FairfaxPat":2hbtud20 said:Wearing a helmet saved my life at least twice, and I have the mangled helmets for souvenirs. The local medicos around here call all bikes, including motorcycles----Donor Cycles. So I always wear a helmet, even around town. That being said, however, one of my best friends that I ride with never wears a helmet, and despite my best efforts, won't wear one. Oh Well. People almost never listen to unsolicited advice, and some react badly to it, so I try not to give my opinion on something unless asked-because then I know they are listening and wanting an opinion on whatever the topic is.
Malicious Afterthought":37hwgpdl said:Recently, I read of a court case where a cyclist was waiting on the road to turn right (so was in the middle) and got skittled by a car. He died after suffering horrific head injuries, but there was something in the judgement that seemed to indicate that if he had survived being hit by the car (if the car didn't hit him quite as hard), his not wearing a helmet would be a factor in his injuries, thus contributory negligence on his behalf.
So it would seem the law seems to think you should.
I'll see if I can dig out the actual text later.
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 because 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". I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the cyclist who does not wear a helmet runs the risk of contributing to his/her injuries.
Malicious Afterthought":3sr8pv7m said:Malicious Afterthought":3sr8pv7m said:Recently, I read of a court case where a cyclist was waiting on the road to turn right (so was in the middle) and got skittled by a car. He died after suffering horrific head injuries, but there was something in the judgement that seemed to indicate that if he had survived being hit by the car (if the car didn't hit him quite as hard), his not wearing a helmet would be a factor in his injuries, thus contributory negligence on his behalf.
So it would seem the law seems to think you should.
I'll see if I can dig out the actual text later.
Found it! Although it was a motorbike and not a car.
Smith (a person under a disability proceeding by his wife and litigation friend Smith) v Finch [2009] EWHC 53 (QB)
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 because 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". I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the cyclist who does not wear a helmet runs the risk of contributing to his/her injuries.
grahame":2425rb7a said:I think helmet wearing should be a personal choice.
Personally, I always wear one when cycling. Not doing so feels rather like driving without a seatbelt on.
The people that annoy me are the parents who make their kids wear a helmet, whilst not wearing one themselves. What sort of message does that send? "We care more about you than ourselves" - that would be OK. But what about "You have to ear a helmet 'cos you are small. But when you are bigger and responsible, you don't have to." So the kid thinks it is big and clever to not wear a helmet, and will ditch it as soon as possible.
"We care more about you than ourselves"