PTW

Heard on the radio this morning,"any cyclist involved in an accident, no matter who caused the accident, if the cyclist is not wearing a helmet, he or she will be held responsible".Don't know if that is the exact wording ,but that's the gist. Apparently passed in parliament a few days ago. Thus making the wearing of helmets compulsory, albeit in a roundabout way.

bout time they did summut about wearing an helmet !!!

That can't be right... can it?

Was it, perhaps, a 'forward thinking' suggestion? You know, like this twot whose suggesting putting the price of booze up just because one or two idiots go wild after a couple of cans of Tennants Extra Strong.

Funnily enough, the week before last as a midweek treat I'd bought and enjoyed a bottle of Manns and it was beautiful stuff and only 2.8%. When Mandy went shopping she asked me what did I want to drink over the weekend so I said a, "I'll have a couple of bottles of Manns". When she came back she said, "I couldn't get Manns so I've got you, er, Mackesons - I think". Fair enough I thought. So she pours me a drink and I glug down about half of it and suddenly feel a bit light-headed and giggly because she'd actually bought McEwans Premium - a whopping 7.3%! It's a cracking beer though!

Right found it! the article itself is in Todays (16-4-09) "The Independant", Apparently it's a high court judgement that states "that any cyclist involved in an accident and not wearing a helmet, can be blamed for their injuries even if they have been caused by someone else". Mr Justice Williams said," A cyclist is free to choose wether or not to wear one", but not doing so means " any injuries sustained may be the cyclists own fault and he has only himself to thank for the consequences,( I don't know how the ladies fair with this ). The ruling was passed in January but, only came to light yesterday.

Are you a timelord?

Today 16-3-09. ,I've adjusted the flux capacitor, ta Alf!

titus surdouksas wrote

Right found it! the article itself is in Todays (16-4-09) "The Independant", Apparently it's a high court judgement that states "that any cyclist involved in an accident and not wearing a helmet, can be blamed for their injuries even if they have been caused by someone else". Mr Justice Williams said," A cyclist is free to choose wether or not to wear one", but not doing so means " any injuries sustained may be the cyclists own fault and he has only himself to thank for the consequences,( I don't know how the ladies fair with this ). The ruling was passed in January but, only came to light yesterday.

I'd have to read the full judgement before passing comment, newspaper articles have a habit of latching on to single words or phrases. Having said that, it is a worrying sentiment.

As Dave says, you'd have to see the full judgement before you could pass a comment but from the language used, I'm not too sure that this does anything to change anything in reality.

Dave your the lawyer, so check out my logic and see if you agree.

In principle, under the law of Tort, any injured party can claim for injuries experienced as a direct result of the "Wrong" suffered. The proviso being that there is negligence on the part of the person causing the injury and there is sufficient proximity to the injured party.

If someone knocks you off due to negligence then they are at fault and you can claim recovery from them provided they knew you were there or it is reasonable that they should have known you were there.

If your actions were contributory to the injury experienced, ie. you turned into the oncoming car, had poor lights, or continued cycling home with a broken leg against the advice of others etc, then this can be construed as contributory negligence and will impact on the amount of recovery that you the injured party are entitled to.

It would appear therefore that the high court has ruled that not wearing the helmet falls into the auspices of contributory negligence. Of note however is Justice Williams use of the words "Any Injuries sustained MAY be the cyclists own fault"

Any insurance claim will result in the loss adjuster trying to limit liability, what this report does is merely reinforce that fact. The worrying part is the reporting of the facts. On the words used it does not state that it is the cyclists fault but raises the suggestion that it could be. The reporter however seems to be raising the awareness that this is i fact the case.

What do you reckon Dave

It just causes doubt, that if you are involved in an accident and you are totally blameless, that the law may not necessarily fall on your side!

Les Thomas wrote

As Dave says, you'd have to see the full judgement before you could pass a comment but from the language used, I'm not too sure that this does anything to change anything in reality.

Dave your the lawyer, so check out my logic and see if you agree.

In principle, under the law of Tort, any injured party can claim for injuries experienced as a direct result of the "Wrong" suffered. The proviso being that there is negligence on the part of the person causing the injury and there is sufficient proximity to the injured party.

If someone knocks you off due to negligence then they are at fault and you can claim recovery from them provided they knew you were there or it is reasonable that they should have known you were there.

If your actions were contributory to the injury experienced, ie. you turned into the oncoming car, had poor lights, or continued cycling home with a broken leg against the advice of others etc, then this can be construed as contributory negligence and will impact on the amount of recovery that you the injured party are entitled to.

It would appear therefore that the high court has ruled that not wearing the helmet falls into the auspices of contributory negligence. Of note however is Justice Williams use of the words "Any Injuries sustained MAY be the cyclists own fault"

Any insurance claim will result in the loss adjuster trying to limit liability, what this report does is merely reinforce that fact. The worrying part is the reporting of the facts. On the words used it does not state that it is the cyclists fault but raises the suggestion that it could be. The reporter however seems to be raising the awareness that this is i fact the case.

What do you reckon Dave

Whew - good post there Les, like being back in Law School! Still haven't read the judgement myself, (I'm not a PI lawyer) but my brief reading and understnading of this case is that the judge has ruled that not wearing a helmet (as reccomended by the Highway Code) is akin to contributory negligence, and thus result in a reduciton in damages. While the HC is not binding, it is worth pointing out that in Froom [1976] not wearing a seatbelt was held to be contrib negligence even though it was not law at the time. Therefore the judge seems to be saying that failure to wear a helmet is akin to not wearing a seatbelt.

HOWEVER - there is the issue of causation. What is not mentioned that even in this case, it was not shown that failure to wear a helmet would have made a difference, i.e. causation was not established. It is a worrying ruling though and the judge's test of 'may expose to risk' is inappropriately low.

With the plethora of research and medical evidence contradicting each other on the effectiveness of helmets in these situations it is unlikely that many will be able to prove that a helmet would have made much difference in most crashes, but the door has been opened for the lawyers to try. We will have to wait and see.

Edit - to respond to titus' original post, it is not as cut and dried as that and it really is important to read a fuller account of the case, which reveals that while not wearing a helmet can amount to contributory negligence, the defendant would still have to show that failure to wear one made a difference, which is a long way from the result of the case the media reported. (in this case it was only mentioned obiter!)

I'm sure that the CTC will fight our corner on this.