Injury Claims By Cyclists Not Wearing Helmets

Share:    

The law requires motorists to wear seat belts and if you ride a motorcycle you must wear a crash helmet

. There is no requirement however (at least at the moment) for cyclists to wear a helmet.

Although cycling is by no means a dangerous occupation, you are vulnerable to the mistakes of motorists and others when riding a bicycle and these can cause serious injury. The question can therefore arise of whether a cyclist will be taken to have contributed to any injury suffered if he chooses not to wear a helmet although there is no compulsion to do so.

It is well-established law that where a person suffers injury through the fault of another, then the damages recovered will be reduced by such an amount as the court considers just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage. In cases where a driver has been injured but was not wearing a seatbelt the amount he is entitled to in damages will be dramatically reduced and the same will apply to a motorcyclist not wearing a crash helmet.

Whether the same principle will apply to a cyclist not wearing a helmet was considered recently in the case of Smith v Finch. Mr. Smith was knocked off his bike by a motorcycle ridden by Mr. Finch and suffered a traumatic brain injury. The fault clearly lay with the motorcyclist and substantial damages would have been awarded against him. However Mr. Smith had not been wearing a helmet.

In deciding the amount of damages to be awarded, the judge expressed the opinion that poor Mr. Smith was at fault in not wearing a helmet and as such could be taken to have contributed to his own injuries. However the defendant was unable to prove that wearing a helmet would have made any difference to the injury and therefore the damages awarded were not reduced.

Notwithstanding this the case is a dire warning for cyclists. As the judge said: It matters not that there is no legal compulsion for cyclists to wear helmets and so a cyclist is free to choose whether or not to wear one. However there can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury; such a failure would not be a sensible thing to do and so, subject to issues of causation, any injury sustained may be the cyclist's own fault and 'he has only himself to thank for the consequences'.

In his judgement the judge recognised the freedom to choose whether or not to wear a helmet but then went on to undermine this freedom.

There are arguments both ways for making the wearing of helmets compulsory. They may well reduce the severity of injuries but statistics show that cyclists who wear helmets are more accident prone. Also such a move would be likely to undermine the drive to make people use a more eco-friendly form of transport and the cycle hire schemes being brought out in some cities.

The threat of a significant reduction in damages for any injury suffered is a far greater sanction than any fixed penalty or fine should riding without a helmet be made a criminal offence. The cycling community and those intending to take up cycling as a means of regular transport will therefore not applaud this judgement.

by: Andrew John

POST COMMENT

Auto Insurance In The Us - Special Cases Various World Record Attempts Of Semi-trucks Pulling Countless Trailers Comparing Premiums Readily For Car Insurance Companies Ways To Save On Car Insurance: Tips To Cut Down Expenses How to Pick The Right Auto Insurance Rate Quotes How to Ensure Auto Shipping is Done Right A Few Tips On Getting More Affordable Car Insurance As A Young Driver Tips In Obtaining Affordable Auto Insurance For Your Brand New Car Car Insurance: Business Auto Insurance As Well As Its Benefit Choosing the Good Auto Shipper Understanding Automobile Loan Value When Buying A Car Buying Commercial Insurance For Vehicles Car Insurance Coverage Options