Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

Ok, il further my example.
You are a labourer on a building site.
You turn up for work one day in open toed sandals.
There are signs ADVISING you to wear toecapped boots and you know that you really should but today its really hot and you want to wear your sandals. Infact, your wife/girlfriend/mother even told you before you went to work to put your boots on but you didn't listen.
A colleague is too busy eyeing up a leggy blonde walking passed and drops a few bricks on your foot.
Had you been wearing your boots the bricks would have bounced off but your sandals failed to protect your foot and the bricks break all the bones in it and you cannot walk for 6 weeks.
Do you have a case for compensation?

when i worked construction (for all of 3 weeks) it was mandatory to wear steel-toed boots. i would find it silly if someone was allowed to do something like that. then you would be found in violation of regulations. your logic is flawed and silly. if you want cyclists to wear helmets, make them mandatory, like wearing a safety belt in a car. if not the fuck off.

These law-twisting wordy twats are the same ones that would probably try to suggest that wearing a mini-skirt is contributory negligence in rape cases just so they can add another 'win' to their CV.

I'm with Mechanical vandal on this on. A helmet is a recommended safety norm for cycling. If you choose not to wear one, fair play, but if you hit your head, dont come crying to me. The judge never stated that the incident was not the fault of the motorcyclist.

Judge Antman says:

Since helmets aren't compulsory there is no case against the cyclist for not wearing one.

Next.

if you hit your head, dont come crying to me.

If you fall off due to your mistake, fair enough, I'm 100% with you. But if someone knocks you off I fail to see how you are contributing to your injuries.

The problem with this ruling is that now, any time somebody hits you and you get injured, they can say it's partly your fault, due to the precendent establish by the Robert Smith case, or whatever.

The Judge is quite correct in this instance.

He didn't cycle to the Court not wearing a helmet and his head remains uninjured.

QED.

ooh a helmet thread.

can we have a rapha one too?

that's an idea actually, a rapha helmet would sell loads. but the day I see a hipster wearing one of those massive keirin mushrooms "because it's NJS" will be time to lobby the gov. for a cull.

Helmet expert Dr Bryan Chinn examined Mr Smith's helmet, which was about 20 years old,

that's annoying when you see stubborn old roadies wearing 20 year old half-melons. about as much use as a wooly hat.

Well that sucks. Oliver are LCC doing a campaign on this? I'm well up for a bit of petition signing.

I'm sure that study by the guy who found if you have girlhair people drive less close to you because they think you're an idiot is a fairly accurate reflection of what happens on the roads. It pisses me off enormously (because obviously I don't think I ride like an idiot and it would be nice if other people didn't assume I do) and it makes the catcalls worse, but I'm not sure I like being stuck between a helmet rock and a risk of contributory negligence.

edit: wait, I've actually read the thread now. Well the sentiment still stands.

If you fall off due to your mistake, fair enough, I'm 100% with you. But if someone knocks you off I fail to see how you are contributing to your injuries.

The problem with this ruling is that now, any time somebody hits you and you get injured, they can say it's partly your fault, due to the precendent establish by the Robert Smith case, or whatever.

If someone knocks you off your bike its their fault. End of.

But if you try to sue them for injuryies that you could have avoided by wearing a helmet. I'm sorry but I start to lose my sympathy. Having said that, cycle helmet use is not legally enforced, so the grounds for counter-sueing seem a bit ridiculous. Also, the fact is a helmet can lessen head injuries, it will very rarely prevent them completely. So its a bit of a non-argument.

Do Rapha make helmets and if they do, are we obliged to wear them?

I suspect that they would be very expensive but made out of organic fairtrade plastic and polystyrene.

Do Rapha make helmets and if they do, are we obliged to wear them?

I suspect that they would be very expensive but made out of organic fairtrade plastic and polystyrene.

Colour coordinated with the clothes line.

Pic courtesy of Mad4ponies.com. (Spending far too much time on tinternet of late)

Rapha helmets would be compulsory for all, just to keep DFP off the roads.

Actually Rapha get regular complaints (from the USA) that no one wears helmets in their promotional pictures.

...Also, the fact is a helmet can lessen head injuries, it will very rarely prevent them completely...

I was going to point out that even this is contentious: it's possible that helmets, along with failing at speeds above a measly 12mph, can actually contribute to head injuries ...

Then I remebered the salient reminder from RPM, shouldn't really need to since we're linking to a Bike Radar story...

ooh a helmet thread.

can we have a rapha one too?

...

So I'm just gonna say:

The guy from the cure should just bloody well get out of the way of the big bad young man on his powerful motorbike. All plus 500c motorbikes MUST be ridden dangerously, it the law.

Rapha helmets would be compulsory for all, just to keep DFP off the roads.

Actually Rapha get regular complaints (from the USA) that no one wears helmets in their promotional pictures.

We should have a counter-complaints system, as suggested by Charlie Brooker. This applies to anything. For everyone one complaint, someone in support or the thing being complained against should be able to counter-complain, thus neutralising the opposing complaint.

Contributory negligence has nothing to do with establishing fault for an accident occuring in the first place, it is about the degree to which compensation may be reduced due to any actions by the injured party which may have contributed to the level of injuries sustained.

The most useful response on the BikeRadar site included this:
*For the clearest analysis of situation regarding cycle helmets and contributary negligence, see Julian Fulbrook's paper at *http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/files/fullbrook.pdf

It's a good (if slightly over long and dull) read regarding your legal standing when claiming compensation after an accident. Worth a read.

they may as well extend this to wearing headphones. In my opinion cycling in London while listening to music makes you far more negligent than not wearing a helmet.

"However, for this to happen it would have to be proved – using medicaland other evidence – that a helmet would have prevented all of theirinjuries or made them a good deal less severe."

I dont wear a helmet, but i live in the country and not in london

I think people not wearing helmets just becuase its not fashionable is moronic anyway!!

I used to cruise around just wearing a beani or something............... then my mate forced me into a conversation with his wife (who's a nurse) and she relayed stories from the hospital bed of horrific injuries on cyclists who weren't wearing helmets! It put the shits up me so much, i've worn a helmet ever since!!

Can anyone give me a good reason why subsituting protection of your life with looking good isn't stupid?????

aarrgghh!!!

If someone knocks you off your bike its their fault. End of.

But if you try to sue them for injuryies that you could have avoided by wearing a helmet. I'm sorry but I start to lose my sympathy. Having said that, cycle helmet use is not legally enforced, so the grounds for counter-sueing seem a bit ridiculous. Also, the fact is a helmet can lessen head injuries, it will very rarely prevent them completely. So its a bit of a non-argument.

In a similar vain as others have mentioned what if the injury sustained during a is not a head injury but a bad hand laceration. Gloves are recommended cycle wear, should the victim receive less compensation for their injury because they were not wearing gloves. There are nearly always things which a victim could have done to reduce their chance of being hurt.

Compensation is also referred to as damages. The damage be it financial, physical or mental is caused by the person being sued. Do you reduce the amount of compensation a rape victim receives because they walked home through a unlit foot path because that is not recommended?

Even if you except the ruling this part is very difficult to prove in many cases.

... if wearing a helmet would have prevented or reduced his or her injuries.

Medical Doctors know and understand physiology, biochemistry, anatomy e.t.c To say what injuries would / would not have been sustained if a helmet is in place is also a complicated physical problem. Even if you workout the decreased force the skull may encounter if a helmet is worn then saying what injuries would be sustained is a very tricky business, hence why records are littered with cases where one man falls 20 ft off a ladder and dies another who apparently lands in a similar manor comes away relatively unscathed. The same thing can work the other way with the difference having the helmet on may results in an impact at different angles e.t.c hence may not make make a difference. Basically what I am trying to get at is that physical collision with and without the helmet may well be two completely different collisions; hence for a Doctor to say what the injuries would have been in the accident if a helmet was worn is impossible to say as small differences in the collisions can result in wildly different medical out comes.

I think people not wearing helmets just becuase its not fashionable is moronic anyway!!

I used to cruise around just wearing a beani or something............... then my mate forced me into a conversation with his wife (who's a nurse) and she relayed stories from the hospital bed of horrific injuries on cyclists who weren't wearing helmets! It put the shits up me so much, i've worn a helmet ever since!!

Can anyone give me a good reason why subsituting protection of your life with looking good isn't stupid?????

Where in the article is the any mention of helmets not being worn for fashion reasons?

Is there any other reason why they're not?................... on a regular basis anyway!!

I think people not wearing helmets just becuase its not fashionable is moronic anyway!!

I used to cruise around just wearing a beani or something............... then my mate forced me into a conversation with his wife (who's a nurse) and she relayed stories from the hospital bed of horrific injuries on cyclists who weren't wearing helmets! It put the shits up me so much, i've worn a helmet ever since!!

Can anyone give me a good reason why subsituting protection of your life with looking good isn't stupid?????

Have you signed up just to evangelise about helmets? I'm sure everyone here has weighed up the odds and made their choice.