"Helmetless cyclists must share blame for injuries, rules judge"

[Robin]

Helmetless cyclists must share blame for injuries, rules judge - Times Online

 

[rog_london]

Helmetless cyclists must share blame for injuries, rules judge - Times Online

This has been discussed elsewhere in this forum at great length.

Rog.

 

[Onslow]

Be carefull, you don't want to be accused of dragging up old posts and being disruptive.



I do think there is some truth in this though. It is your responsibility to look after your own head.

I mean if you in to a paintball game without a mask on and got shot in the eye, it would be unlikely it was your fault (unless you shot yourself ), yet you would be branded as an idiot.

 

[Django]

Helmetless cyclists must share blame for injuries, rules judge - Times Online

I think the first comment following the article sums it up for me:

"By the same token, then, this cyclist was completely to blame for his own injuries because he wasn't sitting in a car and therefore protected by a steel safety cell. He probably wouldn't even have been injured at all. So there's the solution. Put the bike away and drive everywhere. You're far safer.

Chris, Derby,"

This ruling is an absolute disgrace and puts me in mind of those who claim that girls wearing mini skirts are partly responsible for being raped.

 

[Onslow]

I think that it's all about choices. I mean everyone has the choice to wear a helmet. If you choose not to wear one fine, it's your life. But I don't think it's fair to go whinging to the judge when you get hurt. That's like running at a bull with a red cape and complaining when it shoves a bullhorn up your ass. I hate it when people go trying to claim damages all the time. But that's a whole other issue. lol.

 

[Onslow]

When I said that Flecc I had my tongue well in my cheek. I am more than aware of how this forum operates

 

[flecc]

Below is the link to the previous discussion on this issue, which did not have a thread of it's own but took place within another.

This is how we have always preferred to operate in this forum Onslow, making an effort to be helpful. Those who have reposted a formerly discussed item are merely informed courteously of that fact, it's never regarded as disruptive.

Contributory negligence.
.

 

[Onslow]

Errr........where the heck did that post go?

 

[flecc]

Errr........where the heck did that post go?

I'm confused at what happened too, your post is before mine! Not to worry, I knew your comment was tongue in cheek, but you might not have perceived I was teasing.
.

 

[Onslow]

Ah but maybe I did, and was pre-empting your tease with another tease.....

I'll stop now as my brain hurts.

 

[flecc]

.................................

 

[Barnowl]

Off topic but I found this comment particularly annoying:

" Cyclists can take up the whole lane when they pay road tax!"


I pay road tax and when I'm on my bike there's all the more room for car drivers.

 

[Django]

Off topic but I found this comment particularly annoying:

" Cyclists can take up the whole lane when they pay road tax!"


I pay road tax and when I'm on my bike there's all the more room for car drivers.

Yes, particularly silly comment. Presumably she wants VED band A cars (such as the VW Polo Bluemotion 1.4 Tdi, for which no tax is payable) to drive in the gutter and only be six inches wide.

 

[Robin]

This has been discussed elsewhere in this forum at great length.

Rog.

I had seen much discussion, but I didn't see anything about a judge making a ruling on the subject.

 

[flecc]

I had seen much discussion, but I didn't see anything about a judge making a ruling on the subject.

It was in the second paragraph of the link that Beeping-Sleauty gave and which I linked to above Robin:

"Despite helmet use not being compulsory under UK law, the judge overseeing Smith v Finch 2009 ruled the cyclist to be partially liable if wearing a helmet could be proven to have prevented any injuries sustained."
.

 

[torrent99]

" helmet could be proven to have prevented any injuries sustained."
.

And I think there's the rub in the whole helmet debate.
Whilst "common sense" would indicate that wearing a helmet should be safer, it seems the scientific evidence to this effect is not conclusive either way.
Personally after looking at a few articles, I think this is because the type of headgear we call a "cycle helmet", is really not up to the job (and in some cases can contribute to injuries). A helmet that was up to the job, would almost certainly be unacceptably heavy and hot for most cyclists, so we are left with the unfortunate position of helmets that can protect against some cycling impacts, but is of debatable use for many others.

Anyway I've strayed far too close to the helmet debate full stop... (probably due to the amount of ahem, "WD40", I've had this evening [rather nice Belgian WD40 ] )... and with the improved weather, helmet debating is now out of season!