Court in shocker common sense cyclist injury verdict

Home Forum Chat Forum Court in shocker common sense cyclist injury verdict

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 85 total)
  • Court in shocker common sense cyclist injury verdict
  • Jakester
    Member

    Just thought this recent case might be of interest:

    http://www.lawtel.com/content/display.asp?ID=AC0119669

    If you can’t view it, the Court of Appeal held that despite there being no legal compulsion for cyclists to wear helmets, a cyclist not wearing a helmet was, like a car-user not wearing a seatbelt, exposing himself to a greater risk of injury and ran the risk of contributing to his own injuries in the event of an accident caused by another road user.

    However, in this particular case, the impact was in excess of 12mph so the protection afforded would have been minimal.

    Any thoughts?

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    jakester – cant see the detail of that could you copy and paste the bit of the finding that refers to the speed and contributory component to injury please? Thanks.

    Nezbo
    Member

    I personally thing that everyone should ware a helmet, for the safety of them selves and others, I have been out on ride with a friend that refused to ware a helmet and fell off on to a rock head first (donโ€™t worry the rock was fine) he now wares a helmet all the time, but the ride was spoiled, if he had a helmet on we could have continued with the ride.

    So I think it should be law to ware a helmet…

    Nezbo

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Subscriber

    Common sense often occurs in court rulings, it just tends not to be reported as much as the dumb stuff

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    I personally thing that everyone should ware a helmet, for the safety of them selves and others, I have been out on ride with a friend that refused to ware a helmet and fell off on to a rock head first (donโ€™t worry the rock was fine) he now wares a helmet all the time, but the ride was spoiled, if he had a helmet on we could have continued with the ride.

    And I know of a rider who went head first into a car when she wasn’t “wareing” a helmet. She hurt her shoulder. I don’t thing everyone should ware a helmet.

    Premier Icon bruneep
    Subscriber

    Any thoughts?

    uplink
    Member

    for the safety of them selves and others

    go on then, how does it affect the safety of others?

    jon1973
    Member

    And I know of a rider who went head first into a car when she wasn’t “wareing” a helmet. She hurt her shoulder. I don’t thing everyone should ware a helmet.

    My granfather smoked 30 a day his whole life and lived until he was in his 90’s. That doesn’t mean it’s same to smoke.

    I “thing” everyone should be made to wear helmets.

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Subscriber

    Helmets are great in fairly minor incidents, and stop them becoming more serious – hit a vehicle at speed and an inch of polystyrene won’t save you.

    I always wear a helmet (as much to set an example to my kids), but I don’t like wearing a helmet. I wouldn’t want it to be compulsory, provided riders understand and accept the risk they choose to run AND the civil damages implications if they get involved in an RTA.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    thank you swadey – hence my request for the bit about contribution to injury and speed – how did the court phrase it, was there a technical bounday made?

    you chaps can all all go and have your helmet debate somewhere again if you must, but how about listening to what a court that had the facts presented to it had to say?

    Jakester
    Member

    Apologies, I wasn’t sure whether it would work. Here’s the case summary:

    The court was required to determine liability in a claim for damages for personal injuries brought by the claimant cyclist (S) against the defendant motorcyclist (F) following a road traffic accident. S had sustained serious head injuries when his bicycle collided with F’s motorcycle. S had no memory of the event and F was the only witness. The speed limit where it occurred was 30 mph. S’s case was that F had ridden his motorcycle along the road at an excessive speed, failed to keep a proper look out and failed to see S, who was on the proper side of the road at all times. F made a Part 20 claim against S for personal injury, contending that he had not been driving at excessive speed, and that S had pedalled out of a side road into his path and had given him no reasonable opportunity to avoid a collision. Further, F claimed that S’s injuries had been sustained wholly or partly because he had not been wearing a helmet, which was contributory negligence on S’s part.

    HELD: (1) On the balance of probabilities, F had been travelling at a speed well in excess of the 30 mph restriction and the collision occurred as he tried to overtake S. He was entirely to blame for the collision by virtue of his excessive speed and his riding much too close to S as he tried to overtake. It was apparent that F had not told the truth about the collision: his account was designed to shift the blame. He had not given any credible and reliable evidence in support of his Part 20 claim or in establishing any contributory negligence on S’s part to the circumstances of the accident. (2) It did not matter that there was no legal compulsion for cyclists to wear safety helmets because there could be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet might expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury; such a failure, like the failure of a car-user to wear a seatbelt, would not be sensible and so, subject to causation, any injury sustained might be the cyclist’s own fault, Froom v Butcher (1976) QB 286 CA (Civ Div) applied. On the balance of probabilities, S had hit the ground at a speed greater than 12 mph so the wearing of a helmet would have made no difference to the injuries sustained. Moreover, the scalloped shape of most modern helmets would probably not have prevented S’s injuries, given the location of the impact on the back of his head. Even if the impact speed had been low enough for a helmet to have afforded protection, F had adduced no medical evidence to support his case that S’s injuries would have been reduced or prevented by his wearing a helmet. Accordingly, F had failed to discharge the burden of proving contributory negligence.

    JulianA
    Member

    Can’t Nezbo to spell? Or perhaps he’s fallen off his bike whilst not WEARING a helmet and damaged his head…

    No helmet compulsion, as that will stop people going for a little bimble in the park where it probably isn’t really necessary to WEAR a helmet, but you’re mad if you don’t WEAR one for anything more knarly!

    Jakester
    Member

    Looks to me like a victory for common sense.

    Now contrast that with the claim against All Terrain and the damaged handlebar case…

    wildrnes
    Member

    where is TJ when you need him

    IanMunro
    Member

    I’m not too sure where the ‘common sense’ comes in. If you work on your premise that wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one, then you’d expect to see injury rates proportionally lower in pro-helmet countries such as the USA and UK than anti-helmet countries such as most of mainland Europe.
    But you don’t, you find the opposite.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    thanks jakester.

    SO interestingly the Fs lawyers could find no medical/technical research to prove that the helmet would have helped in that case REGARDLESS of the speed involved (due to impact location) – and they sure as hell woul dwould have looked hard for it. And although the court havent specified a speed beyond which a helmet’s contribution to protection would be nill, 12mph is a good benchmark and to some extent reflects what a lot of people have mentioned as a gut feel speed.

    andym
    Member

    Now contrast that with the claim against All Terrain and the damaged handlebar case…

    the law is always full of common sense – except when you don’t like the outcome.

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    That all sounds very sensible and it’s good that the courts seem to be up to date with the research on helmet use. It would have been crap if the cyclist had been penalised for not wearing a helmet when the accident wasn’t even her fault.

    TandemJeremy
    Member

    Oh this old canard again.

    Cycling is a safe pursuit. Only a very small number of people get head injuries each year. ( less than a dozen) and only some of these would be mitigated by helmets. Do you wear a helmet when you are walking? You are more likely to get a head injury as a pedestrian than as a cyclist.

    Helmet wearing should and must remain voluntary while helmets are manufactured to such low standards that there is no proof of them doing much good – and in some cases can do harm

    Couple this with the effect of putting people off cycling and the illhealth that causes – see the Australian experience where post helmet compulsion cycling rates decreased but head injury rates did not.

    Better designed helmets without the major flaws that the current designs had is what you should be agitating for, not cmpulsory helmet wearing.

    Jakester
    Member

    IanMunro – Member
    I’m not too sure where the ‘common sense’ comes in. If you work on your premise that wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one, then you’d expect to see injury rates proportionally lower in pro-helmet countries such as the USA and UK than anti-helmet countries such as most of mainland Europe.
    But you don’t, you find the opposite.

    I was referring more to the consideration of causation and rejection of the Defendant’s contention that the failure to wear a helmet was contributory negligence.

    Stoner – I wouldn’t say “couldn’t find”, rather failed to adduce – which are two different things.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    I wouldn’t say “couldn’t find”, rather failed to adduce

    he should sue his counsel then! ๐Ÿ™‚

    Jakester
    Member

    TJ – actually, I found the case interesting because it showed that the court discounted the failure to wear a helmet as a causative factor in the injuries…

    IanMunro
    Member

    I was referring more to the consideration of causation and rejection of the Defendant’s contention that the failure to wear a helmet was contributory negligence.

    Cheers Jakester, now i understand. I typed my response in on my iphone, and it took so long that I completely missed your full quote of the court verdict.
    The perils of reading singletrack on the bog ๐Ÿ™‚

    grizzlygus
    Member

    I’m more interested in knowing whether it’s safe to go onto the forum without first completing a higher education course in English. Failure to do so will obviously render your opinions worthless and expose you high levels of ridicule. Although the irony of those who ridicule whilst being themselves guilty of glaring mistakes, is not lost on me.

    recon you can save yourself from injuries ar fairly quick speeds, not just gentle tumbles.

    I’ve fallen on my head twice from about 8ft (well 8ft + 6ft), once on the bike wearing a helmet, and once walking home in the dark. On the bike the helmet was written off, but everything was otherwise ok. Without the helmet i had a horrendous headache and a nice big permanent scar to show for it.

    At high speed I’ve written off a helmet on Bamford clough, given the crash (40+ mph, over the step) I’d happily say theres no way i’d be typing this if i hadn’t been wearing a helmet.

    Have to confess to not wearing one on the road yesterday as it was so cold and couldnt find the skull cap!

    Premier Icon Mark
    Subscriber

    while helmets are manufactured to such low standards that there is no proof of them doing much good – and in some cases can do harm

    Well you know very well that’s not true. There is ‘evidence’ for AND against. Throwing in the word ‘proof’ is just your own personal propaganda biased towards your personal view. Just to dissect your statement further and to avoid ambiguity.. would you say there is ‘proof’ that a helmet can do harm? And if the answer is yes to that would you still posit there is no ‘proof’ that they do ‘much good’.. And what do you mean ‘much..?’ is that an admission that although they don;t do ‘much’ good they still do ‘some’ good? And if so do you then admit that even ‘some’ does mean helmets do provide positive benefits?

    Steve-Austin
    Member

    Guaranteed 100 Poster!!

    Kit
    Member

    Aye, this one’s going to run…

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    recon you can save yourself from injuries ar fairly quick speeds, not just gentle tumbles.

    I’ve fallen on my head twice from about 8ft (well 8ft + 6ft), once on the bike wearing a helmet, and once walking home in the dark. On the bike the helmet was written off, but everything was otherwise ok. Without the helmet i had a horrendous headache and a nice big permanent scar to show for it.

    At high speed I’ve written off a helmet on Bamford clough, given the crash (40+ mph, over the step) I’d happily say theres no way i’d be typing this if i hadn’t been wearing a helmet.

    You’re saying we should ban helmets? Without helmets, people wouldn’t be doing silly, dangerous things like riding bikes off-road at high speed!

    juan
    Member

    Oh this old canard again.

    And once again you spout your old crap. Quoting ONE studie in australia. I too could quote original studies TJ. There is one where they managed to link the fact that people not wearing helmet are far more likely to commit road offences. So helmet compulsory = less cyclist comminting offences on the road = better respect from the car drivers…

    See that is called a tjism. As for your comment about helmet, I for once (that must be the first time) agree with mark.

    TandemJeremy
    Member

    Mark – maybe my use of language was poor but you miss the point by miles.

    Cycle helmets are tested in a very unrealistic way and to a very low standard. No testing of retention, not testing in oblique impacts no testing in high speed inpacts

    There is no evidence of them doing much good ( ie doing anything than preventing minor injuries) across populations wearing helmets may actually increase injury rates.

    Using the phrase “personal propaganda biased towards your personal view” is doing what yo accused me of. I am in favour of more research into helmets and helmet design but against compulsion. I wear one sometimes but not others. I don’t expect a helmet to save me from serious injury.

    All that can be said with certainty is

    Wearing helmets can reduce some injuries, can make some injuries worse and in many accidents are irrelevant.

    TandemJeremy
    Member

    Juan – tell me what is crap in what I say?

    Spongebob
    Member

    Always wear a helmet!

    I have worn one since a mate went to Chamonix 10 yrs ago whereupon he was advised to get one. The next day he came off splitting the helmet in two. Saved his life – no question.

    All scenarios warrant the use of a hat.

    juan
    Member

    Juan – tell me what is crap in what I say?

    well:

    There is no evidence of them doing much good ( ie doing anything than preventing minor injuries) across populations wearing helmets may actually increase injury rates.

    TandemJeremy
    Member

    Juan – that unfortunately is the truth. Several studies have shown exactly those two issues. The construction of helmets to meet current regulations mean that they are not much use in major impacts and several studies around the world show that there are real questions about what happens accross populations when helmet wearing is made compulsory. You save one head injury and get three heart attacks instead

    simonfbarnes
    Member

    Can’t Nezbo to spell?

    no, but he doesn’t like the matter drawn to attention. However on the upside, his grammar may be better than yours ๐Ÿ™‚

    juan
    Member

    Several studies have shown exactly those two issues

    Please which studies then? Crap from website I guess…

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    Cycling is a safe pursuit.

    I’d agree with that. In my case, it’s pretty much the only regular exercise I do, so it’s certainly safer than the alternative.

    Only a very small number of people get head injuries each year. ( less than a dozen).

    I assume you mean for mountain biking. If that’s true then surely it has something to do with the fact that helmet use for off-road cycling is the norm. I’ve had personal experience of two accidents over the last year which involved impacts to rider’s heads. Either me and my mates are uber gnarly, or that mode of accident is fairly common in off-road cycling.

    Do you wear a helmet when you are walking? You are more likely to get a head injury as a pedestrian than as a cyclist.

    Again, I wonder why that should be. The speeds involved in cycling are higher and it’s a much less intuitive action that walking. The only explanations are that people are wearing the appropriate protective gear, or that you’re deliberately citing the statistics in a misleading way.

    Overall I’d agree with what Mark said. It’s perfectly possible to be anti helmet compulsion without citing iffy “research” to back your case up. Although where would the fun be in that?

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Glad to see it really was common sense – was worried by the OP that they had ruled that it was contributory negligence not to wear a helmet. The wording in the middle about it not being sensible not to wear a helmet is a little worrying though.

    andym
    Member

    I’m more interested in knowing whether it’s safe to go onto the forum without first completing a higher education course in English. Failure to do so will obviously render your opinions worthless and expose you high levels of ridicule. Although the irony of those who ridicule whilst being themselves guilty of glaring mistakes, is not lost on me.

    Well said GG.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 85 total)

The topic ‘Court in shocker common sense cyclist injury verdict’ is closed to new replies.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks are open.

Skip to top