Page 2 of 6
Posted: 4 Feb 2009, 2:26pm
by EdinburghFixed
thirdcrank wrote:This case could just as easily have been spun as 'court decides that claptrap along the lines of policemen have helmets and cyclists should too is not evidence.'
Good point. It occurred to me that they might just as easily have reported "despite an invitation from the judge, the defence team was unable to provide any evidence that even a new cycle helmet would have protected the victim".
Which really is a big step in the right direction for contributory negligence defences, not the "major [negative] implication" that BikeRadar reports...
Posted: 4 Feb 2009, 2:39pm
by MartinC
Try this:
http://info.beachcroft.co.uk/ve/ZZ7230J72Cj62Bw73n
"guilty of contributory negligence if the helmet would have prevented all of his injuries or made them a good deal less severe"
This is just the anodyne restatement of some legal principle. One could argue about whether it's sensible or victim blaming.
The significant thing is that:
No-one's proved this in any previous case.
It wasn't proven in this case.
It's unlikely to be proven in any subsequent case because no-one can produce any evidence of this protective effect or a solid rationale of how it might be possible.
Posted: 4 Feb 2009, 3:10pm
by meic
It appears you need
either a helmet
or
good legal cover insurance
if you are hit by another road user.
Posted: 4 Feb 2009, 8:27pm
by Simon L6
Posted: 4 Feb 2009, 8:54pm
by paulah
EdinburghFixed wrote:So in fact, you only have to worry about wearing a helmet if you ride at 12mph or less,
What I want to know is, how do you hit your head falling off the bike, with no collision, at under 12 mph? I've skidded off twice this year (1st time stupity, 2nd time kamikaze pedestrian) and on neither occasion has my helmeted head hit the ground. Or not that I can remember. And when I slipped on the pavement in december, same thing, no head contact. THe helmet does reassure my family and colleagues though.
(and before anyone gets the wrong idea about my cycling / walking skills, I've been cycling on roads since I was 8, walking to school by myself since 7, driving for about 15 years and never had any kind of accident until this winters losing streak started, I'm now thinking of becoming a recluse and ordering all my groceries on-line, at least until winter's safely over)
Posted: 4 Feb 2009, 10:29pm
by Coffee
Not wearing a helmet contributed to his own injuries?
I imagine he would have been just fine had he not been knocked off by a speeding motorcyclist skimming past him.
I would have thought it would only be fair to use that claim if you were both driving/riding a similar vehicle and equally to blame.
Posted: 5 Feb 2009, 11:34am
by skrx
paulah wrote:What I want to know is, how do you hit your head falling off the bike, with no collision, at under 12 mph?
I tapped my helmet against the ground on Monday in the snow. If I hadn't been wearing the helmet my head probably wouldn't have been "hit", it was very low speed and I'd instintively bent my neck forward. This was from falling off the bike backwards on the ice (I hit a road hump, which I couldn't see because of the snow, at a wide angle).
You could also hit your head on a lamp post etc (e.g. hit kerb/pothole, go over handlebars, instinctively put hands out ahead, but lamp post in the way...)
Still, in both cases pretty low risks.
Posted: 5 Feb 2009, 11:48am
by thirdcrank
Coffee wrote:I would have thought it would only be fair to use that claim if you were both driving/riding a similar vehicle and equally to blame.
'Fairness' doesn't come into it. They decide these things according to the law, or their interpretation of it. This judgment is now an addition to the law - unless it is the subject of an appeal. One thing's for sure, none of m'learned friends are going to come on here for an opinion.
Incidentally, any decision like this only creates a binding precedent in respect of what is called the 'ratio'. This is nothing to do with gear tables. It means the legal issue which was actually decided by the court, after hearing the arguments. Any extra comments in the judgment are 'obiter dictum' and are not binding in future, although they may be persuasive. Without seeing the actual judgment, it's not easy to say what has been settled and what has not. Also, the precedent only applies to the interpretation of the law - every case is also decided on the evidence and there is always plenty of scope for the legal eagles to argue that this or that case is different.
Posted: 5 Feb 2009, 4:59pm
by aesmith
Coffee wrote:Not wearing a helmet contributed to his own injuries?
I imagine he would have been just fine had he not been knocked off by a speeding motorcyclist skimming past him.
I would have thought it would only be fair to use that claim if you were both driving/riding a similar vehicle and equally to blame.
I assume the logic is that he should have expected to be knocked off his bike, and therefore it would be negligent not to wear protective clothing in preparation for the accident.
Can it be considered negligent to fail to prepare for a very unlikely event? I could argue truthfully that I've rode for years, not fallen off very often, and never ever hit my head in doing so. So that makes a head injury an almost negligible risk in any one journey.
Tony S
Posted: 5 Feb 2009, 5:14pm
by thirdcrank
I think its authority originates in the Highway Code:
(Rule) 59
Clothing. You should wear:-
(first bullet point) a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
When this is combined with the relevant bit of the HC introduction:
... The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’. ...
you have the source of this ruling.
In short, if the HC says it and you don't comply, it may be the dreaded contributory negligence or worse. Incidentally, this is why I got so hot and bothered over the last HC revision - cycle facilities, cycle lanes etc.
Posted: 5 Feb 2009, 10:22pm
by drossall
EdinburghFixed wrote:It's interesting that the court case revealed he suffered injuries due to "rapid rotation of the skull ... causing blood vessels to rupture" (the kind of injury that helmet advocates often say doesn't exist)...
... and the kind of injury that, it has been suggested, helmets would make worse - they won't prevent the skull rotating, and in fact, by making the head bigger, they'll
increase the rotational forces.
Sorry, didn't want to restart a helmet debate, but it's really odd that such a judgment should relate to that kind of injury - even if it was found that a helmet would not have helped.
Posted: 6 Feb 2009, 6:59am
by Cunobelin
It is possible that he would have been worse off with a modern helmet!
Tragically modern helmets are arguably LESS protective than older ones.
By increasing vents to lighten and give more ventilation, there is less protective material to absorb an impact. It is also less effective as it has to be harder (less absorbent) to maintain structure. Hence the introduction of carbon cages and dual density foams.
Secondly all these lovely straight lines and angles which "snag" arguably arresting the helmet's motion and often rotating the head and neck. The older "cannonballs" would simply slide without this problem.
Interesting?
This is the content of an email from an American head injury expert to the body setting up the US cycle helmet studies... some interesting points:
Subject: streamlined helmet ejection
To: ASTM F08.53 Chairman: P. David Halstead
From: Hugh H. Hurt, Jr, Head Protection Research Laboratory
During the last couple of years, the technical staff at HPRL has encountered an interesting-and possibly dangerous-problem with the aerodynamic-shaped or streamlined bicycle helmets. These popular helmets have a teardrop design which tapers to a wedge at the rear of the helmet, supposedly reducing aerodynamic drag along with increased ventilation through the many openings in the shell.
The adverse effect of this aerodynamic shape is that the wedge at the back of the helmet tends to deflect and rotate the helmet on the head when impact occurs there. Any impact at the front or sides of the streamlined helmet is no different from other helmet shapes, but any impact on the rear wedge tends to rotate the helmet on the head, probably deflecting the helmet to expose the bare head to impact, and at worst ejecting the helmet completely from the head. Actually, everybody who has tested these streamlined helmets over the past years has encountered the problem of these helmets being displaced during impact testing at the rear wedge. Usually additional tape was required to maintain the helmet in place during rear impact tests; usually the basic retention system alone could not keep the helmet in place during impact testing on the rear of the helmet.
Unfortunately, the implication of helmet displacement and possible ejection in an actual accident impact did not register as a real hazard in previous years of testing, but now there are accident cases appearing that show this to be a genuine hazard for bicycle riders wearing these streamlined helmets. Accident impacts at the rear of these streamlined helmets can cause the helmet to rotate away and expose the head to injury, or eject the helmet completely. The forces generated from the wedge effect can stretch the chinstraps very easily, and even break the [occipital--Prof. Hurt used a trademarked name] retention devices.
We request that F08.53 committee study this problem and develop advisory information for both manufacturers of these streamlined helmets and consumer bicyclists who now own and wear such helmets. There is a definite hazard for displacement or ejection from impact on the rear wedge of these helmets, and bicyclists should be warned of this danger by an authority such as ASTM.
s/Hugh H. Hurt, Jr
Professor Emeritus-USC
President, Head Protection Research Laboratory
s/Christopher B. Swanson
Laboratory Manager, Head Protection Research Laboratory
Posted: 6 Feb 2009, 2:23pm
by meic
Is he refering to a modern fashionable helmet or a proper TT helmet shaped like a tear-drop and only used by very fast riders.
Posted: 6 Feb 2009, 2:30pm
by thirdcrank
meic wrote:Is he refering to a modern fashionable helmet or a proper TT helmet shaped like a tear-drop and only used by very fast riders.
There was a French and Saunders sketch where they were both on bikes wearing these helmets but as they passed, one had hers on back-to-front, giving the appearance of a Guinness ad pelican. The next shot was of them both crossing again, but they had both turned their helmets round.
Posted: 6 Feb 2009, 3:21pm
by EdinburghFixed
meic wrote:Is he refering to a modern fashionable helmet or a proper TT helmet shaped like a tear-drop and only used by very fast riders.
'Normal' helmets, not TT ones I think.
TT helmets do not feature "increased ventilation through the many openings in the shell", as they are pretty much closed-off for aerodynamics.
Modern 'normal' helmets have a pronounced wedge at the back (both mine and my girlfriend's do):
