Forum menu
IIRC ( and thats not always so) the insurance co reduced it saying accept this or go to court
But the advice from my friends solicitor was it *would* be reduced in court and that there was case precedent for this.
Crossed posts
I do not think there is any legal prrecedent for this. I could be wrong.
Nah, whether they see me as human or not, they're more worried aboiut the paint than my noggin
and yet not punishment or increase of pay out
Well, it’s insurance, not a prosecution, and the insurers are acting in the interests of their car-driving customers. They can’t really punish anyone any more than increasing their premium.
The only thing that might help is to look unusual enough that the drivers brain triggers something that makes them look again as their eyes move across your general area. If you are somewhere like Denmark or the Netherlands where few people wear High-viz then the novelty might be enough to trigger driver’s brains.
In the UK I’d say there’s not much chance. You need to take it up a few notches to be unusual enough to be noticeable!
this is all without conscious thought
Clever to be able to type like that.
Regardless of motorists' attitudes to cyclists, I've walked along pavements and across crossings on a green man and almost been taken out by drivers, even when I've had my kids with me. I'm guessing that wearing absolutely everyday clothes (and being in the presence of young children) didn't humanise me enough?
Maybe we should stop looking for excuses for terrible drivers?
a helmet is precaution in case of injury (maybe 😉), it doesn't [I]stop[/I] you getting hit in the first place - unless he's claiming damages for a head-injury then I'd be saying, "see you in court"...But my pal who didn’t wear a helmet, but did wear lumi jacket and bright lights, had compensation reduced as he was ‘not taking every prudent precaution’…
Maybe we should stop looking for excuses for terrible drivers?
Its not about making excuses - its about understanding why things happen so steps can be taken to avoid being hit by a car driver
If you can find a way of making people give a shit then you really will be onto something
its about understanding why things happen so steps can be taken to avoid being hit by a car driver
Simple…
But my pal who didn’t wear a helmet, but did wear lumi jacket and bright lights, had compensation reduced as he was ‘not taking every prudent precaution’…
Yeah thats an absoloute crock of shit. while i appreciate its easy for me to say sat behind a keyboard, theres no way i would be taking that.
Thats pushed them into "i'm going to waste as much of your time and money as possible as a matter of principal because your policies are offensive" territory.
But my pal who didn’t wear a helmet, but did wear lumi jacket and bright lights, had compensation reduced as he was ‘not taking every prudent precaution’…
Keep hearing stories like this but still to hear it being successfully argued and won in court?
I can see an ambulance chaser telling a client to accept an offer to get a case closed and their fees paid, and avoid the risk, but by it's logical extension, they aren't going to reduce the damages for a pedestrian who wasn't in hiviz, are they?
the only reason to wear a helmet/hiviz whilst road commuting is so the court will find it harder to arbitrarily attribute blame and/or reduce the compensation your family receives in the event of your death
This.
I want to avoid the headline announcing my death as saying "The cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet..."
Agree with the comments about shared paths though - I find on local railway line trails etc I get a far better response if I'm in baggy shorts, no helmet - people seem willing to engage as a human.
On the road though, I've worn helmets as standard for 30+ years due to racing, riding and working on events where it's always been mandatory so it just feels normal. Plus it gets to avoid all the uppity bores who take it upon themselves to self-police cycling going "you should be wearing a helmet..."
I think in London, because of the sheer number of hire bikes in use, there's more of an expectation and acceptance that not everyone will be wearing a helmet.
based on respondent gender.
On the same lines, cyclists wearing a cap were viewed as more human than those wearing a full helmet.
My cycling attire tonight is a baseball cap. I guess I lose points for my bright orange top though.
As for whether after an accident compensation would be reduced. Legal opinion is mixed
.
To be honest the main reason I don’t wear headphones on the road is because of the whole ‘it will look bad if you’re hit’ issue. I have the bone conduction ones and can hear traffic as well with them as without them but the thought of my wife having to argue with an insurance company about a reduced pay out doesn’t sit well with me.
that legal stuff states tyhat there may be contributory negligence if you get a head injury while not wearing a helmet. But various legal decisions show even that is not ope and shut as its so difficult to show that a helmet would have reduced a severe injury - thats got a decent basis in UK law. However if there is no head injury there can be no contributory negligence - thats pretty clear
unless he’s claiming damages for a head-injury then I’d be saying, “see you in court”…
Life changing and career ending head injury.
Fair enough then. Even then its not clear cut he would lose 10% for contributory negligence from reading those cases.
After years of completely non-scientific experimentation on the mean streets of Edinburgh I found it’s best to use a child’s seat with a doll loosely strapped into it behind you. Ride loose and bunny hop every crack in the tarmac possible. Number of close passes goes waaay down.
The wig helmet. It will happen.
Maybe we should stop looking for excuses for terrible drivers?
Its not about making excuses
Yes it is. It is the same old victim blaming I've heard for decades now. 'It's not the drivers fault that they didn't see you it was saccadic masking, it was the sun in their eyes, it was because you didn't look human enough (FFS!!), not enough hi-viz, lights not bright enough, lights too bright.' It goes on and on.
– its about understanding why things happen so steps can be taken to avoid being hit by a car driver
Let's start by getting rid of the assumption that the person who has been hit is the problem, and, as in that strip cartoon up there ^, look at the common problem - the person behind the steering wheel.
[i]the person behind the steering wheel[/i]
I had a Tesla close pass me yesterday. I thought they'd at least have "you're too ****ing close" alarms (for the driver to ignore).
Yes it is. It is the same old victim blaming I’ve heard for decades now. ‘It’s not the drivers fault that they didn’t see you it was saccadic masking, it was the sun in their eyes, it was because you didn’t look human enough (FFS!!), not enough hi-viz, lights not bright enough, lights too bright.’ It goes on and on.
Actually, saccadic masking isn't an excuse. It's an indication that the driver was driving too fast and didn't shift their head position when checking if the road was clear.
SMIDSY is a thing and has been forever. It's not victim blaming to try to figure out what the mechanism behind it is and try to educate drivers on how to mitigate its effects.
...try to educate drivers
Who's doing this?
Actually, saccadic masking isn’t an excuse. It’s an indication that the driver was driving too fast and didn’t shift their head position when checking if the road was clear.
And was even the focus of road safety adverts when I was growing up, although we can make ourselves feel cleverer now by calling it a fancy name. Think once, think twice, think bike - the campaign started in 1978, although obviously not meant for us plebs on pushbikes.
SMIDSY is a thing and has been forever. It’s not victim blaming to try to figure out what the mechanism behind it is and try to educate drivers on how to mitigate its effects.
By blaming the cyclist for wearing helmet and sunglasses?
One of the things that came out about motorcycles and smidsy is that its about the apparent width you present as - so a solution is to weave to make yourself look wider in at risk situations.
Something only gets noticed by your brain as a threat when its more than ( IIRC) 5 degrees of your vision - so for a car its a lot further away than for a motorbike and of course a bicycle is even closer - this is nothing to do with attention as such - its about the way the brain processes images
Understanding why things go wrong is a key to making them go right
One of the things that came out about motorcycles and smidsy is that its about the apparent width you present as – so a solution is to weave to make yourself look wider in at risk situations.
Years ago there was a study which was based on the number of times a motorcyclist was obstructed by drivers on a set commute route. They tried with and with headlights, fairings, reflective etc. The thing that made a difference was styling the bike and rider to look like a police motorcyclist. The number of times the police bike look-alike was obstructed was significantly less. The conclusion, I think, was that motorists notice things that they see as threat to them (or their licence wallet).
As for the cyclists / helmets thing. I'm not going to stop wearing a helmet on the road because I've seen enough smashed up helmet accidents to want to protect my head. The real answer - as per above - is to find a way of educating motorists / put them in a situation where failing to treat cyclists well presents a threat to their continued ability to drive.
Of course this unlikely to happen under a government that views sustainable transport and human life generally as an inconvenient afterthought.
By blaming the cyclist for wearing helmet and sunglasses?
Eh?
Sorry, but do you know what saccadic masking is?
It's not just a fancy name for not paying attention. It's the result of humans evolving to go around at walking pace (and occasionally at running pace) and how the brain is able to take in and process visual information without becoming overloaded.
It runs into limitations if you put those same humans behind the wheel of a car and while there are ways to mitigate its effects it mostly just comes down to slowing down and moving your head when checking if the road is clear.
It's one of those things where people on bikes can't do much other than be aware there's a good chance the driver hasn't seen them. This one is pretty much entirely in the driver's court*.
* Saying that, apart from using lights when it's dark, I think pretty much everything is in the driver's court.
Sorry, but do you know what saccadic masking is?
Yes I do, I was going back to what the thread was actually about.
Yes I do, I was going back to what the thread was actually about.
Yes, part of the reason I brought up saccadic masking was because one of the reasons given for using high-viz (not reflective, just to clarify) is that it lessens the likelihood of saccadic masking.
Most research shows it doesn't.
So there isn't really a safety argument to be made for high-viz.
That's all I was saying. Not trying to introduce new excuses for drivers.
At the end of the day, saccadic masking and responses to someone’s appearance are just two examples of cognitive shortcomings and cognitive biases that are well known and well researched, and the key problem is that we do not train drivers in a way that accounts well for these; nor do we ensure that drivers are retrained and reassessed as our understanding of these things improves.
We hand out licences in packets of cornflakes and leave people to just get on with it for the next 50 or so years until we think “that wrinkly old fart’s getting on a bit, shall we test his eyesight?” The unlucky ones will be pulled over once or twice in that time but for the most part they’re free to just sail as close to the wind as they like, wielding around a million joules of kinetic energy as they blissfully fail to draw a short straw and have all that energy turn to shit. But for some, sometimes, it does—and we just scoop up the bits of metal and glass and mop up the blood, and shrug and keep on handing out the licences, because no-one dares to suggest that it should take much more than a packet of cornflakes to obtain one and keep it forever.
Saying that, apart from using lights when it’s dark, I think pretty much everything is in the driver’s court.
Hmm. There are lots of instances where it is simply hard to see things, especially on UK roads which are often poorly sighted. We all need to work together to make sure we can see each other - for example, don't wear camo when cycling in the countryside.
Sometimes actual visibility is marginal - rain, darkness. obscured by other things - and drivers won't look very closely. You can say they should, and you'd be right, but they don't.
There are lots of instances where it is simply hard to see things, especially on UK roads which are often poorly sighted. We all need to work together to make sure we can see each other
Hard to see -> go slower.
for example, don’t wear camo when cycling in the countryside.
You know that fashion-led cycling camo doesn't actually disguise you in the scenery, don't you? And, I'm guessing here, if you put a camo-clad squaddie on a bike, with gun on their back, he/she'd get a lot more respect from drivers than I do.
😀
and drivers won’t look very closely. You can say they should, and you’d be right, but they don’t.
People can shout at clouds (or use random ALL CAPS in road.cc comment section) hoping for some magic cycling utopia
Or they can take actions to protect themselves and others
I think I know which one will be better for your personal health.
Or they can take
actionsplacebos to protect themselves
FTFY 😉
Really, the only effective action is avoidance. You can respond to what’s in front of you but you have negligible influence over what’s approaching from behind. I avoid main roads these days. Most people simply avoid ever riding a bicycle at all.
Really, the only effective action is avoidance. You can respond to what’s in front of you but you have negligible influence over what’s approaching from behind. I avoid main roads these days. Most people simply avoid ever riding a bicycle at all.
I didn't mean that the helmet is the only action they can take.
Personally, I'd happily have no helmet for a local commute etc.
Route choice, road positioning, maintaining basic awareness and looking behind you* can go a long way - but are obviously not 100% effective, or always practical.
The number of times I've seen an "urban bike rider" whip up their right arm faster than an SS Major followed immediately by a wobbly right turn across traffic without ever once looking behind them either during the manouver or at any time prior; is quite astonishing.
Pretty soon all cars will drive themselves and AI will make it impossible to harm a human or even a cyclist and there will be pills to keep us from putting on flab so why would anyone ride a bike anyway?
"Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads."
I didn’t mean that the helmet is the only action they can take.
Personally, I’d happily have no helmet for a local commute etc.Route choice, road positioning, maintaining basic awareness and looking behind you* can go a long way – but are obviously not 100% effective, or always practical.
Yes, fair points. In fact… 🙂
Hard to see -> go slower.
Going slow is nice, but for commuting, which is where most of us see the most traffic, it's just not a very good idea ime. Ideal world we'd all bimble in wearing normal clothes, but riding like this feels very exposed compared to going at a decent clip.
Ideal world we’d all bimble in wearing normal clothes, but riding like this feels very exposed compared to going at a decent clip.
I'm going to agree, but also emphasise the word feels.
Riding "slowly" feels scary, I think you get a feeling of control from pushing moderately hard on the pedals and feeling the resistance. soft pedalling or coasting with other bikes or cars around me I feel significantly less in control.
Unfortunately I find this an issue if on a group XC ride that incorporates some road. As a heavy bloke (ie with high power but average power to weight, so on flattish roads I wont be trying particularly hard) an undisciplined group of mountain bikers on a road feels very scary to me.
Hard to see -> go slower.
Going slow is nice, but for commuting
I think that 'go slower' bit was aimed at drivers, not cyclists.