The CTC has responded to a story in The Times about a High Court ruling that cyclists could be held partly to blame in an accident if they fail to wear a helmet.
This weekend’s story appears to revive an earlier story road.cc covered in February regarding cyclist Robert Smith’s succesful claim against motorcyclist Michael Finch, following a collision between the two which left Smith with head injuries and memory loss. Smith was not wearing a helmet.
The judge ruled in favour of Smith’s claim but his comments have caused ructions in the cycling world over their potential to leave cyclists vulnerable to contributory negligence if they choose not to wear helmets.
Although the judge established Smith hit the ground at 12mph, a speed cycling helmets are not designed to sustain, he ruled: “There could be no doubt the failure to wear a helmet might expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury,” and therefore, “any injury sustained might be the cyclist's own fault.”
The CTC echoes our own thoughts at road.cc that it is difficult to imagine a situation where a cyclist involved in an accident with a motor vehicle would hit the ground at less than 12 mph, so will the ruling ever have practical implications?
Debra Rolfe, campaigns coordinator for the CTC told road.cc: “I think it would be quite a rare case that someone in collision with a car would be hitting the ground at less than 12 mph.
“I think that in the word of the law there are some worrying developments because it does establish the potential for the principle but I think in practice it would be very difficult for a motorist to use this ruling to make a claim for contributory negligence.”
The Times article continues that critics claim there is no evidence the rise in use of helmets has contributed to a decline in cyclists’ deaths. When made compulsory in Western Australia the number of cyclists fell by one-third yet the incidence of head injuries dropped by just 10%.
The article quotes Olympic cyclist Chris Boardman saying: “It’s ludicrous that someone should be penalised for not wearing a helmet. Helmets are not designed to take anywhere near the level of damage incurred in a crash.”
The British Medical Association, which wants cycling helmets to be made compulsory, said: “Doctors working in accident and emergency see at first hand the devastating impacts cycling injuries can have.”
Read the full Times article here
I'm surprised ,the ones I've seen 8n and built have all needed paint overspray pretty much all areas ,including headtube ,brake mount areas wheel...
I had 2 bikes stolen in France, the police openly told me they only register bike thefts to file insurance claim, nothing more would be done about...
Another thing that wasn't mentioned in the news articles, is why this lorry was there in the first place. There are weight restrictions on both...
Interesting. I would have expected someone else (wearing gloves) to handle the swab and administer the test to minimise that sort of contamination....
No problem: Trump's going to fix it. The same way the tories fixed the NHS, only much, much worse.
The bus should have been bigger and brighter coloured. How are drivers expected to spot a bright yellow double decker bus on our roads?...
BBC news article on this implies anyone cycling on the road, rather than using the cycle area, is riding incorrectly! ...
new standard for car park layout just dropped
One thing that definitely doesn't hold up emergency vehicles is the volume of car traffic on the road or the autobesity of cars that has been going...
There is a modest scientific literature on cycling shoes. It is generally sceptical about the value of greater stiffness provided by say carbon...