come from illegal actions, it makes sense to take precautions to avoid them.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

That is a special case in that the motor-cyclist is breaking the law himself.

Do you wear a kevlar vest in the Saturday night inner city? And if not, why not.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Regardless of the lurid headlines as regards gun and knife crimes.. incidents of this type in the UK are still thankfully relatively few. Our problem as far as knife crimes are concerned - young kids. Killers .. such as the one who murdered little Rhys in Liverpool are also rare and when they are caught - we try to chuck away thge key as far as the law will allow us to.

If you know an area is rough - you tend to avoid it.. but then again countless young girls find their rapers get let off or low sentences because they wore too short a mini-skirt. SO it happens.. and no person should be stripped of her dignity and rights because she wore some garment which turned on some pathetic excuse of a man. But sadly.. it happens

Those girls get no compo and they even get a further bolocking by some mounting a soap box in various internet chatrooms too

including bikeradar and PH alike.




They usually trust the driver though.. or colluded in nicking the car in the first place People do not die because the driver they travel with was the "bad driver" They may be the victim of the thug. the boy racer.. the drunk and even the police officer who was pursuing them on odd occasions.

The passengr would have compo reduced or negated if he or she assisted in a TWOC.. or failed to wear a seatbelt though




Nipe. Statisitcally the safest mode of travel




No.. in a society where something could be possible and I know that there is a likelihood I would go over the bars by hitting a pothole on the road ..or simply falling off for any reason which would not involve anyone else.


Thus I choose to wear a helmet. It has nothing to do with fear of anothr drivr or cyclist knocking me off my bike.

By the way... if C+/CW really believed that - then they would not

a) publish all photos showing a cyclist wearing a helmet - including themselves.

b) advrtise helmets

c) advise me of the latest fashion in helmets



In Oz - legla requirement. Affects compo even if a non-fault.

Bikers are not a special case.. and yes .. I do wear protective gear when foreseeable circumstances require me to. I do not, however, don a lifejacket when I take a ferryboat on the offchance. I may do if in the Philipines though.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

In that particular case: yes, bit its not necessarily so.


This is different. In one case the risk is expected to be permanently present (through accident even with legal behaviour); it's not the case for the other simply because the harmful act is very illegal.

There are already many more motorcycling injuries than stabbings/shootings of revellers even though there are more revellers than motorcyclists (I think), and motorcyclists are already forced to wear helmets; if motorcyclists didn’t wear helmets then the comparison of the injury rates per motorcyclist/reveller would be more valid and very telling.

The day we all have to wear a vest when out for any stroll is the day the petty criminals are running the country (as opposed to the seemingly legitimate ones).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Don't be so obtuse.

I don't wear kevlar to go into town, because thankfully round my way gun battles are quite rare. I do wear it when I deploy to areas where they are far more common however.

The point is that there are road accidents every day where nobody is breaking the law, and even where there is nobody clearly identifiable as being 'to blame'. It is not unreasonable to expect people with any ounce of common sense and a sense of self-preservation to take any and all reasonable steps to protect/mitigate against the ill effects of common occurrences.

Its clear you enjoy being contrary, so here's one for you, how many times per passenger mile is an airline passenger severely burnt? Would a fireproof apron have prevented such injuries (should they actually exist)? How does this in any way make the case wrong?

You are aware, I'm sure, that its quite possible to be both in the right and dead simultaneously?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Indeed. In reality - the inner city yobs are more drunk than firing guns and chucking knives at each other.

But bikers are already required by law to be helemted. Se saw a drop in KSI when that legislation was brought in . just as we saw a drop in KSI when we made seat belt use compulsory.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Now who is being obtuse? The OP was about a case where a cyclist had been injured by the negligent or criminal behaviour of another not a "no blame" incident. Yes it is sensible to protect against the ill effects of a common occurrence but not doing so should not reduce the liability of the perpetrator.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

If you'd bothered to read the link then you'd have learnt that in the case of the OP no liability for injury was shared, due to the fact that a helmet would not have mitigated the injuries.

If injuries are more severe than they need be due to the lack of common sense steps towards self-preservation then it is not just that the other party be held liable for the full extent of those injuries. You wouldn't walk around in public with no shoes on and then go around suing if you cut your foot on broken glass would you? Maybe you would.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

No I wouldn't. But if a machete wielding maniac cut my toes off I wouldn't consider that I was culpable for not wearing industrial safety boots.
If an innocent person is injured in a criminal action then nothing about the victims clothing can mitigate the actions of the perpetrator. The days when rapists were acquitted because the victim was wearing provocative clothing are long gone.
I have no argument with you about taking reasonable precautions against predicable accidents though I don't put cycle helmets in that category

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

...and there we have it.

What is the relative frequency of machete wielding toe-choppers to cyclists coming off their bikes, for whatever reason? Furthermore, how many accidents on the roads do you believe are as wilful as your absurdly incompatible comparison?

Surely there's nothing particularly legal about someone smashing their glass bottle on the floor in public.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

dcb .. arguments you put forward mean nothing to me.

If you spend just one night in A&E - you would conclude as a PEER REVIEWED piece as recently published in BMJ would that helmets .. like any other prescribed safety measure.. . has its benefits.


I wear a helmet. I find it keeps my head warm. IG claims it keeps dead insects )aka road kill from his sandy coloured locks

We all agree the polystyrene linings can and do aborb shocks from the roads.

You choose the helmet which looks cool too. I even place a headlight torch on mine. I look the lycra clad "business" A right follower of cool fashion and I choose the fashions which make me SEEN

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.