Ugh. This case. Firstly, the cyclist declined the helmet offered, rode like a cnut and suffered horribly for his poor decisions. How is his employer even 1/3rd responsible? Secondly the court is implying they should have either not held the event, or required helmets to be worn - over and above the legal requirement. I don't like it either way.
Ugh. This case. Firstly, the cyclist declined the helmet offered, rode like a cnut and suffered horribly for his poor decisions. How is his employer even 1/3rd responsible? Secondly the court is implying they should have either not held the event, or required helmets to be worn - over and above the legal requirement. I don't like it either way.