Cycle helmets – what the law says

12-Feb-2009 (0 comments)

Cyclists across England and Wales have been thrown into confusion as to whether helmets must now be worn by all as a result of a High Court ruling in January 2009.

Robert Smith suffered serious head injuries as a result of a collision with a motorcycle while riding his bike. He claimed substantial damages for his injuries and losses.  One of the arguments raised by the motorcyclist’s insurers was that his injuries were wholly or partly due to the fact that he had not been wearing a helmet. They argued this was “contributory negligence” on his part and that his damages should be reduced for this. They relied on the Highway Code which says that a cyclist “should wear a cycling helmet which conforms to current Regulations” and said that not wearing one was in law the same as to a motorist not wearing a seatbelt. It has been the case for some time that, if a driver or passenger in a car doesn’t wear the seatbelt and it can be shown that their injuries would have been avoided or less serious if the belt had been worn, their damages should be reduced.

Although Mr Smith was able to prove that on the facts of his particular case, wearing a helmet would have made no difference to his injuries so there was no reduction made for any “contributory negligence” against him, the Judge, Mr Justice Griffith Williams did say in his ruling:

“it must follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence would wear [a helmet]… 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..”

This court Judgment, coming from a High Court Judge, can now be relied upon by insurance companies in most cycling injury claims as it is binding authority in the County Courts where most cases are heard. It may also persuade other High Court Judges to reach the same conclusion in the larger value cases they hear.

However, it does not mean that it is against the law not to wear a helmet – just that cyclists run the risk of getting lower compensation if they suffer injuries proved to be as a result of not wearing one.

The whole issue of helmet wearing remains controversial and the specialist cycling lawyers at Barcan Woodward regret the fact that the Judge in Mr Smith’s case made the wide ranging comments that he did without hearing all the scientific argument for and against helmet wearing.

This case is bound to fuel the arguments on both sides. Many cyclists always wear a helmet as a matter of personal choice but many others prefer not to or make a decision depending on the circumstances. There are arguments both ways. 

Cycling is one of the best ways to lose weight and keep fit possible so the more people who ride the healthier the nation will be. There is an expert view that if helmets were made compulsory, many people would be put off from getting into riding altogether and the cost to the country in terms of healthcare, pollution and in many other ways would be enormous.

We are sure that sooner or later the Court of Appeal will consider the issue of “contributory negligence” for not wearing a helmet. In the meantime, at an individual level, Barcan Woodward’s advice is that if your head is unprotected and you are unlucky enough to suffer a head injury while riding, you could find your compensation reduced.

Click the following for more advice: Claiming for Head Injuries

(0 comments)