Helmet in accident

Cyclum

I was involved in an accident recently and a solicitor informed me that some insurance companies will refuse to pay out if the cyclist want wearing a helmet, irrespective of who is at fault.

I've always worn a helmet but I still don't agree. A helmet is a choice, and not a legal requirement. It is however a "common sense requirement" apparently.

I just wonderful what other people thought about it.

cougie

He's clearly talking complete rubbish. I'd report him.

bendertherobot

cougie wrote:

He's clearly talking complete rubbish. I'd report him.

Why? It's perfectly plausible that some insurance companies are doing this. Certainly one tried in relation to high vis:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... attle.html

In that case they accepted some blame but argued about the extent of con neg.

Remember that, if we're talking about making a claim against someone else's insurance, then they can do what they want. Ultimately, if they won't pay out, you sue the person who caused the accident, then the contract of indemnity kicks in and the insurer pays you.

veronese68

Insurance companies trying to wriggle out of paying. Who'd have thunk it?

Daz555

Veronese68 wrote:

Insurance companies trying to wriggle out of paying. Who'd have thunk it?

This....and in a small umber of cases these insurance snakes are being aided by stupid rulings from useless judges.

bendertherobot

Daz555 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Insurance companies trying to wriggle out of paying. Who'd have thunk it?

This....and in a small umber of cases these insurance snakes are being aided by stupid rulings from useless judges.

Which ones?

cougie

I've never seen a case where the insurance could get out of paying up completely due to a lack of helmet.

If there are no examples - its not happened.

surrey_commuter

cougie wrote:

He's clearly talking complete rubbish. I'd report him.

this and get a new solicitor

bendertherobot

cougie wrote:

I've never seen a case where the insurance could get out of paying up completely due to a lack of helmet.

If there are no examples - its not happened.

You're missing the point. A CASE is what happen when the CASE is brought to Court. There are currently no cases where con neg in relation to helmets has succeeded.

That's different to an insurer refusing to pay out for any reason before it gets to Court.

bendertherobot

Surrey Commuter wrote:

cougie wrote:

He's clearly talking complete rubbish. I'd report him.

this and get a new solicitor

What are we reporting him for?

Cyclum

There might be something in it. There's a section in here:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/p ... cident.htm

"The main issue involved in complaints about this exclusion is whether a particular action is a “reckless exposure to danger”. For example, although some people may argue that cycling without a helmet is a “reckless exposure to danger”, others say – and we may agree – that it is common practice and part of ordinary life. On the other hand, it would be harder to argue the same point for base-jumping."

bendertherobot

Cyclum wrote:

There might be something in it. There's a section in here:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/p ... cident.htm

"The main issue involved in complaints about this exclusion is whether a particular action is a “reckless exposure to danger”. For example, although some people may argue that cycling without a helmet is a “reckless exposure to danger”, others say – and we may agree – that it is common practice and part of ordinary life. On the other hand, it would be harder to argue the same point for base-jumping."

Yes. Though that's a separate, but related, issue.

For personal accident insurance, which is based on contract, an insurer can do whatever it likes. You then have to sue it for breach of contract.

Daz555

bendertherobot wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Insurance companies trying to wriggle out of paying. Who'd have thunk it?

This....and in a small umber of cases these insurance snakes are being aided by stupid rulings from useless judges.

Which ones?

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/s ... negligence

bendertherobot

Daz555 wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Insurance companies trying to wriggle out of paying. Who'd have thunk it?

This....and in a small umber of cases these insurance snakes are being aided by stupid rulings from useless judges.

Which ones?

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/s ... negligence

Smith v Finch hasn't really set a precedent per se, but it has been followed. There have been several cases since including ones where cyclists who have been going at more than 12 mph where Judges have said helmets don't make a difference. Smith isn't a ruling, it's a Judge rambling around issues. As to the other case, that's a criminal one. Not awfully relevant to the case at hand in relation to insurers.

Smith was followed, sort of, in Phethean-Hubble v Coles, but the case comes down to "would it have helped." Remember that we've been here before with seatbelts. And, remember, that if you don't wear one the most you will lose is 25%, i.e if the injury would have been avoided altogether. FWIW, even if a helmet may have helped I don't envisage any con neg finding ever being more than 25%

bendertherobot

And to add, Smith is still ONLY a High Court case. If a similar case were to follow the dicta the prospect of an appeal all the way up is there. If the Supreme Court disagreed Smith would be toast.

Manc33

I reckon the policy would have to specify that in the wording. "You're only insured if wearing a helmet" or whatever legal jargon. Can they prove that no accident would have taken place if you had a helmet on? Of course not! What case do they have then? I mean where does the helmet actually come in?

They will do anything and everything to avoid paying you.

Just show them the "statistics" on how wearing a helmet is more dangerous because cars take a wider berth around cyclists NOT wearing helmets. Thats not what I believe, thats just something OP could use in his defence.

chris_bass

has there been any helmet threads recently? I'm having trouble remembering.

bendertherobot

Manc33 wrote:

I reckon the policy would have to specify that in the wording. "You're only insured if wearing a helmet" or whatever legal jargon. Can they prove that no accident would have taken place if you had a helmet on? Of course not! What case do they have then? I mean where does the helmet actually come in?

They will do anything and everything to avoid paying you.

Just show them the "statistics" on how wearing a helmet is more dangerous because cars take a wider berth around cyclists NOT wearing helmets. Thats not what I believe, thats just something OP could use in his defence.

Don't confuse whose insurance it is.

If this is YOUR insurance, i.e. personal accident, it could well have such a term. It's becoming increasingly prevalent in skiing insurance.

If it's the OTHER PARTY's insurance the content is irrelevant in relation to you. You sue the other party in tort. Their insurance indemnifies them against the damages you receive.

bendertherobot

Chris Bass wrote:

has there been any helmet threads recently? I'm having trouble remembering.

To be fair this one is different and may be a good idea for people to understand what the current law is. Basically, there isn't really binding precedent.

chris_bass

bendertherobot wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

has there been any helmet threads recently? I'm having trouble remembering.

To be fair this one is different and may be a good idea for people to understand what the current law is. Basically, there isn't really binding precedent.

True, but if i was a betting man i'd put money on it turning into a helmet vs no helmet debate pretty soon

slowbike

Chris Bass wrote:

True, but if i was a betting man i'd put money on it turning into a helmet vs no helmet debate pretty soon

Of course, because if you'd just wear the s*dd1ng helmet then you'd not need these conversations in the first place ... and then we can move onto the next layer of safety gear made by Protectmefromlife inc...

qube

roger_merriman

Chris Bass wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

has there been any helmet threads recently? I'm having trouble remembering.

To be fair this one is different and may be a good idea for people to understand what the current law is. Basically, there isn't really binding precedent.

True, but if i was a betting man i'd put money on it turning into a helmet vs no helmet debate pretty soon

Don't need to be a betting man, it is one of the laws of the Internet.

macleod113

i found it interesting that when i was knocked off on Monday and went to A&E, the receptionist, nurse and Doctor all asked if i was wearing a helmet. wonder if they just have to ask even if the injury isn't to the head?

bendertherobot

MacLeod113 wrote:

i found it interesting that when i was knocked off on Monday and went to A&E, the receptionist, nurse and Doctor all asked if i was wearing a helmet. wonder if they just have to ask even if the injury isn't to the head?

They're probably contributing to some statistical reporting.

petergettins

I hit a pothole & crashed breaking my collarbone earlier this year. I claimed for compensation through the legal support I get with my BC membership and was succesful.

The accident information form was very standard and the 3 questions you had to answer in terms of what you were wearing were "Were you wearing a helmet?", "Were you wearing any reflective clothing?" & "Were you displaying any lights?". In my case the latter 2 were irrelevant. However, as I was wearing a helmet, I'll never know if that had any bearing or not and as I didn't sustain a head injury, so wasn't claiming for it, then it probably didn't, but if I were claiming, I think they would have debated it. The solictor had to present a case for my injury claim and the other party initially accepted responsibility or not, which they did. Once that was agreed, it was a negotiation as to the amount. Any factor which either side could argue had a bearing on their perspective would be taken into account.

In summary then, it depends on exactly what the personal injury is that you are claiming for, and all the contributing factors, as to which party will win or not and/or the level of compensation. On that basis, if you are claiming a head injury and weren't wearing a helmet, there is a good chance that it will have a negative outcome in some way on your claim.

darkhairedlord

so in summary,
If you're driving and want to run someone over it's cheaper to go for they with no helmet. If they also have dark clothes and no lights you get a free pass. Then why do drivers give the guy with no hat more room? you would think they would want to avoid the cyclist WITH the helmet!

veronese68

MacLeod113 wrote:

i found it interesting that when i was knocked off on Monday and went to A&E, the receptionist, nurse and Doctor all asked if i was wearing a helmet. wonder if they just have to ask even if the injury isn't to the head?

Looking at a secondary school for my daughter with my hand in a brace I was asked what happened. I explained and was then asked if I was wearing a helmet. I replied that I was but it made no difference as I hadn't banged my head. "Oh well, at least you were wearing a helmet" came the reply. :roll:
Some people are stupid, unfortunately some of them are teaching children.

bendertherobot

Yeah, basically the "job" of an insurer is to squeeze you in relation to every part of your claim.

So, even if it admits liability it will try to:

1. Argue con neg. This gets it a big percentage off the ENTIRE sum.
2. Squeeze you on past, specified losses. So, no receipt, depreciation etc.
3. Squeeze you in relation to your injury. Argue a lower JC bracket, quicker recovery, pre existing condition etc.
4. Dispute your future losses.

So, what it does is aim for the lowest possible figure.

You never have to accept this. That's what the Court is for.

navrig2

bendertherobot wrote:

MacLeod113 wrote:

i found it interesting that when i was knocked off on Monday and went to A&E, the receptionist, nurse and Doctor all asked if i was wearing a helmet. wonder if they just have to ask even if the injury isn't to the head?

They're probably contributing to some statistical reporting.

Without which we will never know if a helmet is useful in helping avoid injury making all these threads really useful, pointless or just infuriating (delete as you see fit).

thescouselander

The whole helmet thing is a bit of a joke to the medical profession. When I got knocked off in April I was also asked by the doctors if I was wearing a helmet (which I was) but my response was - why, I've hurt my leg, not my head. They continued with the line that my injuries would have been worse if I had not been wearing a helmet despite the fact my head never hit anything in the crash. WTF?


Anyway, my wife, who works in legal expenses insurance says payouts might be reduced for head injuries when not wearing a helmet because not wearing safety gear could be classed as contributory negligence. That doesn't get the insurance company out of paying up though - it just reduces the payment potentially as applies to head injuries only.