Teacher who cycled with no lights or helmet loses case over accident

He was clearly negligent for failing to have lights fitted, which is a legal requirement.

He was on an electric bike, not a standard pedal cycle. Motorcyclists are legally required to wear a helmet.
Perhaps the judge interpreted the electric bike requirements differently to that of a pedal cycle.
It would have been helpful if the judge has clarified his remarks in relation to the helmet.

I wonder, before wearing a seatbelt was made compulsory by law, was it ever a factor in reducing the compensation awards in the event of an accident?
If so, the helmet comment could be seen in that light.
(Note I am not using the seabelt reference as a basis for advocating for the wearing of helmets to be made compulsory)
 
Last edited:
I have read the article again.

The driver appears to have been driving down Crumlin Road, and suddenly the cyclist turned out from behind a car to turn off to the right.

The driver did see him but did not have time to stop.

"He [the cyclist] said he felt that he had plenty of time to make the turn."

There is no accusation of speeding by the driver.

This case seems to have been based simply on the belief in some circles that a car driver is always wrong. Fair play to the insurance company for challenging this. I hope they pursue the cyclist for full recovery of their costs.

Brendan
 
Would it have been preferable if the judge commented that he was foolish in not wearing a helmet? Just because it may not be a legal requirement does not preclude it from being negligent to his wellbeing imho.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
However, it's a pity that the judge commented that he was negligent in not wearing a helmet. Unless helmets are a legal requirement for electric bikes? I presume not.
Click to expand...

I think the judge is spot on in his comments. On a bike (electric or not) at night with no lights or helmet is negligent. Whether it is legally required doesn't matter. If you are a cyclist on the road, you need to wear a helmet. If you get knocked down and hit your head, the helmet may save your life or prevent you from being cared for for the rest of your life. The consequences of not wearing one are too great.

I find it incredible that it is not a legal requirement. There are private member bills to ban mobile phones for under 14's but not one politician thinks of introducing a legal requirement to wear a helmet. Thankfully, most cyclists wear helmets anyway. I live in Kilternan and it's a very popular route for cyclists going to Wicklow. 99% of them wear helmets, law or not.

As for the case itself, we are really seeing a claim culture coming to the fore. People getting the smallest injury are seeing it as a way to get a big pay off. A woman recently lost a case for defamation after a bus driver called her a "skankhole" after she had littered and refused to pick it up when asked to by the driver!!

Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I hope they pursue the cyclist for full recovery of their costs.
Click to expand...
He should have at least faced a €40 fine for having no lights.

Whatever about helmets being mandatory or not many cyclists that I see don't even wear them properly - tipped at a jaunty angle towards the back, perched high up on an underlying hat/hood and even sometimes back to front! :D I suspect that wearing a helmet improperly could, in some cases, do even more damage than not wearing one at all.

As for this specific case I was amazed that your man (and/or his legal advisors) actually went to court over this and expected to get something out of it.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="SBarrett, post: 1518309, member: 81384"
I find it incredible that it is not a legal requirement. There are private member bills to ban mobile phones for under 14's but not one politician thinks of introducing a legal requirement to wear a helmet. Thankfully, most cyclists wear helmets anyway. I live in Kilternan and it's a very popular route for cyclists going to Wicklow. 99% of them wear helmets, law or not.
Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie[/QUOTE]

City Bikes don't/can't easily provide helmets is the reason that Helmets are not mandatory which is a disgrace.

Cyclist should have mandatory helmets, high vis gear and insurance + "Dash/Helmet Cams (as should all cars)
 
monagt said:
Cyclist should have mandatory helmets, high vis gear and insurance + "Dash/Helmet Cams
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right monagt.

In fact, make sure that they wear knee pads and ankle pads as well. Rucksacks are very dangerous as they raise the centre of gravity, so ban them as well.

Come to think of it, pedestrians are very vulnerable as well when they walk in public places on mobile phones, so ban them.

If we all drove around in cars instead of cycling and walking we would be much, much safer.

Of course, we would need bigger cars for the huge rise in obesity, but that is a small price to pay for saving the few head injuries a year suffered by cyclists not wearing helmets.

Brendan
 
Not a fan of the helmets then Brendan! Knee pads and elbow pads (ankle pads are a new one on me!) won't save your life - a helmet may well do so. Fine if you decide not to wear them but expect to be called negligent (or worse) for not doing so - and imho it would be absolutely right to call you out on it. What is your issue with helmets - are you afraid they might mess with your hair?
Next you'll be saying the GAA should go back to making helmets optional for hurlers!
 
Hi Ceist

I know nothing about hurling, so I can't comment.

When I cycle in the mountains, I wear a helmet.

When I cycle around the city, I don't.

They offer some protection in some very rare accidents. In most accidents, they offer little protection.

I have come off the bike on a few occasions. I would not have injured my legs if I had been wearing leather trousers. I got handlebar in the chest which could have been avoided if I had been wearing a leather jacket. I have also sprained an ankle while walking along the South Wall. I could have avoided that by wearing walking boots.

Brendan
 
The point is Brendan, if (and thankfully this is unlikely to happen statistically) you were knocked off your bike in such a way that your head hit the road, a helmet could well save your life where the lack of a helmet could well result in death. Those other things you mention are not potentially fatal. Sure it might be unlikely to happen, but doesn't it make absolute sense to give yourself the extra chance by wearing one? I fail to see a good argument in favour of not wearing one tbh - does it cause you bother to wear one?
 
Mandatory crash helmets and protective gear for car passengers would sharply cut road accident fatalities. But there are quality of life issues that would make such mandation undesirable if not impossible. Ditto for cyclists.
 
Ceist Beag said:
I fail to see a good argument in favour of not wearing one tbh
Click to expand...

Hi Ceist

There are loads of them.

1) One of the things I like about cycling is the freedom - wearing a helmet interferes with that.
2) People feel that they are safer, so they take more risks. So they don't help overall.
3) I like to travel as light as possible and not be carrying around unnecessary stuff. That is why I don't mind wearing them on long cycles in the mountains where the biggest risk is probably coming off the bike going downhill at speed.

The main protection for cyclists over which cyclists have control is safe cycling.

The guy in the story was reckless in that he drove without lights and crossed in front of an oncoming car. I don't think that his helmet would have helped that much. It's not clear what skull lacerations means. But his broken ankles would still have been broken.

It might have been worse had he been wearing a helmet because he might have felt safer and behaved more recklessly.

Brendan
 
Helmet use just isn't as clear-cut as the case for seat-belt use. There are just too many contradictory studies on the effectiveness of helmets in most real-world scenarios. Evidence suggests there is no difference in outcomes between helmet wearers and non-wearers in terms of seriousness of injury. There is clear evidence that when introduced, mandatory helmet use has resulted in significant falls in the number of people cycling, particularly among children. There was a 90% fall in children cycling in NSW for example. In the NSW example and others, the fall in head injuries after the introduction of mandatory helmet use was proportionally smaller than the drop in numbers cycling.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
2) People feel that they are safer, so they take more risks. So they don't help overall.
Click to expand...

Another great QI topic...the compensating behaviour theory. When seat-belt use became mandatory in the UK, there was an increase in traffic accidents as people took more risks.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi Ceist

There are loads of them.

1) One of the things I like about cycling is the freedom - wearing a helmet interferes with that.
2) People feel that they are safer, so they take more risks. So they don't help overall.
3) I like to travel as light as possible and not be carrying around unnecessary stuff. That is why I don't mind wearing them on long cycles in the mountains where the biggest risk is probably coming off the bike going downhill at speed.

The main protection for cyclists over which cyclists have control is safe cycling.

The guy in the story was reckless in that he drove without lights and crossed in front of an oncoming car. I don't think that his helmet would have helped that much. It's not clear what skull lacerations means. But his broken ankles would still have been broken.

It might have been worse had he been wearing a helmet because he might have felt safer and behaved more recklessly.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Sorry Guys, the stats say otherwise. Look under Bicyclist Deaths by Helmet Use

The IIHS is consistently the best source of bicycle fatality statistics on the web. Their picture of a "typical" bicyclist killed on our roads would be a sober male over 16 not wearing a helmet riding on a major road between intersections in an urban area on a summer evening when hit by a car.

http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

And some suggestions:
1) Helmets with Face Protection like a Hockey Player would be nice,
2) Speed restriction governor on every bike
3) A training course for a licence to cycle covering Rules of the road and CCC (Care, Courtesy and Consideration) so Pedestrians are respected.
 
Leo said:
Helmet use just isn't as clear-cut as the case for seat-belt use. There are just too many contradictory studies on the effectiveness of helmets in most real-world scenarios. Evidence suggests there is no difference in outcomes between helmet wearers and non-wearers in terms of seriousness of injury. There is clear evidence that when introduced, mandatory helmet use has resulted in significant falls in the number of people cycling, particularly among children. There was a 90% fall in children cycling in NSW for example. In the NSW example and others, the fall in head injuries after the introduction of mandatory helmet use was proportionally smaller than the drop in numbers cycling.
Click to expand...
It's certainly hard to get clear, conclusive and agreed advice from studies these days! Do you have a link to any studies which suggest that helmets are not effective Leo? Is it down to the suggestion that people become complacent when wearing them or that they simply don't do the job they were intended for?
 
I know at least one report suggested that cyclists became less risk-averse when wearing a helmet.

I think there was a report that suggested drivers' attitudes were affected by the presence of a helmet, and they were less cautious around cyclists wearing helmets.

The teacher in this case strikes me as a potential Darwin candidate.
 
Ceist Beag said:
It's certainly hard to get clear, conclusive and agreed advice from studies these days! Do you have a link to any studies which suggest that helmets are not effective Leo? Is it down to the suggestion that people become complacent when wearing them or that they simply don't do the job they were intended for?
Click to expand...

See this on the conclusions on the Australian legislation. This site links a lot of research published internationally, but a quick google will throw up hundreds of links, with lots of conflicting conclusions. An interesting line from the NCBI report states that cyclists and motor vehicle occupants have a similar risk of dying from head injury per hour. That would suggest anyone thinking cyclists should wear helmets should also support vehicle occupants doing likewise.

I haven't seen any research that would prove mandating helmets results in riskier behaviour. That would be very difficult to measure, and there are likely too many factors involved/ For example mandating helmets might discourage a disproportionate amount of conservative, risk-averse cyclists, and so the risk-tolerance levels of the remaining cyclist population would rise and individually, they are more likely to do something stupid like the behaviour or the cyclist in the OP. Bath University published a [broken link removed] finding that helmet wearing cyclists are more likely to be hit by passing traffic, so they suggest the wearing of a helmet also affects the behaviour of other road users around the cyclists.
 
In January this year as some of you know I went cycling in Spain and for the first time in over 20 years of high mileage cycling I had to wear a helmet, not because I wanted to but because its the law in Spain
but its a strange law, in the city you dont have to wear one but intercity cycling you do. The only reason that I can find for this is that if people had to wear helmets in the city they wouldn't cycle

I dont think making the wearing of helmets compulsory is going to have a great effect in reducing head injuries (it dosent seem to have made a difference in Australia in the last 20 years) but making both motorists and cyclists more aware of the consequences of their actions including some sort of a retest or course in road saftey every few years would have a much greater effect in reducing all road accidents
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top