Safe Speed Forums

Ahh, your argument is therefore that ALL accidents are the result of criminal behaviour!

(its always somebody elses fault )

Actually I would argue that very few are. Most accidents are as a result of errors of judgement rather than wilfull disregard of the law.

If somebody shunts me while I am waiting to emerge on a busy roundabout I would be happy to see them (given the circumstances) found not guilty of any criminal offence but I would still expect civil compensation.

If I was fool enough not to be wearing my seatbelt and was more severly injured than I might otherwise have been I would not expect to be civily compensated for the additional injuries.

And neither should cyclists!



To be fair, I was refering to off roading, which is a diferent enviroment from your main argument so is arguably not really relevent except insofar as the helmets have saved me from serious injury in the past. so they do work!

PS, would you still wear a seatbelt if you wernt legally obliged to do so?? If so, Why??

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

If you believe that every injury on the roads is a result of recklessness or criminality then I can see why you have a problem understanding a lot of the issues at hand.

It is quite possible for someone to be in the right, and also dead. Protecting oneself against an undesirable outcome of a common occurrence is absolutely not, to any extent condoning undesirable behaviour (false dichotomy fallacy). Do seatbelt/motorcycle-helmet laws condone crashes?

Furthermore, nobody is insisting anyone do anything in the matter at hand, simply that if someone is injured, and they could have taken reasonable steps which would have reduced the severity of those injuries, then they cannot hold someone else responsible for their full extent.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

If the car driver committed a motoring offence - they are always prosecuted if the investigating officers and CPS think there is suffiecient evidence and a case to answer. Insisting a cyclist wears a helmet no more condones bad behaviour than inisting bikers wear helmets and other protective gear or that kids have to use a car seat and all occupants have to wear a seat belt.

By your logic here - you could argue that every law our civilised world has brought in to help promote safety "condones bad behaviour" on the part of some.

Insurers though argue for the plaintiff claimant in a civil court. Defence will put forth their case and it depends on the argument produced as to which the judge favours on the day. Most agree a ceiling before these cases and the defending company will try to reduce costs. It should be borne in mind that this reduced pay-out does not reduce the loading and loss of NCB or lost life of a Protected NCB discount for the insured. A claim and a note on his records which will reflect in riskj assessments for 5 years from date of accident/court decision if they delayed the loading pending outcome. :roll;


If they can prove to the judge's "preference on the day" that the injury would have been lessened by wearing the helmet - then this will impact on the overall pay-out in the same way a woman's claim for compo against a supermarket for a broken wrist was reduced because she ignored the sign telling her the floor was wet when she ran across it towards a bargain counter in the local supermarket


Courts when they award damages do take into account any contributory negligence and reasonable cae taken to avoid the incident on the part of EACH party

By the way .. a pedestrian expects to be able to walk along a pavement without being subjected to cyclists who claim a right to ride wherever they please .. claiming the roads to be "too dangerous" as their paltry excuses. Invariably this type are in full gear .. on road bikes and never bothered to ease up for the most vulnerable road user of all whilst indulging in "reckless and criminal behaviour" - criminal because it is against the law to ride on the pavement

I do not need to remind that there were two pedestrian deaths caused by inconsiderate cyclists last year.




If the pedestrian wwas skateboarding or on roller skates - then one would expect them to wear gear similar to that sported by the late Jill Dando when in the USA.

Onus still on responsible road user behaviour .. pedestirans who j-walk can be prosecuted and have their compo reduced in the USA/Austria/Switzerland and Germany.




There are penalties for being drunk in charge of a bicycle. Can get you a driving ban..


I came off my bike last week. pothole Road rash and a cut to the geared up knee

I was wearing a helmet. I went over the bars .. but manged to roll before geard up cranium met with the floor. There was still a dent in the helmet though I think it absorbed the shock as I was not seeing double or concussed after this.

I have written a nasty letter to Highways Agency about the state of the roads.

I thus think helmets can help and do not at all undermine cyclists. (I have replaced my helmet with the latest fashion .. )

_________________
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.

My last word because I am getting tired of all the strawmen that this topic has generated.

The argument is not about accidents. It is not about the effectiveness of helmets or whether their use should be compulsory. . It is not about off road cycling. It is about whether when someone is injured by a criminal act their compensation should be reduced because they did not take all possible precautions to mitigate the consequences of that criminal act.

_________________
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

Nobody is suggesting all possible precautions, merely all reasonable ones. Not all incidents on the road are the consequences of criminal actions. If you're so tired of strawmen, stop trying to create them!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

But you jump to the conclusion that an incident is the result of a "criminal act"



Lot of collisions do occur when all are adhering to a speed limit .. but one or more or all parties take the eye off the road or look in one direction and not the other in that eye blink second.

The court in question will have reduced damages in all probablity because of some other factor which contributed to the CAUSE of the collision. This was more the likely cause of any reduced damages

If a person has an injury which perhaps involves no other party other than the cyclist and a pot hole - then given the state of our roads - council could very likely argue that it was reasonably foresseable that I should be aware of the pothoie (the fact I brought it to their attention three months ago , pothole increased in size 'cos of the ice freezing in the hole and causing more damage.. and the fact I still manage to hit it and fall off as a result t is not the issue. If I had not been wearing the helmet and my skull had hit whatever put the dent in said helmet - could mean they could argue down as to my aoparent lack of wisdom there )


Thus not all accidents are caused by the motorised road user committing some "criminal" act. Careless perhaps ... and we have a couple of choices here as a Police Force: we can either prosecute which can result in fine/points/short ban or we can offer a DIS course alternative. We tend to offer the latter whenever we can as the long term would probably be of better benefit


But these days.. sigh.


We have discussed it on many a topic.. the virus of ill manners and rushy-rush-rush behaviour which has become a "pandemic" to use the Mad Doc's comment to me over dinner "chez moi"0 the other week. Given that so many road users are pre-occupied .. pedeestrians.. cyclists on their mobiles - oblivious to anything .. and far too many drivers likewise (despite the law) or dashing to meet someone .. keep to some timetable which their own poor time management has made hard to keep to.. - it's inevitable that failures on COAST .. plus those potholes mean that we all have to take a little more precaution than we used to.


Another analogy relates to my own childhood in North Yorkshire and the Mad Doc's in Hawes: we were chatting about law and order as we often do - "setting the world to rights" in private (Not easy with him and Wildy right "rebels!" ;lol;)

Anyway we both remarked that when we were kids - our parents could leave the car in the drive unlocked for a couple of hours or so. We could leave a window open and a door unlocked for a while. These days - you would lose an insurance claim for warming up the car (and some opportunist running off with it) .. and if your house does not have security worthy of Fort Knox/The Royal Mint and Durham Jail (A class cell block) combined .. you would also find your compo reduced as a result.

Insurers like to see evidence of prevention and they are beginning to class helmet use by a cyclist in that category.

It's becoming a fact of life. These days we are expected to take all reasoned precautions.


They DID do this twice before. The first case of about 2004/2005 - the cyclist's family/carers decided to appeal the derisory damages awarded because he had not worn a helmet .. and were able to prove that the resultant brain damage would have occurred regardless given the fact that the muppet in question turned left into him.

The second one lost his appeal case against low compo against the LA .. pothole incident.


Another very interesting one is proceeding still abroad. Two cyclists collided. One wore helmet. The other did not. The helmetless one is suing the other cyclist for injuries caused. Other cyclist maintains his injuries were down to his not wearing a helmet and thus he should pay less.


The cyclist does not deny making a wrong turning - causing the collision bewteen the two. Case is in Switzerland. Wildy reported the original last year. It has now apparently come to court.

She's keeping an eye on it

_________________
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.

[quote=InGear]But you jump to the conclusion that an incident is the result of a "criminal act" [/quote]

NO I DON'T. YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

Some, perhaps the majority of, incidents are pure accidents. I don't wish to discuss those because there is no liability to dispute. Other incidents are the result of criminal acts and in those cases I dispute whether any liability should be put on the victim for not protecting himself.

COMPRENEY VOUS

_________________
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

There is always liability when the insurers and civil claimants get involved, and this is exactly the situation that this precedent will apply to. To answer your question, I agree with the precedent, and believe it just that it apply to any situation where injuries, howsoever caused, could have been mitigated by reasonable steps on the part of the injured party. I expect this will apply to any situation up to the point where there was injurious intent.

Why should it not? Its an established principal of common law that the punishment is for the crime, not the outcome. Someone may be guilty of careless driving, but there their criminal culpability ends. The outcome of this may be mitigated or exacerbated by a number of factors, one of which is helmet use. We could equally well say seatbelt use. If someone is hurled into their windscreen during a minor shunt, suffering head injuries, because they were not wearing their seatbelt, how do we apportion blame for those injuries?

Comprendez vous?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

NO I DON'T. YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.[/quote]


But you did say this above



As said ..

We tend to prosecute the careless fools - especially around here cos we do not rely on fixed cams and the like. Sure we do ANPR ops - but all the fleets equipped with lotsatoys

I am pointing out that some are due to COAST error.. some of which are just simple exchange of details and let the insurers squabble. Unfortunately, as I have tried to point out - insurers will argue and have won the case in more than one helmet issue - that the injury to the head would have been less had the helmet been worn. Now the other party to ensure their claim have to be able to argue convincingly that the head injury would have occured regardless or that the helmet could not have prevented that particular injury. County Court judges are not exactly "experts" and can and do make rather subjective judgements I know of one collsion which should have been cut and dried for the defendant going against because the judge believed it was legal to speed up towards lights and go through on amber" He hit the car ahead of him and claimed the other person had "changed lanes" when the other car was stopping for amber and he was acccelerating towards - having passed the last set of a green flow on amber per witness accounts for the defence. Should that judge be unwise enough to put her judgement into practice around here and were observed by our team - she would not get much discretion shown if she came up with that one as the excuse. We do pull obvious amber deliberates.

OK - so it's a completely different case - but I am just referring to it to try to get across to you that County Court judgements on inusance disputes do not require the same onus of proof .. more probability based on whatever the judge "prefers" on the day. Such disputes involving cyclists and motor car drivers would be heard by this type of court. and the preference shown would refer to that case and would not be binding on another case in the same way as other court judgments.




Actually it's "comprenez-vous" I did pass my French O Level with a decent grade In them days .. it was about grammar/prose/translating and nowt to do with being able to speak the lingo :lol; I am just lucky that I spent most hols with the Swiss "riff raff ruddy hooligan brigade." and got to learn to speak it without feeling self conscious and awkward

In many an accident - there would be a claim. Most drivers will sort out car park prangs via insurance.. or hitting their own garden wall via insurance.. or running into the garage despite the car giving a warning.. (eldest daughter took out the headlamp im my car doing this :hissyfit; She put a dent in the front too. OK not a big one and Dent Devils sorted it all out for me for £95 which I deducted from her allowance - she's still a student )

In the case of an accident whereby a cyclist was injured .. but only medium to slight - there could still be a claim and there is a web site . forget the actual link .. but try googling for "compact law as I believe this to be the site's name =" and key in all the data with helmet and without helmet .. and be prepared to be amazed to Paxmanesque jaw-drop


I do have it on file somewhere .. but try to google for it. I will seek out my archives and paste in a link later if need be. Great site by the way. Loads of free legal information. If you wish to chat though - they have a registration fee to subscribe - but the advice appears to be sound - and they cover most areas of the law with which Mr Average Decent may need to know ..


If the claim is the result of a person who is or has been prosecuted for a criminal .. then civil claims tend to award fuller compo as the degree of proven careless/dangerous would count against the offender.

However, I do know of a case involving a drunk driver. I am going off memory from my days as Black Rat with the Met as a young officer


We were called to a collision on a DC

One driver had moved into L2 - into the path of another driver. He hit the rear. Both cars undriveable and injured partties. The driver who pulled out without looking was a middle aged woman . sober . but she admitted not looking and being unaware of the other driver.


The innocent driver was above the limit. He had had a row with his fiance and stormed off in his car /.. after a skinful. We understood - but had zero choice given the readings from all breath tests. He was not that much over... but we cannot offer discretion on this ever. It's always been an "absolute"

But we had to prosecute.. and his defence did argue the mitigation of the serious trauma of rejected engagement to marry. He got 9 months ban even back then instead of a full 12 months as I recall. We also confirmed that the other party actually caused the collision - which possibly did help him out there - despite his being just over the tolerated ceiling and he fully accepted we had no choice there. He was a nice chap really as I recall . I hope he did find his true love eventually.

Anyway .. the point of this?

His insurers pursued the non fault aspect . but loaded him for the drink drive stupidity. The other party did have to pay for his injuries.

So I am saying that just because someone was illegal at the time of an offence .. may not always work in favour of the other party whose contribution to the incident will not be cancelled out at all.


I base my post on experience.. a long one.. and I certainly do not say the courts get it right each time either.

Law does not work as you may think dcb. DIckens commented via his anti-hero boss of the work house that the law an be an ass. at times. I would agree with him there.

But the law has to address all parties and reasonable care taken on the part of the plaintiff. and defendant alike. If the judge prefers that the wearng of a helmet would have reduced injury .. there is doo-lally to be be one if a county court decision. If heard in High court. or Crown court with full concurrency to the criminal prosecutiion in place - then plaintiiff can appeal compo decision if not satisfactory.

heck .. we know it's not ideal.. but we cannot get away from some peer reviewed data and on-going research which takes account of the ever chaging world we live in here. All of which lean towards wearing helmets.

ROBIN // you are saying what I am trying to say


By the way - I must correct/

It;s still COMPRENEZ-~VOUS?

I did pass the exam and love France as holiday destination. Lovely country. I also love the UK too.. by the way. I appreciate the loveliness of God's creation or Darwin's evolvement I do so love the sheer scenic beauty of our planet - but despair at the way the current custodians behave in general at times

_________________
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.

So to return to my earlier, somewhat extreme examples. If I had my toes cut of by a machete wielding maniac would I be partly culpable for not wearing safety boots. Or a less extreme example: if I was shot or stabbed in Manchester on a Saturday night would I be culpable for not wearing a kevlar jacket. Or if a pedestrian suffered head injuries in an accident with a car would he culpable for not wearing a helmet?

It hinges, I suppose, on the interpretation of "reasonable". In the first case: no - mwms are very rare. In the second: debatable - inner city shootings and stabbings are not uncommon. In the third: certainly - pedestrian injuries are regrettably frequent. But it doesn't happen. It is only cyclists who are expected to protect themselves against errant motorists.

_________________
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

dcb.. with full respect here/./ you speak ofof the extremity in some cases and the absurd in the case of the pedestrian/


I did say that being on any wheels make a difference in duty of care here .. or contributory liablity in the eyes of black./whie law.

But fact of life.. a foreseen risk is seen.

You are required to take precautions.

I could liken this to a requiremnet ot having hi-viz gilet and first aid in saloon of car of face prosecution as exists in continental law



As said UK county courts will prefer whatever case put forth on the day in question. None bind in law. We know serus mistakes are made though

Me? I wear a helmet. I feel naked without one to be honest.

_________________
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.

Perhaps you understand the difference in injurious intent. Perhaps you don't, which might be why you're recycling ridiculous comparisons that have already been demonstrated to be utterly irrelevant.

Incidentally, its not only cyclists, motorists are expected to wear seatbelts, and motorcyclists helmets, cyclists have been the anomaly thus far, and I see nothing wrong in correcting this. Pedestrians do not attempt, nor are they expected to, integrate with the traffic flow.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Ah there you go. "People on or in motor vehicles have to do stuff so why shoudn't cyclists?" (even though cycle helmets have no demonstrable benefits, and have have recorded disbenefits, including leading faster vehicles to pass closer to cyclists wearing helmets than to those that do not).



Pedestrians CROSS the traffic flow, cyclists rarely do this.

Disingenuous claptrap, I was responding to this point:



You seem to have totally misunderstood the particulars of this case; it is not compelling cyclists to wear helmets, nor is it penalising them for not doing so when it would have been of no benefit, or worse.



Precisely my point, what are you trying to say?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I remember that experiment, I thought it dubious.
What are the other recorded 'disbenefits'?


Pedestrians cross where there's no traffic flow; no road user groups crosses a flow of traffic otherwise it gets a little bit messy (changing lanes isn't the same as crossing).

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

Rotational injuries are generally made worse by wearing a helmet because of the increased radius of the "head". The general view of those in the medical who have studied cyclist head injuries properly, rather than jerking their knees at what they see in A&E, is that helmets reduce or even eliminate minor injuries but exacerbate more serious ones. Many health professionals also think that, because it would discourage a large number of cyclists and because cycling has proven health benefits, helmet compulsion would have a detrimental effect on the health of the nation

There are also a few cases of cyclists being strangulated by helmet straps in otherwise minor incidents but i wouldn't regard that alone as a reason for not wearing one.

_________________
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

Could this be down to the style of helmet most used. The worry that motorcycle helmets could cause the same types of rotational injuries seems not to have been seen as much as expected. Is it because most MC helmets cover more of the head? Or does the increased weight and inertia make it harder to turn?

So is some additional protection better than none at all?

If that is the case then the designs are not good enough.

Are we the users of the available cycle helmets (I currently use a Bell king head, previously a Giro Ventoux) just wearing them to appear to be doing something in case of a crash?

Motorcycle helmets are shiny on the outside and tend to slide along the road whereas pedal cycle caps are very rough so that they grip the surface and impart rotation to the contained head


So is some additional protection better than none at all?

Shrugs shoulders. Personal decision







Are we the users of the available cycle helmets (I currently use a Bell king head, previously a Giro Ventoux) just wearing them to appear to be doing something in case of a crash?[/quote]

Making the outside of a cycle helmet as firm and shiny as a m'cycle one would solve that problem but cyclists, for all the concern for their heads, would be unlikely to accept the considerable extra weight.

_________________
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

Is that so?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I wonder if there is any research about why people do not like to wear helmets ?
If the perceived risk is not sufficient enough already to convince those that don't wear one, then is the real world risk 'enough', to justify an enforceable rule ?
What outcome of behaviours might you then introduce if that were so?
What problems for immigrants who wear other head attire ?
What infringements on civil liberities ?
Is a helmet really better than better observation / attention etc ?
Could better education (to all road users and public info films), not improve riding conditions such that the better behaviours reduce cyclists accidents?
What reason is a skateboard seen as a greater personal risk than a cyclist going 30mph down a hill on the road ?
Is this not simply an excuse for the insurance companies to look at increasing bicycle insurance if a helmet is not worn?
If there are medical risks from wearing helmets (the C1 scooter is a prime case here), then why has there been no great change in the entire concept of a 'helmet'? Where or who is doing the research to conceptually improve head & neck protection upon impact.
learning how to fall is almost a must in horse riding, and for a while considered better than a helmet, that often caused more damage until the peek, was made 'soft' and bendy.
Are 'bands' better than helmets ? (The thick soft strap like gear that look like a boxers head gear, which circumferences the head and then once over the top.)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.