Helmet ruling.

teagar

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... ists-20250

I do NOT want this to turn into a helmet discussion. The issue I am concerned with is being liable for something that is a CHOICE to wear. By the same logic by the judge surely a cyclist would be partly lialbe for any part of his body? "Should have warn cycling gloves" etc.

It's a rather unfortunate ruling really. Whatever next? Will I be liable for cycling during rush hour when I'm much more likely to get hit?

MrChuck

On the face of it it's a worrying precedent. Reminds me of the Highway Code bit the CTC had changed a year or two back, which would basically have meant that if you were on the road when there was a bike path nearby then that too would be contributory negligence.

Does seem to be a step towards easing the burden of responsibility from drivers if they nail you.

Stuck on a Giant

A very worrying precedent. Where will it end - would I be safer if surrounded by a metal cage i.e. in a car? I fear it's a slippery slope.

I just don't understand why injuring someone when using a motor vehicle is treated any differently (i.e. so much more leniently) to other ways of causing damage.

Stuck on a Giant

A very worrying precedent. Where will it end - would I be safer if surrounded by a metal cage i.e. in a car? I fear it's a slippery slope.

I just don't understand why injuring someone when using a motor vehicle is treated any differently (i.e. so much more leniently) to other ways of causing damage.

Stuck on a Giant

A very worrying precedent. Where will it end - would I be safer if surrounded by a metal cage i.e. in a car? I fear it's a slippery slope.

I just don't understand why injuring someone when using a motor vehicle is treated any differently (i.e. so much more leniently) to other ways of causing damage.

Mettan

Thinking of more coverage at the rear - one particular option (for anyone who's not aware of this lid):

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=10687

(That's not to say it would have been much use in this particular incident) - but surely worth a look....

teagar

Mettan wrote:

Thinking of more coverage at the rear - one particular option (for anyone who's not aware of this lid):

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=10687

(That's not to say it would have been much use in this particular incident) - but surely worth a look....

Might as well buy a motorbike helmet...

spen666

teagar wrote:

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/court-judgment-has-major-implications-for-cyclists-20250

I do NOT want this to turn into a helmet discussion. ...

:?: :?: :?: :?:

In a thread entitled helemt ruling, you post a story about a court casere wearing a helmet but don't want it to be a discussion about helmets?

Nice weather for the time of year isn't it?

teagar

spen666 wrote:

teagar wrote:

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/court-judgment-has-major-implications-for-cyclists-20250

I do NOT want this to turn into a helmet discussion. ...

:?: :?: :?: :?:

In a thread entitled helemt ruling, you post a story about a court casere wearing a helmet but don't want it to be a discussion about helmets?

Nice weather for the time of year isn't it?

It's a discussion about the ruling, not whether wearing a helmet should be compulsary. :roll:

Silly billy.

Tom Butcher

That helmet link is interesting - I think SNELL have already moved to make increased skull coverage part of their testing - in future your standard helmet might look very much like that. And with the influence of skate helmets possibly more of a hard shell than we currently have.

beverick

I wonder if the same ruling had have been given if the motorcyclist had been knocked off and suffered additional injuries due to not wearing leathers or other protective wear?

I don't think the case absolved the motorcyclist of blame but did affect the liability of him (and hence his insurers) to pay compensation.

Bob

Gavin Gilbert

I must admit some confusion as to the fuss - I know it's not Spens area of practice but I'll expect he'll correct he if I wrong

The judgement is simply a logical and reasonable application of ConNeg - if the outcome of an accident would have been more favourable for the cyclist if a helmet had been used, then it is reasonable to reduce damages accordingly.

teagar

Gavin Gilbert wrote:

I must admit some confusion as to the fuss - I know it's not Spens area of practice but I'll expect he'll correct he if I wrong

The judgement is simply a logical and reasonable application of ConNeg - if the outcome of an accident would have been more favourable for the cyclist if a helmet had been used, then it is reasonable to reduce damages accordingly.

I think it's a matter about where you draw the line. The accident might have been even more favourable if the cyclist rode a tricycle!

If I loose skin off the palms of my hand when I crash - something which costs me since i need time off work, am I liable for not wearing cycling gloves?

I can understand making the cyclist more liable for not wearing a helmet if wearing a helmet is compulsary, but since it's not, I can't see how the ruling makes sense.

Similarly, I don't see drivers being made more liable in an accident because their car doesn't have airbags.

Gavin Gilbert

teagar wrote:

I think it's a matter about where you draw the line. The accident might have been even more favourable if the cyclist rode a tricycle!

If I loose skin off the palms of my hand when I crash - something which costs me since i need time off work, am I liable for not wearing cycling gloves?

I can understand making the cyclist more liable for not wearing a helmet if wearing a helmet is compulsary, but since it's not, I can't see how the ruling makes sense.

Similarly, I don't see drivers being made more liable in an accident because their car doesn't have airbags.

The judgement takes into account the exact circumstances of the accident. Maybe the cyclists would have missed having an 'accident' if he started his journey 30 seconds sooner? ConNeg deals with:

a) the contribution of the victim to causing the loss
b) the failure of the victim to mitigate the outcome of loss

So if you lose the skin on your palms through not wearing gloves, and it is reasonably foreseeable that wearing gloves would have prevented that injury (which it plainly is), then ConNeg could well apply. If you however, suffered road rash to another part of your body, it is very hard to apply ConNeg as cyclists do not commonly use any other forms of protection as it is unreasonable to expect people to cycle wearing full body armour.

In the matter of using a helmet, the judgement being discussed would not reduce damages if the helmet would have not made a material difference to the outcome, say a high speed impact or a crushing injury. A helmet is not designed to protect against this sort of damage. But in the case of a low speed impact causing, say, a mild concussion it most certainly would.

Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure it would be possible to pled ConNeg if a badly fitted helmet caused a neck or spinal cord injury. But that's another kettle of fish...

teagar

Gavin Gilbert wrote:

teagar wrote:

I think it's a matter about where you draw the line. The accident might have been even more favourable if the cyclist rode a tricycle!

If I loose skin off the palms of my hand when I crash - something which costs me since i need time off work, am I liable for not wearing cycling gloves?

I can understand making the cyclist more liable for not wearing a helmet if wearing a helmet is compulsary, but since it's not, I can't see how the ruling makes sense.

Similarly, I don't see drivers being made more liable in an accident because their car doesn't have airbags.

The judgement takes into account the exact circumstances of the accident. Maybe the cyclists would have missed having an 'accident' if he started his journey 30 seconds sooner? ConNeg deals with:

a) the contribution of the victim to causing the loss
b) the failure of the victim to mitigate the outcome of loss

So if you lose the skin on your palms through not wearing gloves, and it is reasonably foreseeable that wearing gloves would have prevented that injury (which it plainly is), then ConNeg could well apply. If you however, suffered road rash to another part of your body, it is very hard to apply ConNeg as cyclists do not commonly use any other forms of protection as it is unreasonable to expect people to cycle wearing full body armour.

In the matter of using a helmet, the judgement being discussed would not reduce damages if the helmet would have not made a material difference to the outcome, say a high speed impact or a crushing injury. A helmet is not designed to protect against this sort of damage. But in the case of a low speed impact causing, say, a mild concussion it most certainly would.

Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure it would be possible to pled ConNeg if a badly fitted helmet caused a neck or spinal cord injury. But that's another kettle of fish...

Fair enough.

Makes more sense when you put it like that!

Still a bumer if you don't wear helmets... 8)

spen666

I'm not sure on what I've read on here of this case that it sets any form of precedent at all.

The court appear from my understanding to have made some comments re where Contributory negligence might come into play. That is not a precedent, merely a statement of the opinion of that court.

It is not clear which court made the decision. If it is the High court, then AFAIK that does not set a precedent and it would onl be able to set a precedent if it was the Court of Appeal or above.

Hover, I am not a civil lawyer

stratblue

How long will it be until some lawyer suggests that an injured cyclist is partly responsible in this kind of situation simply due to actually riding on the road rather than confining his or her cycling activities to a stationary bike in the gym. This seems to be the logical outcome for this kind of blame transference. "So, let me get this straight Sir, you say he stabbed you? Were you wearing a stab proof vest Sir? No?" Sharp intake of breath......