No Helmet: contributory negligence?

[Vorpal]

You might be right, and that's a fair point. I still think that it's unreasonable that people should have to choose between whatever %&£$ the insurance company offers and a legal battle. There must be a better way.

There is and its called presumed liability. But its unlikely we will get that in the UK any time soon. Meanwhile its just a fact of life that insurance companies will try on a low-ball offer and if you want more you will have to fight them for it and wearing a helmet or hi-viz won't change that.

In what way will presumed liability change the way insurance companies deal with compensation, except in a very small number of cases?

I am a fan of presumed liability, but I'm not convinced that it will significantly change how insurance companies do business. I like presumed liability because it should result in a pedestrian who is run over on a crossing having a reasonable expectation of compensation without suing the driver's insurance company. And cases like the girl who should have known to wear hi-viz (previously discussed) would never make it to court.

However, in many places where 'presumed liability' is codified in law, including the Netherlands, it actually results in something more like proportional liability. That is, liability is assigned according the proportion of contribution to an accident. In general, children cannot have any liability, and other vulnerable users have a maximum liability (I think it's 50% in the Netherlands?) So a cyclist who contributed to the accident, must share the liability, potentially up to the maximum amount. I don't know what that means in practice, or how often cyclists have any proportion of liability assigned to them.

[Edwards]

Tony you finally to have got the point about insurance companies using everything they can to avoid and delay paying out. They do not care about adding to the problems already being experienced.
Which is why people working on your behalf ask certain questions first, so that they can avoid any delaying tactics.
In relation to this thread nobody else has made any claims about if helmets or hi vis do any thing. You are the only one to make any claims about these.
Others have said about how things are, now at least you agree on the main point people have raised in answer to the question raised by the OP.

Presumed Liability will make no difference in the majority on incidents that result in a large insurance claim (if a stay in hospital is needed). This is because the Police have already established who was responsible, it will also not change the tactics used by insurance companies as the discussion is about the amounts involved. It certainly will not speed things up.

[TonyR]

In relation to this thread nobody else has made any claims about if helmets or hi vis do any thing. You are the only one to make any claims about these.

Yes they have and its in the title of the thread. They have said that if you wear a helmet it will save your family having to fight (unjustified) claims of contributory negligence and reduced insurance payouts and therefore its sensible to wear one irrespective of their actual performance.

My response has simply been that such events are too rare to worry about, that any competent solicitor (which you will need anyway) will see them off and that the problem won't go away with wearing helmet because they'll simply find another excuse to reduce the offer. But if you feel that its worth wearing a helmet so that if the very unlikely event happens your family can answer yes rather than no to the helmet question when its asked then you have that free choice. I would though dismiss the OP's suggestion that it makes wearing a helmet the sensible thing to do.

[Edwards]

Yes they have and its in the title of the thread. They have said that if you wear a helmet it will save your family having to fight (unjustified) claims of contributory negligence and reduced insurance payouts and therefore its sensible to wear one irrespective of their actual performance.

I can not read that anywhere. What has been said is it simplifies the process no more no less.

[TonyR]

Yes they have and its in the title of the thread. They have said that if you wear a helmet it will save your family having to fight (unjustified) claims of contributory negligence and reduced insurance payouts and therefore its sensible to wear one irrespective of their actual performance.

I can not read that anywhere. What has been said is it simplifies the process no more no less.

Ahem!

You and your dependants know that what you were wearing can not be used against you (as said by a Solicitor).

What clothes you wear are just as important, and it does not have to be the usual Hi Vis stuff.

Unfortunately this is the way of the world now, if you want to make a stance about this then that is your choice.

[Edwards]

Yes they have and its in the title of the thread. They have said that if you wear a helmet it will save your family having to fight (unjustified) claims of contributory negligence and reduced insurance payouts and therefore its sensible to wear one irrespective of their actual performance.

I can not read that anywhere. What has been said is it simplifies the process no more no less.

Ahem!

You and your dependants know that what you were wearing can not be used against you (as said by a Solicitor).

What clothes you wear are just as important, and it does not have to be the usual Hi Vis stuff.

Unfortunately this is the way of the world now, if you want to make a stance about this then that is your choice.

Oh dear a partial quote to take something out of context. Ay no point have I said that the tactic was successful at doing anything other than slowing things down and increasing the stress.

As the tactics being used are now getting desperate I think I will leave this discussion.

[Stradageek]

Unfortunately that is the position. While any person can show that helmets and Hi Vis have nothing to do with most incidents, it takes time and agro to sort things out.
Why ask for more problems when you can do without them?

Because the chance of it happening is very low and if you start off down that road you pretty quickly have your life controlled by the fear of what might happen. So you start riding on cycle paths rather than the road irrespective of their quality because the insurance company might claim the accident wouldn't have happened if you had been off the road on the cycle path. And then you have to get off at every cyclist dismount sign in case you get hit there on your bike. Or perhaps you don't go out at all in case you get hit by an uninsured driver or someone that does a hit and run.

Cycling is a very safe activity that should be enjoyed, not carried out in constant fear of what might happen in extremely rare circumstance.

I agree wholeheartedly!

Watch any Michael Moore film if you want to see how the 'fear' culture has crippled the US - and is taking hold in the UK.

I too prefer to just enjoy my cycling

And (because it's a favourite topic of mine) I'll mention that we have cradle to grave healthcare in this country. If I'm disabled by a stroke I can't claim compensation but we'd cope and (although I know I'm a lone voice here) I don't believe I suddenly deserve compensation if I'm disabled by any other accident(al) event, especially as rocketing insurance premiums show that I am ending up paying for all these claims anyway!

But (in true forum style) this last point is a bit off-topic, apologies and happy cycling

[Vorpal]

I don't carry out my cycling in constant fear of what might happen. Quite the opposite, in fact. I very much enjoy my cycling, and except for the occasional near miss or upsetting incident, I seldom think about what could happen. I'd rather enjoy my ride.

And (because it's a favourite topic of mine) I'll mention that we have cradle to grave healthcare in this country. If I'm disabled by a stroke I can't claim compensation but we'd cope and (although I know I'm a lone voice here) I don't believe I suddenly deserve compensation if I'm disabled by any other accident(al) event, especially as rocketing insurance premiums show that I am ending up paying for all these claims anyway!

But (in true forum style) this last point is a bit off-topic, apologies and happy cycling

I don't think it is off topic. But I'm afraid I do disagree! Being disabled by a stroke is very different from being similarly disabled by an accident that is caused by another person. To suggest otherwise, would absolve drivers from any responsibility in avoiding accidents.

[Edwards]

There is no such thing as "Compensation", any money is to cover financial loss and to make amends for some of the pain and suffering caused by somebody elses actions.

Is it unreasonable to expect to be put in the same financial position afterwards as a person was before?
Ten months off sick and in pain does indeed result in a large financial loss.

Knowing the pitfalls should you be unlucky and be injured could be helpful.

[kwackers]

There is no such thing as "Compensation", any money is to cover financial loss and to make amends for some of the pain and suffering caused by somebody elses actions.

Pain and suffering don't have to cost you anything therefore any money awarded for them must surely be in compensation?

com·pen·sa·tion
Noun
Something, typically money, awarded to someone as a recompense for loss, injury, or suffering.

Sounds to me like the very definition of compensation. They can't remove the pain and suffering so they offer you a cash alternative.

[Edwards]

Kwackers that you for the lesson.

[Tonyf33]

I wonder what the case would have been if say 30 years ago.
Motor vehicle hits cyclist, compensation paid out no questions asked regarding hi visibility/helmet, it is clear to me that this so called 'protective' equipment/clothing has been brought about solely because of the fear instilled in many due to the increasing failings of the motorist and the perverseness of the justice system when dealing with motorists.
I won't wear a helmet for the simple fact I've never felt the need to, it doesn't for a split second enter my consciousness to do so, I actually feel pity & at the same time a certain amount of anger toward cyclists whom wear helmets, they as well as other organisations ( UCI et al) /individuals (like Crackedhead..sorry Cracknell) propel the whole culture of victim blaming by standing in line with what they 'think' is the right thing despite the lack of evidence to support the real life effectiveness or more importantly even the need/requirement.

So this has brought upon us all a culture of partial blame when things go wrong, that insurers/litigators adopt a certain angle on it is solely down to the adopted norm of wearing such. If is un reasonable for everyone else in society to go about their business in or out of their homes without fear and not wear a helmet/hi vis, why because I choose to ride upon a cycle do I have to have different rules when the apparent 'risk' is equal. That I or indeed my family should be punished financially or even that I would be deemed negligent for not wearing unproven PPE is utterly repulsive.

I have already provisoned for my demise (in whatever form) financially, I have catalogued much information regarding the increase in blame culture on the innocent, I have collated a lot of the information regarding the next to useless protective equipment known as a bicycle helmet and hi-vis and have prepared a long statement that will ask where is the evidence that shows this so called PPE would have protected me.
That should it be a motorist that kills or severely injures me that I have written a further statement/list of questions for the CPS/my solicitors that will make damn sure that they won't wriggle out of it due to low sun, no-xray vision, temporary loss of consciousness amongst the other 'excuses'. That all the other motorists that have passed me not just on that day but every other day for the whole of my cycling life without killing/severely injuring me so indeed there is a direct comparison for the judgement of dangerous driving compared to a competent motorist.
<thinly disguised swearing moderated>

[TonyR]

There is no such thing as "Compensation", any money is to cover financial loss and to make amends for some of the pain and suffering caused by somebody elses actions.

Pain and suffering don't have to cost you anything therefore any money awarded for them must surely be in compensation?

com·pen·sa·tion
Noun
Something, typically money, awarded to someone as a recompense for loss, injury, or suffering.

Sounds to me like the very definition of compensation. They can't remove the pain and suffering so they offer you a cash alternative.

Its also known as Damages which are defined in the OED (with my emphasis) as:

4. Law. (Now always in pl.) The value, estimated in money, of something lost or withheld; the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained.

[TonyR]

And if anyone believes that wearing a helmet will stop the insurance company trying it on; viewtopic.php?f=15&t=74752

[Steady rider]

(19) The failure of a person to wear a bicycle helmet or the failure of a parent or guardian to prevent a child from riding a bicycle without a bicycle helmet may not be considered evidence of negligence or contributory negligence.

http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/helmet/helm_fl.htm

Florida has a bike helmet law for younger cyclists but they do not premit discrimination in accident compensation based on not wearing one.

People not wearing one are showing they preserve the right of choice. See CTC 2013 AGM motion ?
http://www.ctc.org.uk/file/Public/agmagenda.pdf

Colin Clarke and Ron Healey.
That CTC seeks amendments to the Highway
Code when it is next revised, to increase
cyclists’ protection in both civil and criminal law,
including: greater priority at junctions; stronger
requirements on the need for drivers to leave
space when overtaking cyclists; and changes to
advice which may be used by drivers and their
insurers (or others) to argue that cyclists are
liable for their own injuries, eg by not wearing
helmets or high visibility clothing.

There is nothing stopping the DfT adding similar to the above, except it is not a 'failure' to not wear a helmet, it is considered judgement.