Monday, 16 March 2009
Britain’s cyclists reacted in uproar yesterday to a High Court
ruling that they can be blamed for their injuries if they don’t wear a
helmet – even if the accident itself was caused by someone else.
"There
can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the
cyclist to the risk of greater injury," Mr Justice Williams said,
making the unprecedented ruling on an accident involving a motorbike
and a cycle in Brightlingsea, Essex in June 2005.
"A cyclist is
free to choose whether or not to wear one," he said in the legal
ruling. But not doing so means "any injury sustained may be the
cyclist’s own fault and ‘He has only himself to thank for the
consequences’."
The national cyclists’ organisation, CTC, said yesterday that it was
considering taking legal action to overturn the "wrong and
ill-informed" decision; other advocates of cycling described it as
"absolute rubbish" and "sad".
The case involved cyclist Robert
Smith, then a 51-year-old NHS manager, who was riding without a helmet
to an opera group rehearsal when he was hit by Michael Finch’s
motorbike. He suffered serious brain injuries. The judge decided that
the motorcyclist was "entirely" to blame for the crash because he had
been going too fast and had ridden too close to Mr Smith’s bicycle. He
also dismissed Mr Finch’s suggestion that Mr Smith’s injuries were
caused by his failure to wear a helmet. But the judge established the
principle of "contributory negligence" for cyclists who ride without a
helmet, citing a 1976 court ruling by Lord Denning in relation to
seatbelts and advice in the Highway Code.
Roger Geffen, campaigns
and policy manager for the CTC, said there was significant doubt about
whether helmets increased cyclists’ safety. After a law requiring
helmets to be worn was introduced in Western Australia, the number of
cyclists dropped by a third but head injuries fell by just 10 per cent.
Mr
Geffen said CTC was investigating ways of overturning the ruling. "The
judge didn’t have any evidence before him about the effectiveness of
cycle helmets," he said. "It just seems he has exceeded his remit.
"It’s
a kind of creeping compulsion by the back door and it leaves cyclists
in a state of uncertainty. There’s a feeling you might have to wear a
helmet because you are legally at risk.
"What we know overall is
that wherever helmet-wearing has increased, it hasn’t improved cycle
safety. We certainly feel the ruling is wrong and ill-informed. We need
legal advice."
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said
the Government had commissioned research on cycle safety, which would
look at the effectiveness of helmets and report back in September 2010.
The
former shadow transport secretary, Bernard Jenkin MP, whose North Essex
constituency includes Brightlingsea, said he would raise the High Court
ruling – which was made in January but only came to light yesterday –
with the Government. Mr Jenkin, deputy chairman of the all-party
cycling group, said: "The judge is clearly not a cyclist and he’s
exhibiting all the prejudices of someone who does not regularly use a
bicycle." Dr Ian Walker, a Bath University psychologist, carried out a
study which found passing motorists tended to give a cyclist without a
helmet a wider berth than one wearing one. He said it was "quite
strange" that the judge had set a precedent for a situation which did
not apply to the accident he was considering.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/outrage-at-ruling-on-helmets-for-cyclists-1645736.html