A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Postboxer
Posts: 1929
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by Postboxer »

Has anyone worked out the difference an across town journey would take with a 20 limit as opposed to 30? It wouldn't be as much as 33% slower as a lot of the time you'd be waiting at lights, junctions, roundabouts, or just going under 30 as per the conditions, maybe stuck behind cyclists riding in the middle of the road!
Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by Tonyf33 »

SP wrote:It's fortunate that accidents are rare, especially rear end shunts, since that fact offers more reassurance on a daily basis than any of the gear (helmets, high viz, good road behaviour).

Unfortunately, as lots of posts have pointed out, since Rule 59 of the highway code says 'You should wear' re helmet and light-coloured or fluorescent clothing, then, should one be a victim of an injury caused by a driver the courts do seem to take not wearing such things as evidence that the cyclist (or pedestrian) victim is partly to blame.

I have dependants and am aware of the chance that any damages / insurance resulting from my serious injury or death would be reduced.

I therefore wear a helmet and 'high viz' - I don't think it makes me measurably less likely to be hit, but 'just in case'!

Meanwhile I dream of Holland or Denmark and '20's plenty'.

Regards,

Steve

Judges seemingly quote the HC as being relevant whenever it suits them, usually in favour of the motorist. That this in itself is not consistant again highlights just how swayed the system is again cyclists when it comes to court proceedings.. :evil:
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20697
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by Vorpal »

There have not been, to my knowledge any cases that went to court and upheld reduced damages for a victim who did not wear available protective gear. In fact, of the cases I am aware of, compensation was specifically not reduced.

However, it is common practice for insurance companies to offer reduced compensation on the basis of no helmet or hi viz, and I would not be surprised to find that many victims or their families accepted reduced compensation. They may believe that a legal battle is going to be stressful and unproductive. Or they may not realise that they have a right to full compensation.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
SP
Posts: 71
Joined: 7 Nov 2007, 10:22pm
Location: Kettering Northants

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by SP »

Not perhaps a reduction in damages, but the principle is similar:

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/loc ... th-6091579

Pedestrian, but the parallel is clear, IMHO.

Trouble is, this still seems to be the majority view among the population.

Regards,

Steve
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by Cyril Haearn »

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

Maybe there will be a dark heavy object just round the corner. A boulder or an elephant. By going too fast you might not kill others, you might kill yourself. Is that incentive enough to obey the law?

It would be great if the police would enforce this law, there would soon be much less motor traffic.
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by Mark1978 »

Tonyf33 wrote:Judges seemingly quote the HC as being relevant whenever it suits them, usually in favour of the motorist. That this in itself is not consistant again highlights just how swayed the system is again cyclists when it comes to court proceedings.. :evil:


You would imagine a judges only reference should be the the law and case law.
irc
Posts: 5189
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by irc »

Mark1978 wrote:
Tonyf33 wrote:Judges seemingly quote the HC as being relevant whenever it suits them, usually in favour of the motorist. That this in itself is not consistant again highlights just how swayed the system is again cyclists when it comes to court proceedings.. :evil:


You would imagine a judges only reference should be the the law and case law.


But it is the law that the Highway Code can be considered when apportioning liability. As per Section 38 RTA 1988

A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the M1Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the M2Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/38
irc
Posts: 5189
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by irc »

Vorpal wrote:There have not been, to my knowledge any cases that went to court and upheld reduced damages for a victim who did not wear available protective gear. In fact, of the cases I am aware of, compensation was specifically not reduced.


With regard to liability if not wearing a helmet there was a case in Scotland where a driver caused the death of a cyclist and the court held that the failure of the cyclist to wear a helmet increased the risk of death.

The sheriff concluded that only one such factor applied in this case, namely that the actions of the victim contributed to the commission of the offence. He states that he reached this conclusion because "the victim's deliberate decision not to wear a safety helmet contributed significantly to the likelihood of death resulting".


This was overturned on appeal.

The Solicitor General referred to three documents lodged on behalf of the Crown for this appeal in this regard. The first was an article entitled "The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury" published in a professional journal entitled "Accident Analysis and Prevention" in 2003; the second was a presentation to the Gloucestershire Accident Action Group on 24 June 2002 by a consultant in cycling skills and safety; and the third was an article entitled "No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets" written by a senior statistician and published in the British Medical Journal in March 2006. The Solicitor General did not seek to endorse or refute the views expressed in these documents, but submitted that they indicated immediately that [b]this was a matter of dispute, in which different countries and different professional men of skill and expertise held different views (My bold)[/b]. There were considered opinions on each side of this debate; it could not properly be regarded as a matter within judicial knowledge. There was no evidence before the sheriff that Mrs Fyfe's decision not to wear a helmet contributed significantly to her death; the sheriff's views on this matter were mere speculation.


http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2013HCJAC114.html

In that an many, many other cases it is the bad driving that kills not failing to wear a helmet. In this case it was the second time this driver had killed a cyclist.
reohn2
Posts: 45143
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by reohn2 »

But whilst the correct decision was reached re the offence which caused this poor lady's demise,even though the driver was found guilty of the offence(for the second time).The sentence handed down shows the disgrace of the UK judicial system where motoring crime is concerned.
Last edited by reohn2 on 27 Apr 2014, 5:02pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: A Plea for BRIGHT Clothing

Post by TonyR »

Tonyf33 wrote:Judges seemingly quote the HC as being relevant whenever it suits them, usually in favour of the motorist.


Or ignore it when it favours the motorist to do so.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... cases.html
Post Reply