Legal ruling on cycle helmets

greg66_tri_v2.0

flattythehurdler wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

Oh, and cycling through traffic with headphones in and no helmet? Candidate for a Darwin award...

Thanks, you're too kind.. 8) 8)

Moi aussi,
What I can't understand is wtf wearing a helmet has to do with any civil action. One is not required to wear one any more than is a pedestrian. Why should it be of any more relevance than suggesting a pedestrian shows contributory negligence by not wearing one when hit by a car???

The Judge took the view that not wearing a helmet exposes a cyclist to a greater risk of injury, and that a cyclist of "ordinary prudence" would wear one. The latter is the established legal test from the seatbelt case - just because one had a freedom not to wear a seatbelt did not mean that it was prudent not to do so, and the law expects individuals to act prudently (conversely will not compensate them for loss attributable to their own imprudence).

Would a ped who doesn't wear a helmet to cross the road be exposed to a greater risk of injury resulting from a collision with a car? Rather depends on the helmet, and the impact. Would a ped of "ordinary prudence" wear a helmet to cross the road? Of course not.

The distinction is essentially contextual. If the context is a cyclist riding on the road, (legal) prudence dictates him to wear a helmet. If the context is a ped crossing the road, it doesn't.

Think about some other examples: helmet for DH mtb'ing? Yes. Back brace for the same? Yes. Back brace for snowboarding? Maybe. Helmet for skiing? North Am - yes. Europe maybe not. Backbrace for skiing? No. Helmet for indoor rock climbing? No. Same for outdoor rock climbing? Yes.

It's nothing more than a reflection of what measures people commonly adopt.

greg66_tri_v2.0

cjcp wrote:

This could well send things off on a tangent, but...

when I'm on the bike, I worry less about riders with iPods and what not, than I do about pedestrians with iPods (and using their mobile phones) because they don't necessarily hear the shout of "bike!" when they step out into the road.

What I notice with i-peds and phone-peds is that very often they do not look before stepping out into the road. Almost as if they think they are in a little bubble of invulnerability.

Spidey-sense routinely goes to max when I'm riding in heavily ped'd areas now for this very reason. Annoying, because it's a distraction from the traffic.

singlespeedexplosif

Oh, and cycling through traffic with headphones in and no helmet? Candidate for a Darwin award...
bizarre. So would driving whilst listening to music and not wearing a helmet also make me a candidate for a Darwin award?

il_principe

MatHammond wrote:

Oh, and cycling through traffic with headphones in and no helmet? Candidate for a Darwin award...

[/quote]

Rubbish.

cjcp

What I notice with i-peds and phone-peds is that very often they do not look before stepping out into the road. Almost as if they think they are in a little bubble of invulnerability.

Precisely. I've thought about fitting a klaxon horn to the bike.

Spidey-sense routinely goes to max when I'm riding in heavily ped'd areas now for this very reason. Annoying, because it's a distraction from the traffic.

Hell yes.

Re the decision, what concerns me a very tiny little bit is how the concept of what amounts to "ordinary prudence" might evolve. Could it, for example, mean that we have start wearing knee and elbow armour? Back in Denning's day, I doubt there was the same view of helmets as there is now (e.g. look at the absence of head protection on old footage of Le Tour). Helmets for skiing even. However, I've never seen a roadie wear that sort of gear, so I suspect it's just extreme paranoia on my part.

wgwarburton

cjcp wrote:

(e.g. look at the absence of head protection on old footage of Le Tour). .

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong!) that Tour cyclists typically didn't wear helmets until they were mandated by the governing body, following a tragic accident (1995) in which Fabio Casartelli was killed.
Given that he crashed at nearly 60mph on an alpine descent, it has been claimed that the presence of a helmet might conceivably have made little difference to the outcome but the authorities clearly felt that they ought to "do something".

Cheers,
W.

bigmat

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

Oh, and cycling through traffic with headphones in and no helmet? Candidate for a Darwin award...
bizarre. So would driving whilst listening to music and not wearing a helmet also make me a candidate for a Darwin award?

I guess I'm just going on what feels safe for me, and also what I've witnessed from other cyclists. I find the ipod thing leads me to drift off and takes my focus away from the immediate (which is kind of the point of using one isn't it?) which for me is less safe. In a car I guess I feel less vulnerable therefore am happy to listen to music / radio, however if I was approaching a particularly nasty junction I'd probably hit mute.

I don't want to impose my limitations on others though, so if you feel safe doing it go for it. Same reason I'd never be in favour of compulsory helmet wearing.

bigmat

WGWarburton wrote:

cjcp wrote:

(e.g. look at the absence of head protection on old footage of Le Tour). .

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong!) that Tour cyclists typically didn't wear helmets until they were mandated by the governing body, following a tragic accident (1995) in which Fabio Casartelli was killed.
Given that he crashed at nearly 60mph on an alpine descent, it has been claimed that the presence of a helmet might conceivably have made little difference to the outcome but the authorities clearly felt that they ought to "do something".

Cheers,
W.

People have crashed at that speed and walked away. Or died. Or never ridden again. Whole range of outcomes. Fact is, wearing a helmet is likely to protect you in some of those outcomes, therefore I think it makes sense to wear one. Each to their own though, and hard to overlook how few accidents involving head injuries there were before helmets became compulsory (I don't have stats to back this up so I could be wrong...)

Eau Rouge

WGWarburton wrote:

cjcp wrote:

(e.g. look at the absence of head protection on old footage of Le Tour). .

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong!) that Tour cyclists typically didn't wear helmets until they were mandated by the governing body, following a tragic accident (1995) in which Fabio Casartelli was killed.
Given that he crashed at nearly 60mph on an alpine descent, it has been claimed that the presence of a helmet might conceivably have made little difference to the outcome but the authorities clearly felt that they ought to "do something".

Cheers,
W.

It was after the death of Andrei Kivilev in a crash in Saint-Chamond during the 03 Paris-Nice race that they were mandated (wikipedia tells me). Saint-Chamond is not an alpine decent. Before the styrofoam ones we all know now, mamy pro's did wear "hairnet" style helmets. I remember having one as a kid (showing my age)

http://fixedgearbikes.blogspot.com/2008 ... pster.html

wgwarburton

MatHammond wrote:

.... Fact is, wearing a helmet is likely to protect you in some of those outcomes, therefore I think it makes sense to wear one.

Be careful not to put too much faith in it. It's unlikely to do more than save the odd graze.

Each to their own though, and hard to overlook how few accidents involving head injuries there were before helmets became compulsory (I don't have stats to back this up so I could be wrong...)

I think there have been four TdF deaths- Two alpine "offs", Tommy Simpson's alpine "on" and Andrei Kivilev's crash (which I wasn't aware of until today). That doesn't strike me as a huge number given the number of people involved, the length of time the race has been running for, the terrain and the pressure.

Cheers,
W.

wgwarburton

Eau Rouge wrote:

It was after the death of Andrei Kivilev in a crash in Saint-Chamond during the 03 Paris-Nice race that they were mandated (wikipedia tells me). Saint-Chamond is not an alpine decent. Before the styrofoam ones we all know now, mamy pro's did wear "hairnet" style helmets. I remember having one as a kid (showing my age)

Thanks for that, appreciated. Looks like I was wrong on many counts!

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

It was after the death of Andrei Kivilev in a crash in Saint-Chamond during the 03 Paris-Nice race that they were mandated (wikipedia tells me). Saint-Chamond is not an alpine decent. Before the styrofoam ones we all know now, mamy pro's did wear "hairnet" style helmets. I remember having one as a kid (showing my age)

Thanks for that, appreciated. Looks like I was wrong on many counts!

Cheers,
W.

Its always a bit dangerous to take a look back at sporting safety standards "then" and make the conclusion that safety measures are therefore silly "now".

For example, look at some old footage of motor racing, and the drivers wore leather helmets and didn't use seatbelts (the understanding being that they would be safer in an accident if thrown from the vehicle) or roll bars. They also sat in a seat formed within a fuel tank, with a drive shaft inches from their gonads.

Now they were men.

il_principe

I wonder if they were as risk averse as we are today? I suspect not. Before the evil days of health and safety for one thing...

always_tyred

jashburnham wrote:

I wonder if they were as risk averse as we are today? I suspect not. Before the evil days of health and safety for one thing...

No, but they had about a 50% chance of making it through a race season, so they were all quite young.

alfablue

jashburnham wrote:

Before the evil days of health and safety for one thing...

With 228 workplace fatalities (and many times more serious injuries and permanent disabilities) in the UK in 2008, we certainly do need the "evil" that is H&SAW.

Much of the bad press about H&S is by people/the media falsely attributing decisions to the H&S executive, when it really mismanagement and misunderstanding of the regulations, often used as an excuse to say "no", and fear of litigation.

Christophe3967

I am conscious that we're going off the thread here, but I do take a slightly cynical view that, left to their own devices, most of the pro peleton would choose not to wear helmets (based on the training ride shots in the press) . They are a requirement of the UCI, who are doubtless influenced by the financial clout of equipment manaufacturers, who make millions from the sale of helmets, so have a direct interest in ensuring their widespread use.

Frank the tank

Most cyclists get killed because they've been in collision with a ton or more of motor vehicle and the wearing of a helmet is by and large, "

Are we all to be compelled to wear hi-viz clothing and consign our trendy black race clothing to the bin?

Eau Rouge

Frank the tank wrote:

Are we all to be compelled to wear hi-viz clothing and consign our trendy black race clothing to the bin?

You're not compelled to do anything by any of this.

wgwarburton

alfablue wrote:

With 228 workplace fatalities (and many times more serious injuries and permanent disabilities) in the UK in 2008, we certainly do need the "evil" that is H&SAW.

That's lower than I would have expected. You say "certainly"... what do you think is an "acceptable" level of workplace fatalities?

Much of the bad press about H&S is by people/the media falsely attributing decisions to the H&S executive, when it really mismanagement and misunderstanding of the regulations, often used as an excuse to say "no", and fear of litigation.

Yes indeed- not so much misunderstanding as wilfull misinterpretation to suit their own ends!

Cheers,
W.

alfablue

WGWarburton wrote:

alfablue wrote:

With 228 workplace fatalities (and many times more serious injuries and permanent disabilities) in the UK in 2008, we certainly do need the "evil" that is H&SAW.

That's lower than I would have expected. You say "certainly"... what do you think is an "acceptable" level of workplace fatalities?

Cheers,
W.

Well I would like to suggest that zero is the acceptable level. The tragedy is that most of these deaths are not in occupations with extreme levels of risk (such as oil rig divers) but more mundane industries, over half occur in farming and construction. Many of these will be the result of failures in safe systems of work, and are avoidable. I say certainly merely to affirm the importance of the HSE's work, if we had zero fatalities they would also certainly be necessary to maintain that level. Of course there are also the 299000 workplace injuries that need to be addressed as well. There are also longer term issues that carry fatalities, such as the issue of asbestosis and mesothelioma.

I am not sure the "acceptable level" answer of zero is realistic, but for each bereaved family, they will feel their loss is unacceptable. What should we be able to achieve in a modern, wealthy society? We are not, for example, really happy with the 3000+ fatalities on the roads each year, even though we have the safest roads in Europe, with about 40% of the level in France. We aspire to be better than that. I think we should aspire to zero.

Sorry, well off topic now, I think :oops:

always_tyred

alfablue wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

alfablue wrote:

With 228 workplace fatalities (and many times more serious injuries and permanent disabilities) in the UK in 2008, we certainly do need the "evil" that is H&SAW.

That's lower than I would have expected. You say "certainly"... what do you think is an "acceptable" level of workplace fatalities?

Cheers,
W.

Well I would like to suggest that zero is the acceptable level. The tragedy is that most of these deaths are not in occupations with extreme levels of risk (such as oil rig divers) but more mundane industries, over half occur in farming and construction. Many of these will be the result of failures in safe systems of work, and are avoidable. I say certainly merely to affirm the importance of the HSE's work, if we had zero fatalities they would also certainly be necessary to maintain that level. Of course there are also the 299000 workplace injuries that need to be addressed as well. There are also longer term issues that carry fatalities, such as the issue of asbestosis and mesothelioma.

I am not sure the "acceptable level" answer of zero is realistic, but for each bereaved family, they will feel their loss is unacceptable. What should we be able to achieve in a modern, wealthy society? We are not, for example, really happy with the 3000+ fatalities on the roads each year, even though we have the safest roads in Europe, with about 40% of the level in France. We aspire to be better than that. I think we should aspire to zero.

Sorry, well off topic now, I think :oops:

I once nearly set fire to the entire UK whilst attempting, untrained, to change a fuse at work.

Now I fully understand the need for a 10 day wait for a trained electrician to do it.

Cunobelin

Frank the tank wrote:

Most cyclists get killed because they've been in collision with a ton or more of motor vehicle and the wearing of a helmet is by and large, "

Are we all to be compelled to wear hi-viz clothing and consign our trendy black race clothing to the bin?

Accordingto th Governments latest campaign you should not be riding without knee and elbow pads as well!

.. and the other highlight I loved...

She always liked to look her best
So didn't wear a nice bright vest
Or any clothing that was bright
When she was out at nearly night

But traffic couldn't see her see
And now she isn't so trendy
A car drove right into her guts
And covered her with bruisy cuts

wgwarburton

alfablue wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

what do you think is an "acceptable" level of workplace fatalities?

I am not sure the "acceptable level" answer of zero is realistic, but for each bereaved family, they will feel their loss is unacceptable.

However, there's a point (well, a grey, fuzzy area, really) of diminishing returns. Achieving and maintaining zero would have a substantial impact on the country's productivity and efficiency. The commentary on H+S daftness surely suggests that we may be going too far already?

What should we be able to achieve in a modern, wealthy society? We are not, for example, really happy with the 3000+ fatalities on the roads each year, even though we have the safest roads in Europe, with about 40% of the level in France. We aspire to be better than that. I think we should aspire to zero.
Sorry, well off topic now, I think :oops:

I don't think we are off-topic at all! Road Safety, in particular, is a major issue for commuting cyclists, whether in reality or in perception.

A balanced and sensible discussion about risks and travel would be a very helpful thing. Sadly, I don't think its going to happen... in fact, I'm not sure that it can.

It may be a lack of imagination on my part, but I can't see how you can seriously suggest that we might aim for zero fatalities, given current transport infrastructure. In order to achieve that it would be necessary to radically re-engineer our entire transport infrastructure and probably remove a substantial amount of peoples freedom to travel when and where they like. Even to get close would involve a massive impact on lifestyle and business operations.
We may well be at a turning point, where the impact of climate change and decline in the popularity of fossil fuels presents an opportunity to fundamentally change things for the better- including "road safety", but I can't see a democratically elected government making a significant dent in peoples freedom of movement. Whatever solutions are proposed (electric cars, hydrogen economy, better public transport) will need to be compatible with the voters' desire for personal mobility.

As cyclists, I feel we should be pressing to be part of the solution, especially WRT integration with public transport and provision of facilities. When trains, trams and buses can easily accomodate bikes then there are substantial benefits- the mass-transit can cover the longer and busier stretches and the bike can go door-to-door.
With more cyclists and less cars, travel is greener and safer. Complement that with a delivery infrastructure and more places to park & spruce up and quite a few obstacles disappear...

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

The climate change agenda won't make much difference to road safety.

The only personal transportation alternatives that are ever going to be widely adoped will be ones that maintain the ability to climb INTO a vehicle and drive it to a chosen destination at a time of convenience to the passenger. As such, whatever the motive force, our roads will still be full of personal motorised transport.

The noise might be different, or the may emit steam, but they will still be approximately equal in number.

givecyclistsroom

The essentail fault in the Judge's logic is where he said "As it is accepted that the wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances, it must follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence would wear one". He did not say that a helmet must afford some protection in some circumstances AND a cyclist of ordinary prudence would wear one (which would have required a much more careful analysis of the pros and cons of cycle helmets). His test, as quoted, can be applied to pedestrians or others and yield absurd results.

alfablue

Ah, I think I wrote that last paragraph in a convoluted way, I am suggesting a zero fatality aspiration for workplace deaths, not road deaths. I agree there are diminishing returns, but I suspect that a majority of workplace deaths are due to foreseeable and therefore avoidable situations, often from failures to comply with safe systems of work or risk assessments, or failure to do such risk assessments in the first place. These issues are rife in the industry I work in, and whilst fatalities are very rare (though not unheard of), injuries and sickness are not.

Of course, from a detached perspective some might value the country's economic success as more important than the "odd" death or serious injury, however for the victims and/or their families, this is of no consolation. It is also not simply the case that better health and safety means poorer productivity and greater cost; safe workplaces and efficient workplaces are not mutually exclusive, indeed whilst it may surprise some old school managers, there are potentially huge economic benefits from safe workplaces. Something like 34 million working days were lost last year due to work related sickness or workplace injury, in terms of costs to employers this can be estimated at in excess of £2 billion pounds per year, a huge cost to business, and that is without the other costs associated with this, such as healthcare and benefits, insurance costs, litigation, knock on effects of loss of productivity; the true cost could easily be double or more. This represents 4% of the NHS annual budget, or 12% or the defence budget.

As for road deaths, I don't think zero is a realistic target. There must be more that can be done from where we are at now, but at some point, as you suggest, the lifestyle costs may be considered to be unattractive. No politician will ever state what would be an acceptable level, however (not if they wish to stay in politics). I think driving/cycling etc are more akin to participating in sport (not those that drive as part of their work, of course). We know the risks (or we should do, some seem oblivious) and we consent to accept these risks for the benefits on offer. In the workplace, we are there, generally speaking, because we need to be, and we do so to benefit the employer - the employer should, in return, reduce the risks of work.

wgwarburton

Always Tyred wrote:

The climate change agenda won't make much difference to road safety.

I feel it might, if changes are made to the way we use it.

The only personal transportation alternatives that are ever going to be widely adoped will be ones that maintain the ability to climb INTO a vehicle and drive it to a chosen destination at a time of convenience to the passenger. As such, whatever the motive force, our roads will still be full of personal motorised transport.
The noise might be different, or the may emit steam, but they will still be approximately equal in number.

I feel that needn't be the case. Witness the rise in cycling in London recently, and the potential (likely to be squandered) for Edinburgh's trams to help cyclists to cross the city.

I don't anticipate the death of the private car, but there seems more opportunity for change at the moment than there has been fot a while, and it would be unfortunate if we (as cyclists) missed the opportunity to make our case.

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

The climate change agenda won't make much difference to road safety.

I feel it might, if changes are made to the way we use it.

The only personal transportation alternatives that are ever going to be widely adoped will be ones that maintain the ability to climb INTO a vehicle and drive it to a chosen destination at a time of convenience to the passenger. As such, whatever the motive force, our roads will still be full of personal motorised transport.
The noise might be different, or the may emit steam, but they will still be approximately equal in number.

I feel that needn't be the case. Witness the rise in cycling in London recently, and the potential (likely to be squandered) for Edinburgh's trams to help cyclists to cross the city.

I don't anticipate the death of the private car, but there seems more opportunity for change at the moment than there has been fot a while, and it would be unfortunate if we (as cyclists) missed the opportunity to make our case.

Cheers,
W.

I'm just not optomistic, WG. I see no prosepct of anyone volunteering to take up any opportunity to use what will essentially be a far less convenient, comfortable and clean form of transport, regardless of the environmental benefit. London is a comparative bubble of cycling and is a somewhat rare example of a UK city where the traffic is so bad, and the city so large, that public transport is preferable. Not many people cycle through North Sea gales in Edinburgh in December, let me tell you. Busses are filthy. Trains are filthy. There are only 2 directions from which trains arrive to Edinburgh so if you have to drive any distance to intercept one of them, you may as well drive all the way in.

The trams are to get people to the airport (the high speed busses which take 20 mins along the same route clearly don't do the job well enough and the tram will cut this to 17 minutes) and it will be 20 years before we have a meaningful network. They are small carriages. No provision for bicycles. No bike racks on the front of busses either. The trams will provide some rails that will help train the city's cyclists in the art of bike handling, though.

Also the trams are electric. How do we generate electricity in this country?

I don't imagine for a second that it isn't the same elsewhere in the UK.

dirk_van_gently

Interesting and timely article in city cycling
http://citycycling.co.uk/issue45/issue45page5.html

H&S should not be demonised, it has made the working lives of many people a lot safer, unfortunately there are always those who will use the law in a way it was not intended. The cases of School headmasters being unwilling to allow school field trips because of the risk of being sued, usually citing H&S, is a classic, truth was the school didn't want the field trips cos they were a load of work.

H&S and advances in technology now means that few people die in motorsport, motorsport that many now see as being boring, so it would seem we are no further along the food chain than the blood thirsty Romans.

wgwarburton

Always Tyred wrote:

I'm just not optomistic, WG.

I see that...

I see no prosepct of anyone volunteering to take up any opportunity to use what will essentially be a far less convenient, comfortable and clean form of transport, regardless of the environmental benefit.

I take your point, but I feel there's room for a little optomism.

London is a comparative bubble of cycling and is a somewhat rare example of a UK city where the traffic is so bad, and the city so large, that public transport is preferable. Not many people cycle through North Sea gales in Edinburgh in December, let me tell you.

I know: I'm one of them.

Busses are filthy. Trains are filthy. There are only 2 directions from which trains arrive to Edinburgh so if you have to drive any distance to intercept one of them, you may as well drive all the way in.

I don't use the buses. The trains are generally fine- I've been commuting into Edinburgh or Glasgow for years, now, and the service has been improving. The biggest hassle is probably its popularity at the moment- it can be inconvenient to get your bike on...

The trams are to get people to the airport (the high speed busses which take 20 mins along the same route clearly don't do the job well enough and the tram will cut this to 17 minutes) and it will be 20 years before we have a meaningful network. They are small carriages. No provision for bicycles. No bike racks on the front of busses either. ...

Yes, so lets campaign for better provision... It's to be hoped that the trams will be cleaner and more attractive than the busses. that, surely, is the point?

Also the trams are electric. How do we generate electricity in this country?
.

Mostly Nuclear, I think- minimal carbon emissions.

Cheers,
W.