The intention was so that if cyclists or pedestrians did not wear extra safety aids, this could not be used against them in legal proceedings, allowing people the right to wear what they want, without the possibility of claims they were at fault for not taking advice, regarding say helmets or h-vis or arm bands etc.. and where no legal requirement exits contributory negligence claims should not apply to what is not worn by a cyclist or pedestrian regarding extra safety aids.
Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published
Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published
As above, a blanket ban is inappropriate. Better to leave it to the legal process rather than removing anyone's rights.Steady rider wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 1:07pmThe intention was so that if cyclists or pedestrians did not wear extra safety aids, this could not be used against them in legal proceedings, allowing people the right to wear what they want, with the impossibility of claims they were at fault for not taking advice, regarding say helmets or h-vis or arm bands etc.. and where no legal requirement exits contributory negligence claims should not apply to what is not worn by a cyclist or pedestrian regarding extra safety aids.
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
Any reduction in compensation could currently apply to a cyclist or pedestrian not wearing the safety aids advised in the Code. It would not affect other people. The Code is worded and used to reduce compensation for cyclists mainly,
Cycling UK submission stated,
Cycling UK submission stated,
Leavng it up to the legal profession gives them extra work and income and they will not want it to change. Parliament should act in the best interests of the public and add a caveat saying the word 'should' does not apply to (a), (b)... and a & b refers to cyclists and pedestrians, with regards to not wearing extra safety aids. Only if a legal requirement exits to use a safety aid, should reduced compensation apply to anyone injured and not extra safety aids.This wording has made it routine for insurers representing drivers involved in collisions where a cyclist has suffered a head injury to counter the cyclist's claims for injury damages by mounting a 'contributory negligence' counter-claim - see www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-he ... cent-cases. In the most serious cases (i.e. those involving death or permanent disablement), this can cause a traumatised cyclist, or their family (who may have suffered bereavement or become life-long carers) to have to spend years of their lives, and tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs, countering these unjust 'contributory negligence' claims. Changing the wording to "Consider wearing a helmet" could avert the huge, and wholly unjust, financial cost and emotional trauma which is so often borne by the victims of cycling injuries.
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
As above, I'd be wary of removing anyone's rights. And I doubt that changing the wording would have any effect if significant amounts of money were involved. The settlements depend on the adjudicator's assessment of contribution not the wording.Steady rider wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 1:40pm Any reduction in compensation could currently apply to a cyclist or pedestrian not wearing the safety aids advised in the Code. It would not affect other people. The Code is worded and used to reduce compensation for cyclists mainly,
Cycling UK submission stated,Leavng it up to the legal profession gives them extra work and income and they will not want it to change. Parliament should act in the best interests of the public and add a caveat saying the word 'should' does not apply to (a), (b)... and a & b refers to cyclists and pedestrians, with regards to not wearing extra safety aids. Only if a legal requirement exits to use a safety aid, should reduced compensation apply to anyone injured and not extra safety aids.This wording has made it routine for insurers representing drivers involved in collisions where a cyclist has suffered a head injury to counter the cyclist's claims for injury damages by mounting a 'contributory negligence' counter-claim - see www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-he ... cent-cases. In the most serious cases (i.e. those involving death or permanent disablement), this can cause a traumatised cyclist, or their family (who may have suffered bereavement or become life-long carers) to have to spend years of their lives, and tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs, countering these unjust 'contributory negligence' claims. Changing the wording to "Consider wearing a helmet" could avert the huge, and wholly unjust, financial cost and emotional trauma which is so often borne by the victims of cycling injuries.
It isn't "left up to the legal profession" it's left up to the civil judicial process (if a settlement hasn't been reached before then).
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html
Jdsk » 7 Dec 2021, 12:52pm
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... jury_rates
Was the 88% claim judged to 400% overestimation?
Jdsk » 7 Dec 2021, 12:52pm
see next post, Jdsk refers to Dennis,Helmets reduce the risk of injuries to the brain by up to 88%, the head by up to 85%, and the face by up to 65%.10 11 12
See Clarke Cf, Gillham C, Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury rates, GB National Road Safety Conference, November 2019a) Research shows helmet use is associated with a higher accident rate, Zeegers analysed 3 large data sets from the Netherlands, Victoria Australia and Seattle and described a marked overestimation of the effectiveness of helmet usage which ranged from +8% to a massive more than 400% and when the data was reanalysed in two out of three series the risk of head injury for helmeted cyclists was not lower and across all three studies the risk of non-head related injury was higher.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... jury_rates
Was the 88% claim judged to 400% overestimation?
Last edited by Steady rider on 7 Dec 2021, 2:18pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
I didn't assert that. I quoted it from Dennis.Steady rider wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 2:03pm https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html
Jdsk » 7 Dec 2021, 12:52pmHelmets reduce the risk of injuries to the brain by up to 88%, the head by up to 85%, and the face by up to 65%.10 11 12
posting.php?mode=quote&f=41&p=1658306
Please could you correct that post to avoid anyone being misled.
Thanks
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
Compensation would only be due if a motorist was at fault for example, the Code adds legal weight to reducing compensation to any cyclists not wearing helmets, it is in effect reducing the cyclists right to fair and full compensation, having not caused the accident. If the same driving error resulted in a car accident or to a pedestrian and head injuries were involved, the Code could not be used.As above, I'd be wary of removing anyone's rights.
The Code allows the excuse to go forward based in part on the advice and legal statement at the start of the Highway Code, the Code it at fault for allowing this process and could be amended.
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
Agreed.Steady rider wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 2:12pmCompensation would only be due if a motorist was at fault for example, the Code adds legal weight to reducing compensation to any cyclists not wearing helmets, it is in effect reducing the cyclists right to fair and full compensation, having not caused the accident. If the same driving error resulted in a car accident or to a pedestrian and head injuries were involved, the Code could not be used.As above, I'd be wary of removing anyone's rights.
The Code allows the excuse to go forward based in part on the advice and legal statement at the start of the Highway Code, the Code it at fault for allowing this process and could be amended.
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
The judicial process gives both parties a route to fair and full compensation. Compensation is only awarded under the current system on the basis of liability.Steady rider wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 2:12pmCompensation would only be due if a motorist was at fault for example, the Code adds legal weight to reducing compensation to any cyclists not wearing helmets, it is in effect reducing the cyclists right to fair and full compensation, having not caused the accident. If the same driving error resulted in a car accident or to a pedestrian and head injuries were involved, the Code could not be used.As above, I'd be wary of removing anyone's rights.
The Code allows the excuse to go forward based in part on the advice and legal statement at the start of the Highway Code, the Code it at fault for allowing this process and could be amended.
I'd be very interested if any experts could give their views on the importance in real cases of the wording in the Highway Code as opposed to other evidence presented.
Jonathan
Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html provides a summary of the criticisms of one of the Thompson, Rivara & Thompson paper included in Cochrane review.Zulu Eleven wrote: ↑6 Dec 2021, 4:56pmYet, magically, still no valid challenge to the Cochrane review based upon either methodological failings or contrary results. It’s almost as if the anti-helmet brigade have so far entirely failed to garner a valid challenge based on the flaws they claim exist, or present it through the established and robust comment and editorial processPete Owens wrote: ↑6 Dec 2021, 4:49pm But those authors have a long notorious history of pushing absurdly fanciful claims on the effectiveness of helmets, based on studies with extremely small and systematically biased samples. Their helmet advocacy long preceded their study.
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1243.html discusses the Cochrane review itself.
Adams and Hillman wrote this published dissent of the Cochrane review https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89
There is also a meta-analysis by Elvik that discusses the Cochrane review https://toi.brage.unit.no/toi-xmlui/bit ... sequence=2
Plenty more where these came from.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
-
- Posts: 235
- Joined: 26 Oct 2018, 9:25pm
Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published
Vorpal wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 2:23pmhttps://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html provides a summary of the criticisms of one of the Thompson, Rivara & Thompson paper included in Cochrane review.Zulu Eleven wrote: ↑6 Dec 2021, 4:56pmYet, magically, still no valid challenge to the Cochrane review based upon either methodological failings or contrary results. It’s almost as if the anti-helmet brigade have so far entirely failed to garner a valid challenge based on the flaws they claim exist, or present it through the established and robust comment and editorial processPete Owens wrote: ↑6 Dec 2021, 4:49pm But those authors have a long notorious history of pushing absurdly fanciful claims on the effectiveness of helmets, based on studies with extremely small and systematically biased samples. Their helmet advocacy long preceded their study.
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1243.html discusses the Cochrane review itself.
Adams and Hillman wrote this published dissent of the Cochrane review https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89
There is also a meta-analysis by Elvik that discusses the Cochrane review https://toi.brage.unit.no/toi-xmlui/bit ... sequence=2
Plenty more where these came from.
Amusing in that the BMJ article you link to comments:
“We accept the principal finding of their review—that protective helmets protect in the event of an accident”
Which once again supports 100% the statement in the Highway Code under challenge here.
Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published
Adams and Hillman are pointing out what is left out of such studies. The methodology flaws are clearly identified in the other links.Zulu Eleven wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 2:35pmVorpal wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 2:23pmhttps://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html provides a summary of the criticisms of one of the Thompson, Rivara & Thompson paper included in Cochrane review.Zulu Eleven wrote: ↑6 Dec 2021, 4:56pm
Yet, magically, still no valid challenge to the Cochrane review based upon either methodological failings or contrary results. It’s almost as if the anti-helmet brigade have so far entirely failed to garner a valid challenge based on the flaws they claim exist, or present it through the established and robust comment and editorial process
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1243.html discusses the Cochrane review itself.
Adams and Hillman wrote this published dissent of the Cochrane review https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89
There is also a meta-analysis by Elvik that discusses the Cochrane review https://toi.brage.unit.no/toi-xmlui/bit ... sequence=2
Plenty more where these came from.
Amusing in that the BMJ article you link to comments:
“We accept the principal finding of their review—that protective helmets protect in the event of an accident”
Which once again supports 100% the statement in the Highway Code under challenge here.
Even if Adams and Hillman accept that there is some protection, how much? And is it worth it? There is also evidence that cyclists who wear helmets may be more likely to have a crash.
It is certainly possible in some* hospital case studies to show some benefit from wearing helmets. But these studies of necessity exclude cyclists who do not crash.
Why can we not see the benefit in road safety statistics? Generally cycling statistics? Why is it that the only places we see can observe a benefit are:
-analyses looking at energy absorption
-hospital case studies
*even hospital case studies don't all find conclusive benefit. Many of those that find significant benefits have methodological issues, and those that do not have methodological issues show only modest benefit, or none at all.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
In general,.contributory negligence for contravening the HC, requires some evidence that it would have made a difference.Jdsk wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 2:17pm The judicial process gives both parties a route to fair and full compensation. Compensation is only awarded under the current system on the basis of liability.
I'd be very interested if any experts could give their views on the importance in real cases of the wording in the Highway Code as opposed to other evidence presented.
Jonathan
There's a pretty good summary of relevant cases in a couple of places
https://www.weightmans.com/insights/cyc ... revisited/
https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycle/contributory-negligence
It is common practice for insurance companies to offer reduced compensation on the basis of contributory negligence, which can include not wearing a cycle helmet.
We generally only hear about these cases if they are challenged in court.
p.s. the route to fair compensation is rather more difficult for vulnerable road users, who typically need to demonstrate that the driver of a motor vehicle is liable for their injuries / loss.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
Thankyou.Vorpal wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 3:01pmIn general,.contributory negligence for contravening the HC, requires some evidence that it would have made a difference.Jdsk wrote: ↑7 Dec 2021, 2:17pm The judicial process gives both parties a route to fair and full compensation. Compensation is only awarded under the current system on the basis of liability.
I'd be very interested if any experts could give their views on the importance in real cases of the wording in the Highway Code as opposed to other evidence presented.
There's a pretty good summary of relevant cases in a couple of places...
That's very helpful.
Jonathan
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
Vorpal » 7 Dec 2021, 2:47pm wrote
reported a negative outcome, Shafi 1998, Wagner 2012, Malczyk 2014. None of the 40 studies included information on risk per hour. They all include comparisons between groups.
There can be significant differences between wearers and non-wearers, Table 12 in the link below provides some details.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... se_revised
Hospital case studies would likely reflect all the other differences in addition to helmet use.
3 of the 28 head injury studies in the 2017 review, Olivier J, Creighton P. Bicycle injuries and helmet use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Epidemiology 2017;46:278-292Why can we not see the benefit in road safety statistics? Generally cycling statistics? Why is it that the only places we see can observe a benefit are:
-analyses looking at energy absorption
-hospital case studies
*even hospital case studies don't all find conclusive benefit. Many of those that find significant benefits have methodological issues, and those that do not have methodological issues show only modest benefit, or none at all.
reported a negative outcome, Shafi 1998, Wagner 2012, Malczyk 2014. None of the 40 studies included information on risk per hour. They all include comparisons between groups.
There can be significant differences between wearers and non-wearers, Table 12 in the link below provides some details.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... se_revised
Hospital case studies would likely reflect all the other differences in addition to helmet use.