Whether or not cycle helmets should be worn and whether or not they affect the outcome of accidents, and whether or not their lack of use should be an issue of contributory negligence have been thorny issues for solicitors, the courts, and indeed Parliament – not to mention cyclists themselves – for several years.

The difficulty is, that the evidence is not clear-cut either way. Several years ago, Parliament rejected a legislative attempt to make cycle helmets compulsory for children but an increasingly polarised public debate continues on the issues. Is it Parliament’s role to safeguard us against injuring ourselves? Wasn’t this the argument they used against seatbelts? Or will a mandatory insistence on helmets reduce cycling levels among children with the long term risk to their health?

This is in fact what happened in Australia in the 1990s when legislation made wearing helmets mandatory and failure to do so resulted in a fine. There was a dramatic drop in the number of teenagers getting on their bikes with most of them concerned about their hairstyles. Cycling had become uncool.

The civil courts have had to consider the causal dimensions of whether cycle helmets should be worn by reasonably prudent cyclists to prevent or reduce injury. Some commentators have been urging that a set formula should be set down to determine whether in particular circumstances an award of damages may be actively reduced for the cyclist’s own “contribution” to their injuries.

For the lawyer, the issue of causation of harm is all important. What was the injury suffered? The reports supporting helmet use accept they are useful in preventing head and facial injuries but helmets only assist in the prevention of upper and mid facial injury. What about injuries to the chin or teeth?

The current standard for cycle helmets is meant to provide protection from a fatal head injury when a cyclist falls onto a flat surface at no more than 15mph. In other cases, even a correctly worn and correctly adjusted cycle helmet may provide only limited protection.

One eminent study has even suggested that wearing a helmet might increase the likelihood of an accident in the first place as a driver tends to drive more aggressively when near a cyclist wearing a helmet and gives the cyclist less room, and cyclists themselves tend to cycle faster.

I cycle every day and over the years have made a decision to wear a bike helmet once the clocks go back in October each year, until the clocks go forward again the following Spring. No real logic there whatsoever save that when it is colder it is nice to have the head covered and of course the risks of an accident increase quite considerably once the nights draw in.

At the present time, wearing a cycle helmet is a matter of personal choice.

The strong likelihood is that if you do suffer an injury and are not wearing a helmet, and you make a claim for injuries, that the claim will reduce your claim with a finding of contributory negligence.

More importantly, however, it may save your life.

 

  • Do you want alerts delivered straight to your phone via our WhatsApp service? Text NEWS or SPORT or NEWS AND SPORT, depending on which services you want, and your full name to 07767 417704. Save our number into your phone’s contacts as Oxford Mail WhatsApp and ensure you have WhatsApp installed.