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

Ask Dr Sludge Big Daddy - he seems only too keen to show people!!

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?

As I said further up there^^^ 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.

In the incident mentioned in the article, the motorcyclist was judged to be at fault, that is, to have caused the accident. The fact that the rider was not wearing a helmet was then a factor in determining the level of damages that would be awarded to the party not at fault, in this case the cyclist. These are two completely separate decisions which should not be confused.

The Highway Code states that cyclists should wear a helmet. You do not have to, but no one can legitimately claim that the wearing of a helmet is something that they have been encouraged to do, which is why a helmet can be brought into consideration. Body armour, as mentioned above, is not something that is widely or expected to be worn on a bicycle on the road, so it is not considered.

A bike on British roads is required to have two, independent braking systems. You are correct to say that a fixed wheel is recognised as a braking system but for a bike to be legal for road use you still need another (and no, two legs do not count!). Similarly, a singlespeed needs a brake front and rear to be legal, it scares me how many riders on singlepeeds only have a front brake (what are you going to do when the cable frays and snaps on you?).

If a car driver caused an accident then they caused the accident, regardless of the state of your bicycle. However, while the issue of brakes may not have anything to do with establishing the cause of an accident, again, it may be taken into account in determining the level of damages awarded.

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

Is it just me that finds this sentence hilarious?

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?

The blame of the incident as you put it - and i take it you mean who was to blame for the occurence of a collision - has not been turned onto the cyclist and nor do i suggest it should.
It is the blame for the INJURY WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED which should lie with the cyclist.
In the building site case i gave earlier i do not know if it is a LAW that you have to wear toecapped boots on a building site but i would not imagine so.
The issue here is not civil liberties it is responsibility for ones own actions.
People who refuse to take responsibilty for their actions are going to lead to the loss of liberties and freedom of choice for everyone.
Judges and law makers will look at cases like this and see cyclists CHOOSING to not wear helmets and claiming huge compensation for injuries they then receive and they will have no sensible alternative but to make it law to wear a helmet.
If they were able to see cyclists CHOOSING to not wear helemts and then ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILTY FOR INJURIES THEY RECEIVE DUE TO INADEQUATE PROTECTIVE WEAR there would be no need for further legislation or change to current legislation on this subject and we would be free to make our own choices regarding helmet wearing.
You can't have your cake and eat it

As I said further up there^^^ 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.

In the incident mentioned in the article, the motorcyclist was judged to be at fault, that is, to have caused the accident. The fact that the rider was not wearing a helmet was then a factor in determining the level of damages that would be awarded to the party not at fault, in this case the cyclist. These are two completely separate decisions which should not be confused.

The Highway Code states that cyclists should wear a helmet. You do not have to, but no one can legitimately claim that the wearing of a helmet is something that they have been encouraged to do, which is why a helmet can be brought into consideration. Body armour, as mentioned above, is not something that is widely or expected to be worn on a bicycle on the road, so it is not considered.

A bike on British roads is required to have two, independent braking systems. You are correct to say that a fixed wheel is recognised as a braking system but for a bike to be legal for road use you still need another (and no, two legs do not count!). Similarly, a singlespeed needs a brake front and rear to be legal, it scares me how many riders on singlepeeds only have a front brake (what are you going to do when the cable frays and snaps on you?).

If a car driver caused an accident then they caused the accident, regardless of the state of your bicycle. However, while the issue of brakes may not have anything to do with establishing the cause of an accident, again, it may be taken into account in determining the level of damages awarded.

Cheers for the info.

The blame of the incident as you put it - and i take it you mean who was to blame for the occurence of a collision - has not been turned onto the cyclist and nor do i suggest it should.
It is the blame for the INJURY WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED which should lie with the cyclist.
In the building site case i gave earlier i do not know if it is a LAW that you have to wear toecapped boots on a building site but i would not imagine so.
The issue here is not civil liberties it is responsibility for ones own actions.
People who refuse to take responsibilty for their actions are going to lead to the loss of liberties and freedom of choice for everyone.
Judges and law makers will look at cases like this and see cyclists CHOOSING to not wear helmets and claiming huge compensation for injuries they then receive and they will have no sensible alternative but to make it law to wear a helmet.
If they were able to see cyclists CHOOSING to not wear helemts and then ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILTY FOR INJURIES THEY RECEIVE DUE TO INADEQUATE PROTECTIVE WEAR there would be no need for further legislation or change to current legislation on this subject and we would be free to make our own choices regarding helmet wearing.
You can't have your cake and eat it

I agree with this.

Imagine being called Bryan Chinn!

Is it just me that finds this sentence hilarious?

Bless you. I did#nt want to be the first ;)

I really don't want to get drawn in to this.

so I wont.

nnng, I can't help myself.

mechanical vandal and others are correct, you can't have your cake and eat it. the alternative to contributory negligence is mandatory helmet wearing, which I'm sure most normal people would agree is not a preferred option.

However, we're only really vulnerable to cars and other motor vehicles. the more bikes (and less cars) on the road, the less likely we are to be in a serious accident. I for one resent that I have to wear a dorky helmet (sometimes) just because someone else chooses to move around in a 2,000kg box of steel at 60kph, and occasionally drive it at me when they're being careless.

@ AdamM - excellent summary.

@ mechanical_vandal - bunch of nonsense. As mentioned many times above, the level of injury that is 'prevented' by helmets is very much disputed. Saying that those who ride without should put their hands up after an accident and say "fair enough - I know it was your fault, but i really don't deserve any compensation" is just ridiculous.

About time too!

As the 'helmet expert' (a dubious honour) states a new or old helmet would not have helped prevent this particular injury, nor any injury above 12mph. Now, should I fall to the ground, from travelling at, say, 8mph, chances are the impact of a car travelling 30mph would make me accelerate. Helmets are just a joke in the case of vheicle collision. Look at the Rider down thread today. Most cyclist deaths occur due to HGV incidents! Forget this issue.

if someone hits you and it's their fault then they should compensation consistent with the level of damage caused. if your head got broke they should pay to fix your head, if however your helmet got broke then they should fix that.
the punishment for the driver then should be seperate.

just my opinion

As the 'helmet expert'

and saddles
and mudguards
and lugs...

all 'dubious honours' :)

It is the blame for the INJURY WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED which should lie with the cyclist.

I don't understand this at all. Presumably any injury caused by anthing could have been prevented in some way.

If a ped gets hit by a car and bumps their head, and we feel that their head injury could have been prevented by wearing a helmet, why does the same not apply?

The cyclist could have chosen not to cycle on the road, thus avoiding being hit, does this mean that he is contributing to any injury they incur at all.

Surely the responsibility for preventing injury lies with the stupid ass who caused the accident. I find that the best way to prevent cyclist injuries is to NOT HIT CYCLISTS WITH MOTOR VEHICLES.

it aint rocket science.

I did.

Curious as to what 'gay' looks like

I always thought that it looked a lot like two people of the same gender who have feelings of emotional or sexual attraction to one another.

Perhaps Jamesy is thinking of wearing a different kind of helmet.

Or, and I don't believe this for ONE second, he is being casually homophobic.

If a ped gets hit by a car and bumps their head, and we feel that their head injury could have been prevented by wearing a helmet, why does the same not apply?

The difference is that there is not an equivalent instruction in the Highway Code (or elsewhere) suggesting that pedestrians should wear helmets, nor is it common practice for pedestrians to do so.

I guess I just don't understand the strenght of the 'should' then. I thought it was just advice - like the recommendations about reflective clothing.

I just kinda assumed that if someone is considered neglegent if they fail to do something, then it is something they must do.

But also, the contribution to the injuries can only be slight. Surely the main contribution has to be from being hit by the other vehicle.

but I guess I just don't understand how this stuff works.

The difference is that there is not an equivalent instruction in the Highway Code (or elsewhere) suggesting that pedestrians should wear helmets, nor is it common practice for pedestrians to do so.

Lawyer-speak.

Yep. But we are trying to understand and interpret the law, so it helps! I'm not a lawyer, BTW, not even close.

Serioiusly, if you really want to try and understand contributory negligence (at least as it relates to cycle helmets) the document I linked to up there ^^^ written by a lawyer who works with the cyclist defence fund is quite good (if dull).

More generally, about contributory negligence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligence

and saddles
and mudguards
and lugs...

all 'dubious honours' :)

whyIoughtta ...

CTC page:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5180

Follow the links at the bottom of the page to get some of the facts about helmets.

Ok can someone find a case about someone actually getting less money for not wearing a helmet, then i'll get all excited... this is a story about someone not getting less money for not wearing a helmet...

Nothing to see here, move along...

(if someone tried to claim I should get less money for not wearing a helmet while cycling, I'll stove their head in and see how they like it...)

(if someone tried to claim I should get less money for not wearing a helmet while cycling, I'll stove their head in and see how they like it...)

I always wear a helmet while being stoved ;)

But yeah its a non-argument. A helmet would'nt have helped the guy anyway, according to the helmet expert. The judge took this onboard. Justice was done. Tea and cakes all round.

The main thing I took from the article, is that someone was mean enough to file a counter claim, against someone they had seriously injured....WAC.