Helmet compulsion....

(t'other) Dave said:

Do you think it's possible that insurance companies will
effectively force the wearing of helmets by arguing that
compensation for crash victims (cyclists) should not be
paid out if they weren't wearing helmets as they
demonstrably don't take the 'danger of the road' seriously
enough and therefore may have been indulging in practices
that could have contributed to the crash in the first
place (unwitnessed events for example, only drivers word
against vegetables).

The idea that the failure to wear a helmet might be taken as
evidence of risk-taking riding has not been used as far as I
know (in court, the fact that the opposite is more likely to
be true would probably cause such an argument to fail). The
idea that a cyclist who fails to wear a plastic hat has
contributed to their own demise has of course been
attempted, and slapped down. One high profile case in the UK
was that of Darren Coombs, where the insurance company
actually countersued Darren's parents. The CTC started the
Cyclists' Defence Fund to fight such cases.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(t'other) Dave said:

Do you think it's possible that insurance companies will
effectively force the wearing of helmets by arguing that
compensation for crash victims (cyclists) should not be
paid out if they weren't wearing helmets as they
demonstrably don't take the 'danger of the road'
seriously enough and therefore may have been indulging
in practices that could have contributed to the crash in
the first place (unwitnessed events for example, only
drivers word against vegetables).

The idea that the failure to wear a helmet might be taken
as evidence of risk-taking riding has not been used as far
as I know (in court, the fact that the opposite is more
likely to be true would probably cause such an argument to
fail). The idea that a cyclist who fails to wear a plastic

hat

Quoted message said:

has contributed to their own demise has of course been
attempted, and slapped down. One high profile case in the
UK was that of Darren Coombs, where the insurance company
actually countersued Darren's parents. The

CTC

Quoted message said:

started the Cyclists' Defence Fund to fight such cases.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle
after posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Right. Does that effectively mean that a precedent has been
set ?... I believe from watching maybe one or two episodes
of Ironside or somesuch too many that this carries weight in
future cases.. If so, good news!! Cheers, Dave.

"(t'other) Dave" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message -"]news:[email hidden]-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

(t'other) Dave wrote:

. The idea that a cyclist who fails to wear a plastic

Quoted message said:

hat

Quoted message said:

has contributed to their own demise has of course been
attempted, and slapped down. One high profile case in
the UK was that of Darren

Coombs,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

where the insurance company actually countersued
Darren's parents. The

CTC

Quoted message said:

started the Cyclists' Defence Fund to fight such cases.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle
after posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Right. Does that effectively mean that a precedent has
been set ?... I believe from watching maybe one or two
episodes of Ironside or somesuch

too

Quoted message said:

many that this carries weight in future cases.. If so,
good news!! Cheers, Dave.

Unfortunately not. The counterclaim for not wearing a
helmet was dropped a matter of minutes before the case was
tried. So no precedent, other than the cynical manipulation
of the legal system by the driver's insurers, or had that
been set before?
--
cheers

Rich

[of Darren Coombs]

Quoted message said:

Does that effectively mean that a precedent has been set
?... I believe from watching maybe one or two episodes of
Ironside or somesuch too many that this carries weight in
future cases..

Not sure. The problem with most of these cases is that they
get settled out of court. I do believe courts have accepted
that plastic hats could not have saved individual cyclists,
but whether these could be taken as precedent I also do not
know; each case is different.

Might be worth a letter to Cycle

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

One high profile case in the UK was that of Darren Coombs,
where the insurance company actually countersued Darren's
parents. The CTC started the Cyclists' Defence Fund to
fight such cases.

This is the same CTC that Fat Eric is demanding should
change its leadership. I'd say that leadership has proved
its effectiveness rather well of late.

--
Dave...

(t'other) Dave said:

I would guess that insurance companies have been
following this very carefully. Do you think it's possible
that insurance companies will effectively force the
wearing of helmets by arguing that compensation for crash
victims (cyclists) should not be paid out if they weren't
wearing helmets as they demonstrably don't take the
'danger of the road' seriously enough and therefore may
have been indulging in practices that could have
contributed to the crash in the first place (unwitnessed
events for example, only drivers word against
vegetables). This is definitely not my view but I feel
that this may be a back-door way of forcing the same
conclusion., i.e., your average uninformed parent is not
going to let little Tommy out on his bike without a
helmet if there's no chance of compensation if he is
involved in an accident, just because he's not wearing
his helmet.... What do you reckon ?

It has been tried a number of times but has not so far
succeeded. One example in the High Court was discusssed in
the Martlew debate and (subject to finding the reference)
could be cited as precedent in future cases. parliament.the-stationery-parliament.the-stationery-Open ↗
office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040423/debtext/40423-
08.htm

Tony

(t'other) Dave [email hidden] opined the
following... <snip>

I heard a story today that is similar. A guy was crusing
down Hanover Street / Dundas Street on his bike. Ahead, a
17T lorry was indicating left and slowing. The bloke on the
bike pulled out right to overtake (This is a two lane road
for those that don't know it) at which point the lorry did a
U-turn. A colleague's wife was a witness to the inevitable
crash and her most vivid memory was of the screams of the
cyclist who had realised that there was nothing he could do,
and plowed into the coupling between the cab and the
trailer. He broke both his arms.

When the police arrived, the lady offered herself as a
witness and described the incident to the policeman, who's
first question was:

"Was he wearing a helmet?"

Anyone got the stats on how much protection a helmet can
provide during a 20+mph collision with a 17T of moving
truck? I don't think that it's a part of the standard tests!

</rant>

Jon

In "]news:[email hidden],
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> typed:

Quoted message said:

I heard a story today that is similar. A guy was crusing
down Hanover Street / Dundas Street on his bike. Ahead, a
17T lorry was indicating left and slowing. The bloke on
the bike pulled out right to overtake (This is a two lane
road for those that don't know it) at which point the
lorry did a U-turn.

Two lanes in each direction, I *think* you mean (it took me
a good few moments to remember which street Hanover Street
is, then I remembered I used to work there, but I could be
wrong about the width, still).

I presume the LGV was oncoming to the cyclist?

Quoted message said:

When the police arrived, the lady offered herself as a
witness and described the incident to the policeman, who's
first question was:

"Was he wearing a helmet?"

Anyone got the stats on how much protection a helmet
can provide during a 20+mph collision with a 17T of
moving truck? I don't think that it's a part of the
standard tests!

<pedant> Unless you're caught between two heavier things,
the maximum impact your helmet has to cover for is your
bodyweight * impact speed, and to all intents and purposes,
the size of the thing you're crashing into is irrelevant
(unless it's small, like a pedestrian) </pedant>

Point taken, though.

you know? said:

[of Darren Coombs]

Quoted message said:

Does that effectively mean that a precedent has been set
?... I believe from watching maybe one or two episodes of
Ironside or somesuch too many that this carries weight in
future cases..

Not sure. The problem with most of these cases is that they
get settled out of court. I do believe courts have accepted
that plastic hats could not have saved individual cyclists,
but whether these could be taken as precedent I also do not
know; each case is different.

Might be worth a letter to Cycle

Discussed this with the solicitor that is handling my case.
As nothing has been decided in court, there is no precedent.
My bloke (being a cycling sort and well up on helmet facts)
says he would love to be the one to fight the case.
--

Transport & Urban Planning Blog

now at notonmywatch.blogs.comnotonmywatch.blogs.comOpen ↗

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:50:07 +0100, Jon Senior

jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk said:

(t'other) Dave [email hidden] opined the
following... <snip>

I heard a story today that is similar. A guy was crusing
down Hanover Street / Dundas Street on his bike. Ahead, a
17T lorry was indicating left and slowing. The bloke on the
bike pulled out right to overtake (This is a two lane road
for those that don't know it) at which point the lorry did
a U-turn. A colleague's wife was a witness to the
inevitable crash and her most vivid memory was of the
screams of the cyclist who had realised that there was
nothing he could do, and plowed into the coupling between
the cab and the trailer. He broke both his arms.

When the police arrived, the lady offered herself as a
witness and described the incident to the policeman, who's
first question was:

"Was he wearing a helmet?"

Anyone got the stats on how much protection a helmet
can provide during a 20+mph collision with a 17T of
moving truck? I don't think that it's a part of the
standard tests!

</rant>

It was the first thing that everyone asked me when they
found out I'd got a smashed up arm. I'm still puzzled as to
how a hat might have helped seeing as, being a conventional
type, I tend to wear them on my head.
--

Transport & Urban Planning Blog

now at notonmywatch.blogs.comnotonmywatch.blogs.comOpen ↗

Ambrose Nankivell [email hidden]
opined the following...

Quoted message said:

In "]news:[email hidden], Jon
Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> typed:

Quoted message said:

I heard a story today that is similar. A guy was crusing
down Hanover Street / Dundas Street on his bike. Ahead,
a 17T lorry was indicating left and slowing. The bloke
on the bike pulled out right to overtake (This is a two
lane road for those that don't know it) at which point
the lorry did a U-turn.

Two lanes in each direction, I *think* you mean (it took
me a good few moments to remember which street Hanover
Street is, then I remembered I used to work there, but I
could be wrong about the width, still).

That's right. Sorry, wasn't very clear there.

Quoted message said:

I presume the LGV was oncoming to the cyclist?

No. Both were heading down the hill. The lorry was
indicating left and in the left hand lane, and the cyclist
was attempting to use the outside lane to overtake.

Jon

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 00:51:19 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

In "]news:[email hidden], Jon
Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> typed:

Quoted message said:

I heard a story today that is similar. A guy was crusing
down Hanover Street / Dundas Street on his bike. Ahead, a
17T lorry was indicating left and slowing. The bloke on
the bike pulled out right to overtake (This is a two lane
road for those that don't know it) at which point the
lorry did a U-turn.

Two lanes in each direction, I *think* you mean (it took me
a good few moments to remember which street Hanover Street
is, then I remembered I used to work there, but I could be
wrong about the width, still).

I presume the LGV was oncoming to the cyclist?

Quoted message said:

When the police arrived, the lady offered herself as a
witness and described the incident to the policeman,
who's first question was:

"Was he wearing a helmet?"

Anyone got the stats on how much protection a helmet
can provide during a 20+mph collision with a 17T of
moving truck? I don't think that it's a part of the
standard tests!

<pedant> Unless you're caught between two heavier things,
the maximum impact your helmet has to cover for is your
bodyweight * impact speed, and to all intents and purposes,
the size of the thing you're crashing into is irrelevant
(unless it's small, like a pedestrian) </pedant>

< =pedantry >The mass of the thing you smash into is one of
the factors which affects its 'give', and so a determinant
of the amount of impulse (momentum / time) the protection
has to protect against. </ =pedantry > :-)

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Gawnsoft said:

< =pedantry >The mass of the thing you smash into is one
of the factors which affects its 'give', and so a
determinant of the amount of impulse (momentum / time) the
protection has to protect against. </ =pedantry > :-)

< >>pedantry> I doubt the amount of inertia related "give"
between a one tonne car and a ten tonne truck is significant
for a cyclist. OTOH the panels of a truck tend to be much
more rigid than those on the car so the give in the body
panels probably does make a difference < />>pendantry>

Tony

On 29/4/04 9:29 am, in article [email hidden],

Gawnsoft said:

< =pedantry >The mass of the thing you smash into is one
of the factors which affects its 'give', and so a
determinant of the amount of impulse (momentum / time) the
protection has to protect against. </ =pedantry > :-)

As one hedgehog said to another when the maximum weight of
lorries was increased from 38 to 44 tons "I don't suppose
it'll make much difference to us"

The give of a car on it's suspension may be a factor but in
terms of mass, it isn't going to make much odds.

..d

in message <[email hidden]>, Jon Senior

jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk ('') said:

Ambrose Nankivell
[email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

In "]news:[email hidden], Jon
Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> typed:

Quoted message said:

I heard a story today that is similar. A guy was
crusing down Hanover Street / Dundas Street on his
bike. Ahead, a 17T lorry was indicating left and
slowing. The bloke on the bike pulled out right to
overtake (This is a two lane road for those that don't
know it) at which point the lorry did a U-turn.

Quoted message said:

I presume the LGV was oncoming to the cyclist?

No. Both were heading down the hill. The lorry was
indicating left and in the left hand lane, and the cyclist
was attempting to use the outside lane to overtake.

It's worth pointing out to southrons that this is quite a
steep hill, and at least in the days I was regularly cycling
in Edinburgh, was cobbled. Indeed, all those steep streets
on the north side of the New Town running down towards
Inverleith and Stockbridge used to be cobbled and
exceedingly interesting in the rain.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

<p>Schroedinger's cat is
<blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p

In article <0qe7m1-
[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

It's worth pointing out to southrons that this is quite a
steep hill, and at least in the days I was regularly
cycling in Edinburgh, was cobbled. Indeed, all those steep
streets on the north side of the New Town running down
towards Inverleith and Stockbridge used to be cobbled and
exceedingly interesting in the rain.

Not cobbled completely now. It now just has patches of
cobbles where the light coating of tarmac has worn through!

Still astonishingly steep though.

Jon

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:50:07 +0100, Jon Senior

jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk said:

(t'other) Dave [email hidden] opined the
following... <snip>

I heard a story today that is similar. A guy was crusing
down Hanover Street / Dundas Street on his bike. Ahead, a
17T lorry was indicating left and slowing. The bloke on
the bike pulled out right to overtake (This is a two lane
road for those that don't know it) at which point the
lorry did a U-turn. A colleague's wife was a witness to
the inevitable crash and her most vivid memory was of the
screams of the cyclist who had realised that there was
nothing he could do, and plowed into the coupling between
the cab and the trailer. He broke both his arms.

When the police arrived, the lady offered herself as a
witness and described the incident to the policeman,
who's first question was:

"Was he wearing a helmet?"

Anyone got the stats on how much protection a helmet
can provide during a 20+mph collision with a 17T of
moving truck? I don't think that it's a part of the
standard tests!

</rant>

It was the first thing that everyone asked me when they
found out I'd got a smashed up arm. I'm still puzzled as
to how a hat might have helped seeing as, being a
conventional type, I tend to wear them on my head.

You need a couple helmets :0(

"> "[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:50:07 +0100, Jon Senior

jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk said:

(t'other) Dave [email hidden] opined the
following... <snip>

I heard a story today that is similar. A guy was
crusing down Hanover Street / Dundas Street on his
bike. Ahead, a 17T lorry was indicating left and
slowing. The bloke on the bike pulled out right to
overtake (This is a two lane road for those that don't
know it) at which point the lorry did a U-turn. A
colleague's wife was a witness to the inevitable crash
and her most vivid memory was of the screams of the
cyclist who had realised that there was nothing he
could do, and plowed into the coupling between the cab
and the trailer. He broke both his arms.

When the police arrived, the lady offered herself as a
witness and described the incident to the policeman,
who's first question was:

"Was he wearing a helmet?"

Anyone got the stats on how much protection a helmet
can provide during a 20+mph collision with a 17T of
moving truck? I don't think that it's

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

part of the standard tests!

</rant>

It was the first thing that everyone asked me when they
found out I'd got a smashed up arm. I'm still puzzled as
to how a hat might have helped seeing as, being a
conventional type, I tend to wear them on my head.

It's also one of the first questions I get asked by the
various members of my legal team - My head was pretty much
uninjured, unlike my back - the helmet was completely busted
in two though so it appears it may well have worked very
well - accident happened at well over 20mph - involved me
and ground.

Russ

Jon Senior jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove said:

Not cobbled completely now. It now just has patches of
cobbles where the light coating of tarmac has worn
through!

Completely off topic, but some of the roads round here may
as well be cobbled as they have enough ridges and holes in
them. Add to that things such as remains of roadworks which
are always raised. How well does something small wheeled
like a trike (an ICE XL without suspension) stand up to this
kind of thing - and at what speed? It shakes a bit to ride
over them, so I wonder about frame and other part wear. The
lights mounted to my front mudguard mounts don't take to it
very well.

I'd think it was less impact than on an upright due to the
reduced weight per wheel, shorter "forks" and absorbtion
through the long steel frame sections and seat material.
Also, I'm only two thirds the trike's design max rider
weight. On the other hand, on the upright, a lot of shock
can be taken through the legs and arms by standing up over
the bumpy bits, so saving the bike.

I'm thinking of finding an alternate route home to avoid a
particulary lumpy road. Fortunately most of my riding is on
roads that are mostly smooth or have potholes that can be
avoided, even if they are deep ones. The really smooth newly
surfaced roads are very nice to ride on, and quite fast.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot
com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/
_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.