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
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