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

Mintox.

I've been under the radar due college shite, but that's finito for another month or so. Management sucks. Economics sucks.

A hillbilly ride sounds good - I'll need to drop the schoolboy look and grow the beard of thunder back.

I'll be at south/west drinks next week if you're around.

I can bring them to the tweed ride if that's cool - I also haz cherry ripez!!

Wickedbad.

zombie thread says "urg. braaainss..... helmeeeeet..... heeelllmeeeet urg..."

linkety link.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/court-judgment-has-major-implications-for-cyclists-20250
And it begins...

More people are injured in car accidents, make them wear helmets.

cyclists who don't wear helmets can be guilty of contributory negligence if they are injured in a road accident in the UK..

That wasnt meant to be the title....Whoopsy

Of course Robert fucking Smith don't wear a helmet, he couldn't be able to in the first place!

No idea what Ed's on about but regarding the 1st post...

That's very sad.

From what you can read there it seems the counter claim is just callous. If that motorcyclist was a decent human he'd shut-up and eat some humble fucking pie (it's full title).

pretty much, from the article, it seemed the motorcyclist were in the wrong, it's just a cowardly way to try and weasel out of it.

what a load of crap. freedom of choice is all but gone from this pitiful kingdom.

Would I be able to present a defense along the lines of:

"My brain is much bigger then average, so my skull is much bigger then average. Its very difficult / impossible to find a helmet with a diameter of 187cm."

?

Or would they say I should have had one made?

Of course Robert fucking Smith don't wear a helmet, he couldn't be able to in the first place!

Ha !!! I thought the very same thing ! :D

what a load of crap. freedom of choice is all but gone from this pitiful kingdom.

Gabes that is racist, might even be hate speech, report to the police in the morning for your arrest.

yes, I'm looking for a XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXl helmet

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/06/28_05_2004_0716_2.jpg

he's ready to go with that chain whip

I don't get it. Why just a helmet ?
Surely the implication would continue to any injured part of the body - I broke my arm ergo I was not wearing adequate arm protection ?

or even better - I injured a pedestrian but it was their fault they were hurt as they weren't wearing their anti-hipsteronabike-suit whilst crossing Shoreditch High St.

It just seems to be another argument for not using some fuckin common sense. The motorcyclist hit him, therefore it's his fault, end of.

Hmmm, I suppose I should wear some elbow pads in the future when walking to the shops. If I trip on an exposed manhole cover and break my arm I won't be entitled to as much compensation from the council...

Hmmm, I suppose I should wear some elbow pads in the future when walking to the shops. If I trip on an exposed manhole cover and break my arm I won't be entitled to as much compensation from the council...

That's the spirit.

I'm definitely wearing my cotton wool suit tomorrow just in case.

Don't forget your helmet.

This ruling seems to make perfect sense to me and i can't understand why so many of you are against it.
It doesn't remove or restrict freedom of choice, it still allows that but it will make individuals take responsibility for the choices THEY make.
If you walk to work and one day you choose to do so barefoot and on the way to work you cut the soles of your barefeet on broken glass, rough paving stones etc whose fault is it?
It's yours for coming out the house wi nae shoes on.
The article states that the only thing that your not wearing a helmet will affect is the compensation you receive. It is not exonerating anyone that may have been the cause of the accident in which you injured your head which YOU chose not to protect from being guilty of dangerous driving etc.
Fucking compensation culture is half the reason this country is in the nick it is in.

This ruling seems to make perfect sense to me and i can't understand why so many of you are against it.
It doesn't remove or restrict freedom of choice, it still allows that but it will make individuals take responsibility for the choices THEY make.
If you walk to work and one day you choose to do so barefoot and on the way to work you cut the soles of your barefeet on broken glass, rough paving stones etc whose fault is it?
It's yours for coming out the house wi nae shoes on.
The article states that the only thing that your not wearing a helmet will affect is the compensation you receive. It is not exonerating anyone that may have been the cause of the accident in which you injured your head which YOU chose not to protect from being guilty of dangerous driving etc.
Fucking compensation culture is half the reason this country is in the nick it is in.

i call bullshit.

if you are following the law and someone hits you, what you get in compensation shouldn't depend on fashion. now if i am riding and i fall on my own and hit my head, then perhaps there the insurance company should have a case.

I don't get it. Why just a helmet ?
Surely the implication would continue to any injured part of the body - I broke my arm ergo I was not wearing adequate arm protection ?

surely it's quite obvious, so obvious I don't even need to explain it.

i call bullshit.

if you are following the law and someone hits you, what you get in compensation shouldn't depend on fashion. now if i am riding and i fall on my own and hit my head, then perhaps there the insurance company should have a case.

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?

That is fucking wrong. Things are headed a bad way it seems. Id rather it was finable not to wear a helmet than it to have implications on liability in collisions/incidents.

What if you simply cannot afford a helmet? I know I cant find a helmet that fits me that I can afford, and it says everywhere that a poorly fitting helmet is useless.

It also makes no sense and is a completely inbalanced judgement. Should we be found liable for broken ribs because we never wore chest armour which is readily available on the market?