Helmets for Cyclists
Discussion
An article in the Independent today, 16th March:
Britain's cyclists reacted in uproar yesterday to a High Court ruling that they can be blamed for their injuries if they don't wear a helmet – even if the accident itself was caused by someone else.
"There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury," Mr Justice Williams said, making the unprecedented ruling on an accident involving a motorbike and a cycle in Brightlingsea, Essex in June 2005.
"A cyclist is free to choose whether or not to wear one," he said in the legal ruling. But not doing so means "any injury sustained may be the cyclist's own fault and 'He has only himself to thank for the consequences'."
The national cyclists' organisation, CTC, said yesterday that it was considering taking legal action to overturn the "wrong and ill-informed" decision; other advocates of cycling described it as "absolute rubbish" and "sad".
The case involved cyclist Robert Smith, then a 51-year-old NHS manager, who was riding without a helmet to an opera group rehearsal when he was hit by Michael Finch's motorbike. He suffered serious brain injuries. The judge decided that the motorcyclist was "entirely" to blame for the crash because he had been going too fast and had ridden too close to Mr Smith's bicycle. He also dismissed Mr Finch's suggestion that Mr Smith's injuries were caused by his failure to wear a helmet. But the judge established the principle of "contributory negligence" for cyclists who ride without a helmet, citing a 1976 court ruling by Lord Denning in relation to seatbelts and advice in the Highway Code.
Roger Geffen, campaigns and policy manager for the CTC, said there was significant doubt about whether helmets increased cyclists' safety. After a law requiring helmets to be worn was introduced in Western Australia, the number of cyclists dropped by a third but head injuries fell by just 10 per cent.
Mr Geffen said CTC was investigating ways of overturning the ruling. "The judge didn't have any evidence before him about the effectiveness of cycle helmets," he said. "It just seems he has exceeded his remit.
"It's a kind of creeping compulsion by the back door and it leaves cyclists in a state of uncertainty. There's a feeling you might have to wear a helmet because you are legally at risk.
"What we know overall is that wherever helmet-wearing has increased, it hasn't improved cycle safety. We certainly feel the ruling is wrong and ill-informed. We need legal advice."
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said the Government had commissioned research on cycle safety, which would look at the effectiveness of helmets and report back in September 2010.
The former shadow transport secretary, Bernard Jenkin MP, whose North Essex constituency includes Brightlingsea, said he would raise the High Court ruling – which was made in January but only came to light yesterday – with the Government. Mr Jenkin, deputy chairman of the all-party cycling group, said: "The judge is clearly not a cyclist and he's exhibiting all the prejudices of someone who does not regularly use a bicycle." Dr Ian Walker, a Bath University psychologist, carried out a study which found passing motorists tended to give a cyclist without a helmet a wider berth than one wearing one. He said it was "quite strange" that the judge had set a precedent for a situation which did not apply to the accident he was considering. END OF ARTICLE
Now, I tend to support the views of the Judge here. In the most basic sense, if an article of safety apparatus is available but not used, then any injury that occurs must be wholly or partly apportionable to the injured party. While the law insists that we wear a seat belt in a car, or a crash helmet on a motorcycle, cycle helmets are only advisory. However, we don't need a law to tell us to use an umbrella in the rain, yet any fool could tell you that if you get wet, it's your own silly fault.
Britain's cyclists reacted in uproar yesterday to a High Court ruling that they can be blamed for their injuries if they don't wear a helmet – even if the accident itself was caused by someone else.
"There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury," Mr Justice Williams said, making the unprecedented ruling on an accident involving a motorbike and a cycle in Brightlingsea, Essex in June 2005.
"A cyclist is free to choose whether or not to wear one," he said in the legal ruling. But not doing so means "any injury sustained may be the cyclist's own fault and 'He has only himself to thank for the consequences'."
The national cyclists' organisation, CTC, said yesterday that it was considering taking legal action to overturn the "wrong and ill-informed" decision; other advocates of cycling described it as "absolute rubbish" and "sad".
The case involved cyclist Robert Smith, then a 51-year-old NHS manager, who was riding without a helmet to an opera group rehearsal when he was hit by Michael Finch's motorbike. He suffered serious brain injuries. The judge decided that the motorcyclist was "entirely" to blame for the crash because he had been going too fast and had ridden too close to Mr Smith's bicycle. He also dismissed Mr Finch's suggestion that Mr Smith's injuries were caused by his failure to wear a helmet. But the judge established the principle of "contributory negligence" for cyclists who ride without a helmet, citing a 1976 court ruling by Lord Denning in relation to seatbelts and advice in the Highway Code.
Roger Geffen, campaigns and policy manager for the CTC, said there was significant doubt about whether helmets increased cyclists' safety. After a law requiring helmets to be worn was introduced in Western Australia, the number of cyclists dropped by a third but head injuries fell by just 10 per cent.
Mr Geffen said CTC was investigating ways of overturning the ruling. "The judge didn't have any evidence before him about the effectiveness of cycle helmets," he said. "It just seems he has exceeded his remit.
"It's a kind of creeping compulsion by the back door and it leaves cyclists in a state of uncertainty. There's a feeling you might have to wear a helmet because you are legally at risk.
"What we know overall is that wherever helmet-wearing has increased, it hasn't improved cycle safety. We certainly feel the ruling is wrong and ill-informed. We need legal advice."
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said the Government had commissioned research on cycle safety, which would look at the effectiveness of helmets and report back in September 2010.
The former shadow transport secretary, Bernard Jenkin MP, whose North Essex constituency includes Brightlingsea, said he would raise the High Court ruling – which was made in January but only came to light yesterday – with the Government. Mr Jenkin, deputy chairman of the all-party cycling group, said: "The judge is clearly not a cyclist and he's exhibiting all the prejudices of someone who does not regularly use a bicycle." Dr Ian Walker, a Bath University psychologist, carried out a study which found passing motorists tended to give a cyclist without a helmet a wider berth than one wearing one. He said it was "quite strange" that the judge had set a precedent for a situation which did not apply to the accident he was considering. END OF ARTICLE
Now, I tend to support the views of the Judge here. In the most basic sense, if an article of safety apparatus is available but not used, then any injury that occurs must be wholly or partly apportionable to the injured party. While the law insists that we wear a seat belt in a car, or a crash helmet on a motorcycle, cycle helmets are only advisory. However, we don't need a law to tell us to use an umbrella in the rain, yet any fool could tell you that if you get wet, it's your own silly fault.
I'm not in favour of compulsion. That is despite a recent fatal accident where a bicycle coming down a steep hill must have struck a car coming out of a side turning. On that stretch of road 30-40mph on a bike is quite feasible. Would a cycle helmet have made a diffeence? Not sure it would and I can't see a full-face helmet being very practical because of course, the argument will be that you "could have worn a full-face motorcycle helmet" and so on - where do you stop? Full face guard? Inflatable jacket? Full motorcycle armoured riding suit?
Most of the cycling helmets seem like cheap toys with little real benefit and I hate wearing them. Then again, I would tend to cycle not on roads to admire the scenery, not be hampered by a ridiculous looking hat.
Most of the cycling helmets seem like cheap toys with little real benefit and I hate wearing them. Then again, I would tend to cycle not on roads to admire the scenery, not be hampered by a ridiculous looking hat.
About time! I do not ride without one no matter where I am cycling, after seeing what my son went through after a major head injury due to being run over, I suddenly realised just how fragile the skull actually is. I believe that like motorcyclists, it should be compulsory to where a helmet on a bike!!!
It is completely beyond me why cyclists aren't required to wear a helmet and have front and rear lights. Car drivers must wear seatbelts, bikers must wear helmets (quite rightly in both cases) yet cyclists are exempt? I wonder if this 'freedom' rubbish was put forward when the laws on seatbelts and motorbike helmets were passed?
Negative Creep said:
It is completely beyond me why cyclists aren't required to wear a helmet and have front and rear lights. Car drivers must wear seatbelts, bikers must wear helmets (quite rightly in both cases) yet cyclists are exempt? I wonder if this 'freedom' rubbish was put forward when the laws on seatbelts and motorbike helmets were passed?
People wanting "freedom" - it's all rubbish isn't it?Cycle helmets only protect in light knocks. Certainly worth wearing for sure but don't protect against the big impacts that are being referenced...
The only way to have *proper* helmets is to use the same type as motorcyclists use. This isn't realistic and would cause more issues than it solves.
The only way to have *proper* helmets is to use the same type as motorcyclists use. This isn't realistic and would cause more issues than it solves.
IMO only someone with a reduced mental capacity rides a bike on/off road without wearing a helmet.
Not sure it should be made compulsory though.
Anyway it removes from the gene pool those who choose not to wear one, but then have an accident that would have been survivable if they had been wearing one.
Not sure it should be made compulsory though.
Anyway it removes from the gene pool those who choose not to wear one, but then have an accident that would have been survivable if they had been wearing one.
There are plenty of occasions when helmets are ridiculous...out on a bimbling ride, or nipping to the shops down cycle paths for example. However, I wear a helmet mountain biking because I regularly whack trees with my head while hammering single track. On the road bike a helmet makes me look cool and means I can wear a sweat band to stop sweat dripping in my eyes as I am foloically challenged. But its my choice, I dont see the need for more legislation, after all most people on this site seem not tolike any legislation when its aimed at them so dont start aiming it at others groups of people just ecause you arent a member of that group.
There is nothing worse than somebody who has no experience of an activity seeing fit to pass judgment on others that do.
There is nothing worse than somebody who has no experience of an activity seeing fit to pass judgment on others that do.
I was riding home from work and passing a long line of stationary vehicles on the outside. As I passed a car he decided to do a "u" turn,I was not going particulary fast; he hit me and I landed on top of my head.My hard helmet was smashed like an egg and I cracked my skull.
You dont have to be going fast to suffer catastrophic head injuries -always wear a helmet.(It saved me)
Mike
You dont have to be going fast to suffer catastrophic head injuries -always wear a helmet.(It saved me)
Mike
If implementation of this were to become law it would only add to the list of laws which the police cannot reasonably be expected to enforce with any noticeble effect. I'd continue to ride on highways without head protection (other than a wooly hat to keep my head warm). f
k off Nanny!
k off Nanny!redstu said:
If implementation of this were to become law it would only add to the list of laws which the police cannot reasonably be expected to enforce with any noticeble effect. I'd continue to ride on highways without head protection (other than a wooly hat to keep my head warm). fk off Nanny!
Phew.... thank god for that. It's people like you that will keep our insurance premiums down due to them telling your nearest and dearest that they won't be getting a penny in compensation. k off Nanny!Come on nanny make some more rules for the stupid.
Negative Creep said:
It is completely beyond me why cyclists aren't required to wear a helmet and have front and rear lights.
actually cyclists do require front and rear lights after dark.as for helmets, i've had a few tumbles from my bike and been very glad to have destroyed a helmet in the process (as opposed to my head). i've also seen a chap go full-tilt into the side of a transit that turned infront of him - i'm pretty sure i wouldn't have been looking at about 4sq.in. of his skull (at forehead) if he'd been wearing a lid...but then again i'd agree with previous comments that if someone wants to remove themselves from society via their own stupidity that's fine by me.
Negative Creep said:
It is completely beyond me why cyclists aren't required to wear a helmet
That's because you haven't thought it through.Most people who come to the same conclusion haven't, including the medical profession who of course are going to say that in a specific scenario protection is better than nothing (same argument would see you wearing protection in front of the TV in case it explodes).
Read this, it will help http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/tforum/hillm...
Then comment.
0836whimper said:
That's because you haven't thought it through.
Read this, it will help http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/tforum/hillm...
Then comment.
That report is at least 17 years old. Did anybody wear cycle helmets 17 years ago?Read this, it will help http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/tforum/hillm...
Then comment.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff