....words of wisdomThis is the second time I've seen cases where the judge has ruled contributory negligence a cyclist involved in an accident not wearing a helmet. In part this may reflect the health and safety obsessions of our modern society.
This is open to misunderstanding though. The ruling isn't that the cyclist contributed to the accident, but that they contributed towards the consequences for them. That in turn would influence any subsequent award.
If the cyclist suffered a head injury that a helmet would have prevented or mitigated, the ruling is sound. If that was not the case, the ruling is wrong. The detail is necessary for us to judge which.
As I posted above, that isn't what is argued in these cases. The fault in causing the accident is the motorist's and the defence no doubt fully accepted that. The helmet wearing issue would not have played any part in that. Unfortunately these grossly misleading, biased and incomplete reports like the one on that link deliberately distort and omit the facts.So if you should get siezed by an overwhelming desire to knock down a cyclist, make sure it is one that is not wearing a helmet and then your defence council can claim that it was not your fault at all.
Come now, why the bias?The next time somebody dies after being hit over the head with a beer bottle whilst having a pint - I wonder if the defence would state that the deceased wasn't wearing a helmet in the pub.
Then let's hope that somebody doesn't make helmets (with BSI standards) for pub goers. We'd be irresponsible not to wear them!Come now, why the bias?
There are recognised cycle helmets with BSI standards in common use, there's no such thing for pub goers.
That's great Wibble, very much my attitude too.I'm not one for enjoying seeing people locked up for man slaughter. I take my chances in this world. If somebody accidentally kills me - then that's life.
Of course not, thats entirely different. Like many activities, cycling has recognised safety equipment. There is nothing wrong with a defence arguing that a cyclist would have been wise to use that.What if the cyclist had a huge 4X4 sitting at home on the drive? Could the defence not argue that if the cyclist had chosen to drive rather than cycle he would not have suffered any injuries.
I really don't see that this is entirely different. Many 4X4 drivers cite safety as a prime reason for buying their gargantuan 4X4. Many drivers cite safety as a reason for not cycling. The activity I would contend is personal transport from A to B. Where the line is drawn as far as recognised safety equiment is purely subjective since there is no legal requirement for the cyclist to wear a helmet.Of course not, thats entirely different. Like many activities, cycling has recognised safety equipment. There is nothing wrong with a defence arguing that a cyclist would have been wise to use that.
There is equally nothing wrong with a judge giving a degree of credence to that, since the matter of whether a helmet would have made a difference to the outcome is a matter of judgment and cannot be exactly determined.