I dont see how you have the blame of the incedent turned round on you for not wearing a helmet. If it was law to where a helmet that that if fine, it is neglgence (like the building site example on page one. On the building site it is law to were the corrent safety equipment so if you hurt youself while not wearing it then it is your fault). But, for something that is recomended and not enforced by law then how do they have a leg to stand on? It is the Motorcyilists fault for hitting him. Whether a cyclist is wereing a helmet or not is beside the point. I do were a helmet by the way but that is my choice to do so.
A point that I am unsure of is can you be liable if a car takes you out and you are running brakless? In my view, by law, you need at least one working brake on your bike, but, a fixed back wheel counts as that brake. Dose anyone know if this is the case?
I dont see how you have the blame of the incedent turned round on you for not wearing a helmet. If it was law to where a helmet that that if fine, it is neglgence (like the building site example on page one. On the building site it is law to were the corrent safety equipment so if you hurt youself while not wearing it then it is your fault). But, for something that is recomended and not enforced by law then how do they have a leg to stand on? It is the Motorcyilists fault for hitting him. Whether a cyclist is wereing a helmet or not is beside the point. I do were a helmet by the way but that is my choice to do so.
A point that I am unsure of is can you be liable if a car takes you out and you are running brakless? In my view, by law, you need at least one working brake on your bike, but, a fixed back wheel counts as that brake. Dose anyone know if this is the case?