Cycling UK Forum

Wasn't there an official assurance, at the time of the debate on the draft of the current HC, that the wording could not be used to support a claim of contributory negligence?

drossall wrote:Wasn't there an official assurance, at the time of the debate on the draft of the current HC, that the wording could not be used to support a claim of contributory negligence?

Either the judge didn't read it, or, more likely, such assurances are quite worthless.

My recollection could be quite wrong so I'm just asking someone else to help my memory.

Sorry, I didn't intend to come across as being snotty.

What I mean is this: laws are passed and then applied by the courts when somebody either launches a prosecution or a civil claim. Now, if I were a driver involved in a collision with a helmetless cyclist and facing a claim (or, more likely, the lawyer representing an insurance company providing the cover) I should be in there and to court if necessary to see what a judge had to say regardless of official assurances. And that seems to be just what has happened. It sounds as though they lost the case because they forgot the elementary point that courts base their decisions on evidence, rather than 'common sense.'

No, no problem with what you said. I just don't want the conversation to proceed on the basis that my hazy recollection is correct. I was hoping someone could tell me whether I made it up

The only thing I remember was that plenty of cyclists organisations wanted that rule amended, but the powers that be thought they knew better ....

"The advice on wearing cycle helmets and high visibility clothing - as many respondents incorrectly believed that the advice to wear cycle helmets and high visibility clothing was mandatory they asked for the recommendations to be completely removed, primarily because it was seen as removing the cyclist’s choice of what to wear. However, as this is still considered to be good advice for all cyclists, it has not been changed."

There is a link to another Helmet case on Franklins cyclecraft site.....

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/liverpool.html

Anyone?

drossall wrote:Wasn't there an official assurance, at the time of the debate on the draft of the current HC, that the wording could not be used to support a claim of contributory negligence?

The nearest thing I can find is the Fulbrook Paper (on the CDF site) which was linked by Graham to this thread.

The link no longer brings up the Fulbrook Paper. (Perhaps it's being revised to take account of the decision we are discussing here?)

If I can summarise my summary, it couldn't necessarily be used to succeed with a counter-claim of contributory negligence, but they'll have a very good try.

If as Mr Justice Griffith Williams says not wearing a helmet is can be considered as contributory neglegence and should reduce ones compensation for injuries received, and seeing that helmets are not compulsory by law, then not wearing a bulletproof jacket could be considered the same in the event of one being shot. Thats how ridiculous his statement is.

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/f ... lbrook.pdf

I've now found a link to the Fullbrook Paper I mentioned above. Pretty heavy reading but I found it worth the effort. (I've had a quick look, itdoes not seem to have been amended in the light of this case.)

crazyace wrote:If as Mr Justice Griffith Williams says not wearing a helmet is can be considered as contributory neglegence and should reduce ones compensation for injuries received, and seeing that helmets are not compulsory by law, then not wearing a bulletproof jacket could be considered the same in the event of one being shot. Thats how ridiculous his statement is.

I think not, I do not agree with the judges statement but I think your anology is as ridiculous.

The comparison is very apt....

There are multiple actions that you are liable to face and can protect yourself against.

Lets take a typical full cohort study. Thornhill et al in 2000 took ALL head injuries that ocurred in Glasgow requiring admission and found that:

The characteristics of the cohort agreed with previous surveys1: 1255 (42%) were men aged 40 years or less, 575 (19%) were men and women aged 65 years or more, and most (90%) were classified as having a mild injury. The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury.

Now bearing inmind that cyclists didn't even rate a mention as a group, and are negligent if they do not wear a helmet....

Are people consuming alcohol (61% of admissions) negligent because they were not wearing a helmet when the injury occurred?

Are people who suffer a fall (43%) negligent because they were not wearing a helmet when the injury occurred?

Are people involved in an assault (34%) negligent because they were not wearing a helmet when the injury occurred?

This is the saddest part of all this. When you look at the actual breakdown of the causes for admission with head injuries there are many groups who present with greater frequency than cyclists.

If these groups wore helmets then a far greater benefit to the general helth of the public would be gained than if worn by cyclists.

So..... going down to the pub tonight?

Wear a helmet!

I think there are two separate aspects to this. The first is whether failing to take reasonable precautions against forseeable injury amounts to contributory negligence. Whatever anybody thinks, that's pretty much how things are. The second is whether a cycle helmet is a reasonable precaution. Unfortunately, even the most superficial reading of the Fulbrook Paper shows how many of the people whose decisions count now take it for granted, whether they are right or wrong. To be fair to the judge who decided the case being reported here, he ruled for the cyclist on the grounds that the insurance company had tried to run the 'common sense' argument without presenting evidence that a helmet would have made any difference this particular case. I'm not sure what else he could have done. He could hardly have ruled - again in the absence of evidence - that cycle helmets would never affect an outcome.

Again ......

A cycle helmet is equally applicable in the above cases... in fact more applicable in some.

Most falls have a lower impact energy than a cycle accident and the pub incidents also.

If you were doing an activity where you were expected to wear a helmet and then asked for compensation, I would expect a deduction for contributory negligence.

eg a BT worker up a pole who falls and sues BT.