UK and Europe · Public discussion

Aaaargh! Not more helmets!

Started by Just Zis Guy · · Last activity · 21 posts · 1,213 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
26 September 2003
Last activity
4 October 2003
Original author
Just Zis Guy
Posts
21
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,213
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 21
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Sad but true. There is an article in the Reading Chronic this week: <icberkshire.icnetwork.c-icberkshire.icnetwork.c-
    o.uk/0100news/0200berkshireheadlines/content_objectid=13446952_method=full_siteid=50102_headline=-T-
    ributes%2Dpour%2Din%2Dfor%2Dpopular%2Dyoungster-name_page.html>

    Note that the tone of the paper is that the fault lies in the child's failure to wear a plastic hat.
    No doubt the driver's insurers will take great comfort from this. The parents blame the lack of a
    barrier along the road, to separate cars from bikes. The driver can't be at fault, obviously.

    A SCHOOLBOY who died in a road accident touched the lives of many people and his parents have
    thanked all who paid tribute to him this week.

    Daniel Wise, 14, was cycling home from school along Lower Earley Way last Wednesday, when he was
    struck by a white Jaguar.

    The police say the youngster died instantly after suffering a head injury.

    Now his parents, Lesley and Dave Wise are calling for safety barriers to protect other cyclists -
    and prevent another family going through the same ordeal.

    Lesley Wise, of Fleetham Gardens, Lower Earley, told the Chronicle yesterday (Wednesday): "We are
    devastated by the loss of our son. No words can express how we feel.

    "Our thoughts are with the driver and all those who gave assistance at the scene.

    "It was a tragic accident, and we hope lessons may be learned as a result.

    "One comfort to us would be the introduction of barriers along Lower Earley Way to ensure parents
    may know their own children are safe, and will be spared the pain we have experienced.

    "We would take this opportunity to ask all parents to insist their children wear the correct
    safety helmets."

    Daniel joined the Forest School, in Robin Hood Lane, in 2000, having been taught at Hawkedon
    Primary School.

    His former headmaster Alan Youd still remembers the teenager. He said: "It's left us all shattered.
    I remember clearly his blonde hair and big smile.

    "We just hope some good can come out of this tragedy. The message has gone out to be careful."

    The Forest school has had a helmet policy in place ever since pupil Philip Tribe was killed in a
    cycling accident in 1992.

    Although Daniel always wore his helmet when he rode home, the day was blazing hot and for once he
    chose not to.

    Forest School headteacher Keith Quine, who will be paying a tribute to Daniel at the funeral on
    Monday, talked about the school pulling together for support and said: "His form tutor, Miss Peel,
    sums up the feelings of so many of us in describing him as an absolutely genuine young man."

    Daniel, whose parents are separated, was an only child. He was a Chelsea supporter and the team
    dedicated their last game to his memory.

    Daniel will be cremated in his prized Burberry cap and in a Chelsea blue coffin. More than than 250
    friends and family members are expected to pay their last respects.

    His family have chosen not to say where the funeral is being held as they wish to keep it private.
    However, anyone who wishes to send flowers can do so through funeral directors JB Halls, in
    Finchampstead Road, Wokingham.

    --
    Guy

    Marvin is dead, long live Zaphod! There may be some problems getting hold of me while I resurrect
    the data from the dead hard disks.

  2. Just zis Guy said:

    Sad but true. There is an article in the Reading Chronic this week: <icberkshire.icnetwork-icberkshire.icnetwork-
    .co.uk/0100news/0200berkshireheadlines/content_objectid=13446952_method=full_siteid=50102_headlin-
    e=-Tributes%2Dpour%2Din%2Dfor%2Dpopular%2Dyoungster-name_page.html>

    Note that the tone of the paper is that the fault lies in the child's failure to wear a plastic
    hat. No doubt the driver's insurers will take great comfort from this. The parents blame the lack
    of a barrier along the road, to separate cars from bikes. The driver can't be at fault, obviously.

    With respect to the family, who hopefully won't read this, what a load of [censored] the article is.
    100-1, either the Jag driver wasn't looking where he was going or the cyclist did something entirely
    unexpected. There is rarely such a thing as an "accident" - someone's negligence is to blame in 99%
    of cases (we can probably excuse catastrophic mechanical breakdowns and suicidal deer).

    Roger

  3. Quoted message said:

    The police say the youngster died instantly after suffering a head injury.


    The police being trained in the proffession of autopsy, obviously.

    Nothing to do with the possible spinal/ leg injuries slightly more common in car accidents?

    How do they manage to make this story about cycle helmets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Michael

  4. "Michael Kent" <[email hidden]>typed

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The police say the youngster died instantly after suffering a head injury.


    The police being trained in the proffession of autopsy, obviously.

    Quoted message said:

    Nothing to do with the possible spinal/ leg injuries slightly more common in car accidents?

    Quoted message said:

    How do they manage to make this story about cycle helmets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Quoted message said:

    Michael

    Not to speak of the naive assumption that guard rails will stop cars straying. They don't.

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

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

    Quoted message said:

    Sad but true. There is an article in the Reading Chronic this week: <icberkshire.icnetwork-icberkshire.icnetwork-
    .co.uk/0100news/0200berkshireheadlines/content_objectid=13446952_method=full_siteid=50102_headlin-
    e=-Tributes%2Dpour%2Din%2Dfor%2Dpopular%2Dyoungster-name_page.html>

    Note that the tone of the paper is that the fault lies in the child's failure to wear a plastic
    hat. No doubt the driver's insurers will take great comfort from this


    Big Snip;

    As an aside the CTC cyclist's defence fund was set up to help provide funds to enable victims/their
    families to fight, via the courts, motorists insurers trying to reduce compensation payments on the
    basis of no helmet (They have apparently won several cases already)

  6. martin said:

    As an aside the CTC cyclist's defence fund was set up to help provide funds to enable
    victims/their families to fight, via the courts, motorists insurers trying to reduce compensation
    payments on the basis of no helmet (They have apparently won several cases already)

    Indeed. I was tempted to write and tell the paper so.

    --
    Guy

    Marvin is dead, long live Zaphod!

  7. Sorry, I'm a bit late on this thread.

    Lower Earley Way is a road that I have ridden many times. It is fast - 50-60mph limit, and runs
    around the outside of a LARGE housing estate, effectively forming a main link between the M4 and
    A329(M) motorways.

    I know that is no excuse for any car/bike accident but it is hardly the most suitable road for a
    14-year old when there may be, dependent upon exactly where the unfortunate accident happened, more
    suitable roads through the estate where a motorist will generally drive slower and pay more
    attention. There is even a traffic free cycle path leading almost the whole length of the estate.

    Yes barriers would protect a cyclist on a cycle lane behind it but this is hardly a practical
    consideration. Where do you draw the line? Do we want to be forced behind bars, onto narrow (and
    they will be, because money will not be spent to widen the road to accommodate) lanes that will be
    poorly maintained? That really is not the issue here.

    The article does not seem to comment on what happened in the accident. How can anyone be judgmental
    without the facts?

    This was an accident. No-one wanted a child to be killed. But as Zog said, someone was responsible
    to some degree or other. Who that was is ultimately for the Courts to decide (if any claim is
    pursued, or action taken).

    As for the helmet/no helmet argument, that's another thing altogether. It should be a matter of
    choice, maybe. I choose to wear a helmet.

    But, and here is the legal argument, if a helmet would have prevented or reduced the extent of an
    injury then any compensation in respect of that injury is likely to be reduced to some extent, with
    the same reasoning for reduction in damages for not wearing a seat belt when doing so would have
    reduced/prevented injury.

    Damages are not reduced because you do not wear a helmet or a seat belt unless it can be argued that
    doing so would have prevented or reduced the extent of an injury.

    An insurance company may argue differently. Their purpose is to minimise any compensation they may
    pay, for the benefit of their shareholders. However, it is the job of any solicitor representing a
    Claimant in such a situation to advise on whether it is reasonable, and for the Courts ultimately to
    give their judgment on the matter.

    I'm sorry to go on at such length but I see too many criticisms that seem to be focussed on only one
    of many viewpoints, especially a local newspaper reporting the matter in an all too typical
    sensationalist manner.

    DG.

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

    Quoted message said:
    martin said:

    As an aside the CTC cyclist's defence fund was set up to help provide funds to enable
    victims/their families to fight, via the courts, motorists insurers trying to reduce
    compensation payments on the basis of no helmet (They have apparently won several cases already)

    Indeed. I was tempted to write and tell the paper so.

    --
    Guy

    Marvin is dead, long live Zaphod!

  8. DG said:

    But, and here is the legal argument, if a helmet would have prevented or reduced the extent of an
    injury then any compensation in respect of that injury is likely to be reduced to some extent,
    with the same reasoning for reduction in damages for not wearing a seat belt when doing so would
    have reduced/prevented injury.

    If you look at the £5m compensation link above, the current case law position is that the lack of a
    helmet does *not* reduce the amount of compensation payable.

    The critical difference is that seatbelts are a legal requirement and have been proven to reduce
    injury and/or save lives. The number of drivers and accidents is so high that you can draw the
    conclusions on their effectiveness from statistics alone. With bicycle helmets, serious head
    injuries to cyclists are so rare - although you wouldn't believe it from the media - that you can't
    do the same statistical exercise; in fact, the statistics that are available suggest a slightly
    higher serious injury and death rate for helmet wearers.

    Roger

  9. "Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    ... If you look at the £5m compensation link above, the current case law position is that the lack
    of a helmet does *not* reduce the amount of compensation payable. ... Roger


    Sorry Roger if I did not make my view clear.

    I have seen the £5m link.

    There is reason.

    ONLY if an injury is avoidable/reduced by wearing a helmet will (or more likely, should)an argument
    of causation be raised. It is not for a compensator/insurer to decide that this is the case. Medical
    evidence MUST support that contention.

    In the £5m link, there does not appear to be a suggestion that the wearing of a helmet would have
    made any difference to the injuries suffered, though I have not and I am sure nor have the CTC in
    many cases they criticise, seen the medical evidence.

    Medico-legal reports can be onerous but the appointed expert has to give a professional opinion of
    whether the injury might have been reduced if a helmet was being worn, if asked. His duty is to the
    Court and his report is required to assist the Court in reaching a decision on such complex issues.

    If the professional opinion of a medical expert is doubted as being correct, further evidence can be
    adduced, but not just because you don't like the content of a report.

    Medical opinion is divided on many issues. RSI exists say some experts. Some say it doesn't. That
    same division of opinon will exist regarding the wearing of helmets.

    Legal requirement is not influential in a medical report. It is a legal requirement that you
    drive within the speed limit. If you don't, that does not necessarily affect a right to claim,
    though it might!

    I am sure that you are aware there are many issues here. Freedom of choice is not one of them,
    I believe.

    Do not get me wrong. I do not think that damages should always be reduced. I am paid to do my best
    job for my clients, 99% of whom are Claimants. But, I have to do my job with an appreciation of the
    arguments, otherwise, how can properly advise them?

    DG

  10. DG said:

    Lower Earley Way is a road that I have ridden many times. It is fast - 50-60mph limit, and runs
    around the outside of a LARGE housing estate, effectively forming a main link between the M4 and
    A329(M) motorways.

    True - but is is also a wide road with good sight lines, and at some times of day it is reasonable
    to expect school traffic, pedestrian and cycle. The suggestion that a barrier would have prevented
    the crash is a strong indication that the driver was at fault.

    Quoted message said:

    The article does not seem to comment on what happened in the accident. How can anyone be judgmental
    without the facts?

    Sub judice, most likely.

    Quoted message said:

    But, and here is the legal argument, if a helmet would have prevented or reduced the extent of an
    injury then any compensation in respect of that injury is likely to be reduced to some extent, with
    the same reasoning for reduction in damages for not wearing a seat belt when doing so would have
    reduced/prevented injury.

    This is a crucial question - and the answer is that there is no provable benefit, so nobody has
    successfully proved contributory negligence. I don't know if the £5m case above went to court, but
    as far as I know the contributory negligence element has been dropped before court in the cases I've
    heard about - so it is still legally untested, AFAIK anyway. But I could be wrong.

    (typed on Marvin! Resurrected!)

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.uk

  11. DG appends comments...

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

    Quoted message said:
    DG said:

    Lower Earley Way is a road that I have ridden many times. It is fast - 50-60mph limit, and runs
    around the outside of a LARGE housing estate, effectively forming a main link between the M4 and
    A329(M) motorways.

    True - but is is also a wide road with good sight lines, and at some times of day it is reasonable
    to expect school traffic, pedestrian and cycle. The suggestion that a barrier would have prevented
    the crash is a strong indication that the driver was at fault.

    Pedestrians are unlikely. No footpaths on most of Lower Earley Way.

    Barriers could just as easily stopped the cyclist from waving from the straight and into the path of
    the car. We just don't know what happened.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    The article does not seem to comment on what happened in the accident.


    How

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    can anyone be judgmental without the facts?

    Sub judice, most likely.

    Or the press, looking for an attention-grabbing headline that may sell more papers, just didn't ask
    or bother to report it.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    But, and here is the legal argument, if a helmet would have prevented or reduced the extent of an
    injury then any compensation in respect of that injury is likely to be reduced to some extent,
    with the same reasoning


    for

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    reduction in damages for not wearing a seat belt when doing so would have reduced/prevented
    injury.

    This is a crucial question - and the answer is that there is no provable benefit, so nobody has
    successfully proved contributory negligence. I don't know if the £5m case above went to court, but
    as far as I know the contributory negligence element has been dropped before court in the cases
    I've heard about - so it is still legally untested, AFAIK anyway. But I could be wrong.

    It is in the interests of the compensator to avoid a decision by the Courts. If the decision goes
    against their argument it becomes more difficult to sustain that same argument in the face of a
    reported Judgment by a High Court Judge (or worse, if it was appealed) in similar cases.

    Quoted message said:


    Guy
    ===

  12. DG said:

    Do we want to be forced behind bars, onto narrow (and they will be, because money will not be
    spent to widen the road to accommodate) lanes that will be poorly maintained?

    I don't know , do we?

    Because you top posted and snipped badly I have no idea what the previous thread was about or
    whether your comments are relevant. I'm sure that you do, because you read the previous message in
    the thread only seconds before you answered it, but this might ( for all I know ) be a weeks old
    thread that you have tacked onto, and I have slept once or twice since then. Top posting is useful
    and relevant for those internal memos that are dealt with hourly, but for Usenet are the kiss of
    death, whatever Microshit thinks.

  13. DG said:

    ONLY if an injury is avoidable/reduced by wearing a helmet will (or more likely, should)an
    argument of causation be raised. It is not for a compensator/insurer to decide that this is the
    case. Medical evidence MUST support that contention.

    Quoted message said:

    Do not get me wrong. I do not think that damages should always be reduced. I am paid to do my best
    job for my clients, 99% of whom are Claimants. But, I have to do my job with an appreciation of
    the arguments, otherwise, how can properly advise them?

    Just out of interest, are you aware of any case, anywhere in the world, where the wearing (or not)
    of a helmet has been considered as in any way relevant to a claim raised by pedestrian or car
    occupant involved in a crash? Do you think that it _should_ be considered, if the injury might have
    been reduced by the wearing of a helmet?

    James

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

    Quoted message said:


    This is a crucial question - and the answer is that there is no provable benefit, so nobody has
    successfully proved contributory negligence. I don't know if the £5m case above went to court, but
    as far as I know the contributory negligence element has been dropped before court in the cases
    I've heard about - so it is still legally untested, AFAIK anyway. But I could be wrong.

    An 'out of court' settlement (the insurance weasel must have felt he was on to a loser). As you say,
    this keeps the contributory negligence arguement ticking until it can be tested.

    Quoted message said:

    (typed on Marvin! Resurrected!)

    New diodes? New planet? New paranoia?

    T

  15. Tony W said:


    Quoted message said:

    (typed on Marvin! Resurrected!)

    New diodes? New planet? New paranoia?

    Probably just became infinitely improbable that it would ever work again at which point Guy sat down
    with a nice hot cup of tea and the rest is history ;-)

    Tony

    --
    "If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

  16. "James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Just out of interest, are you aware of any case, anywhere in the world, where the wearing (or not)
    of a helmet has been considered as in any way relevant to a claim raised by pedestrian or car
    occupant involved in a crash? Do you think that it _should_ be considered, if the injury might
    have been reduced by the wearing of a helmet?

    Don't confuse the issue with facts.

  17. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Probably just became infinitely improbable that it would ever work again


    at

    Quoted message said:

    which point Guy sat down with a nice hot cup of tea and the rest is


    history

    Quoted message said:

    ;-)

    The brownian version?

  18. Tony W said:

    "James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Just out of interest, are you aware of any case, anywhere in the world, where the wearing (or not)
    of a helmet has been considered as in any way relevant to a claim raised by pedestrian or car
    occupant involved in a crash? Do you think that it _should_ be considered, if the injury might
    have been reduced by the wearing of a helmet?

    Don't confuse the issue with facts.

    The worrying thing is, that from what he said in his post, it seems like DG might even have some
    professional involvement in these things. Scary thought.

    James

  19. Quoted message said:

    Do not get me wrong. I do not think that damages should always be reduced.


    I

    Quoted message said:

    am paid to do my best job for my clients, 99% of whom are Claimants. But,


    I

    Quoted message said:

    have to do my job with an appreciation of the arguments, otherwise, how


    can

    Quoted message said:

    properly advise them?

    So if a car mounts the pavement and runs over my foot should my damages be reduced because I'm not
    wearing steel toe capped boots?

    If a faulty appliance gives me a severe electric shock at home should my damages be reduced because
    my house is not fitted with an RCD?

    At what point do we have to take measures to reduce our potential injuries caused by someone elses
    negligence?

    Pete

  20. Zog The Undeniable said:

    , the statistics that are available suggest a slightly higher serious injury and death rate for
    helmet wearers.

    Roger

    S**t! I swore I would avoid helmet threads in future, but then above has just crystallised a thought
    that has been bubbling away for a while.

    the risk compensation argument lurks behind the above comment. But there is an alternative
    interpretation of the data.

    I sometimes wear a helmet sometimes not - I choose to wear a helmet in the more dangerous
    situations, for me that means off road (in which I include purpose designed cycle paths in parkland)
    That's "wearing a helmet in more dangerous situations" not "taking more risks because of perceived
    protection" only the latter is "risk compensation" yet prima facie both would give rise to the
    counter intuitive but real statistic referred to above.

    Thoughts?

    (For the record I suffered a serious head injury - concussion and partial amnesia, which from the
    inside I call serious! - while wearing a helmet in Richmond Park)

    pk

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.