I was sent this by my coach this morning. Although I advocate wearing a helmet at all times I don’t think that we should take away the freedom of choice in this matter.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5908387.ece
Whilst I don’t think it will spurt a sudden sale in helmets I hope it doesn’t produce a reduction in the number of riders that the helmet law’s introduction did in Australia.
I’m going to comment without taking one side or another.** **On one hand I like the whole personal freedom thing, on the other I don’t like people costing taxpayers millions of dollars because they end up injured because they didn’t wear helmets / seat belts etc.
On WA: The Western Australian example is misleading. Perhaps there was a drop in cyclist numbers immediately after the ban but it happened many years ago and everybody has now had time to adjust. It’s just like wearing a seat belt. It takes some getting used to but pretty soon you have a generation that thinks nothing of it. If the number of people on the roads and the number of my friends owning bikes is anything to go by, cyclist numbers in WA are now higher than ever (it seems that every 2nd person I know between 25 and 65 is riding these days).
On the Law: Legally, to an extent, you need to protect yourself against other peoples carelessness. It’s a well established legal principal that even if an injury is not your fault, if you put yourself in a position that would increase the severity of an injury if it occurs, you can have the damages awarded to you reduced for your “contributory negligence”.
I seem to recall that the ruling is along the lines that we should expect people to be careless and make mistakes that could injure us so we should take reasonable steps to protect ourselves from these injuries.
Judges will use formulas considering things like (a) how much time / effort it would have taken for you to protect yourself (b) how likely it was that you would sustain such an injury (c) how much would that measure have protected you - and then they’ll figure out how much to reduce damages by. So in this instance the judge considered that a helmet would not have prevented injury so there was no reduction in damages. In another case though they might say (a) it’s very easy and cheap to wear a helmet when you ride (b) it’s pretty likely that at some point a idiot will knock you off your bike (c) would a helmt have protected you? If the answer is yes a helmet would have protected you, it’s cheap / easy to protect yourself, its likely you’ll eventually be knocked off, they might reduce your damages by x%.
The extreme example is (a) very easy, very cheap to protect yourself (b) very likely that the injury would occur (c) very likely that the injury would be very severe if you were not protected, not injured at all if you were protected (d) very low level of negligence need to cause the injury. In this instance the court might find that you deserve no damages because there was very little negligence on the part of the negligent party and you should have foreseen it happening and you could have very easily protected yourself. Possible (very bad) example, if you were wandering around a construction site with no protective helmet on when there are signs everywhere warning of danger, you were told to put on a helmet or you weren’t allowed on site, you went to safety training and taught to always wear a helmet, and helmets were available everywhere for use etc. All these measures are taken because things fall on construction sites, it is a part of life and everyone knows it. If a tool falls on your head and hurts you but it wouldn’t have done anything if you were wearing a helmet, how responsible are you for your injury as opposed to the guy who accidentally knocked something off a ledge?
Thanks for a very well considered and formulated response. I am particularly heartened to hear your experience with the number of riders in WA.
Although it does not appear to be the prevailing view in American courts, some courts have been willing to say that riding without a helmet could be contributory negligence. For example:
The court in Nunez v. Schneider National Carriers, 217 F. Supp. 2d 562 (D.N.J. 2002) (applying New Jersey law), held, as predicted by the federal district court, that evidence of a bicyclist’s failure to wear a helmet could be presented to the jury as evidence of her comparative negligence in order to reduce her damages for her wrongful death. The court found that the jury could consider the availability of a helmet, the prevailing custom of helmet use at the time of the accident, and any other factor relevant to whether the bicyclist acted as a reasonably prudent person in not wearing a helmet. The court explained, in an action brought by a bicyclist for injuries sustained while not wearing a helmet, the jury must engage in a two step inquiry: (1) whether a reasonable person exercising ordinary care would have worn a helmet to avoid or mitigate injury in the event of an accident, and, if the answer is yes, it must next decide; (2) whether the evidence establishes that failure to wear a helmet contributed to the severity of the injuries, only then may the jury reduce the damages to the extent that a helmet would have decreased the injuries suffered.
And
See Sauray v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 601, 690 N.Y.S.2d 716 (2d Dep’t 1999), in which the court, in a personal injury by a bicyclist against the city, seeking recovery for injuries he sustained when he collided with a chain or wire suspended over a path while mountain biking in a wooded area of the city park, affirming the order granting the city’s motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the bicyclist and ordering a new trial on the issue of liability, that, although the bicyclist had not assumed the risk of injury from such a collision, the verdict finding the city 100% at fault for the bicyclist’s injuries was against the weight of the evidence, where the collision occurred after dark, and the bicyclist was riding without a helmet or headlight.
Pleasure… even if you’re being sarcastic (always hard to tell with the internet).
I’m more than a little suprised that your post has not been followed by a massive stream of outrage. Jackmott and the other civil libitarians must be taking a day off. Either that or my neutrality bored everyone into a stupor.
Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from responsibility. No helmet law but you can get hit with a finding of contributory negligence if your injuries are worsened by choosing not to wear a helmet is actually a very libertarian/conservative postition on the issue. It’s basically do what you want but don’t expect someone else to pay for it.
“I can do whatever I want but if something bad happens as a result my actions shouldn’t be held against me” is definitely not “freedom of choice.” The helmetless rider in that context would be forcing other people to pay for his choice.
Having recently finished the contributory negligence section in Torts I have to say that from what I have been reading that seems like a fair decision.
Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from responsibility. No helmet law but you can get hit with a finding of contributory negligence if your injuries are worsened by choosing not to wear a helmet is actually a very libertarian/conservative postition on the issue. It’s basically do what you want but don’t expect someone else to pay for it.
x2 You can’t have it both ways. If you choose to not wear a helmet, you bear the consequences. Freedom also means being responsible for yourself.
“That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.”
Thomas Jefferson** **
Support Crew
Moulli, no need for pink font on my part. I too am surprised at the lack of passionate response but most seem to be of like mind and balanced.
Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from responsibility. No helmet law but you can get hit with a finding of contributory negligence if your injuries are worsened by choosing not to wear a helmet is actually a very libertarian/conservative postition on the issue. It’s basically do what you want but don’t expect someone else to pay for it.
I couldn’t agree more, I think it was a very wise and intelligent ruling.
At my races they are manditory…but other than that…it is high time that the Govt get out of the helmet business. If I was hit by a car and crushed, the helmet will not do a damn thing to save me. Look at our friends Matt and Christy from last year in SoCal…they both had helmets on. Saying that a helmet could stop the death of a person who had mass blunt force trauma from a car - vs - bike is just ignorant…but I am sure that someday that will end up in court.
Chip, are you required to wear a helmet for TTs? We aren’t in the UK but are for tris and road races, crits etc.
Who suggested “that a helmet could stop the death of a person who had mass blunt force trauma from a car - vs - bike is just ignorant”? I missed that post and would agree with you completely.
It wasnt said…but I can hear it…
*Atty: - Jer Honn err…jew see da people on dem bicycles didnt have der helmets on when day were struck by da semi truck being driven by my client while he was sleeping at da wheel, If day woulda just had der helmets on day would be out playing with thur kids. *
At my races they are manditory…but other than that…it is high time that the Govt get out of the helmet business. If I was hit by a car and crushed, the helmet will not do a damn thing to save me. Look at our friends Matt and Christy from last year in SoCal…they both had helmets on. Saying that a helmet could stop the death of a person who had mass blunt force trauma from a car - vs - bike is just ignorant…but I am sure that someday that will end up in court.
Funny, always wear a helmet on my race bikes but would not even think of it riding the beach cruiser to the bar.
BTW Civil Libertarians are for the most part just a bunch of older white guys with gray pony tails that want to legalizeit
So are you saying that there are no circumstances under which wearing a helmet during an accident would help mitigate the damages? Or are you saying that if there is not a 100% protection rate against any type of accident, there’s no point in even bothering to wear the helmet?
And I don’t know how this is the government getting in the helmet business. This was a civil suit between private parties; nobody was prosecuted for not wearing a helmet.
I think that was very well said. I don’t think you can force people to have common sense or a respect for their own lives. However, that should not mean that other people have to pay for it.
Just over all, the Govt needs to stop being a baby sitter.
Illinois for instance has seat belts as a primary offence to get pulled over and ticketed - but there is no motorcycle helmet law. In the city I live next to if you are under 12 on a bike you MUST wear a helmet. But, 1/4 mile away in the city I live in there is no such law (rightfully so).
High time the Govt gets their hands out of our lives. If UCI, USAT, ABR, or USCF want to mandate helmets - great. We with them have the option to or not to participate. With what my potential kids do in my driveway, or what I want to do with myself on a ride - I will sooner higher Ted Nugent to defend me in court than let some left wing “protect the masses from themselves” elected brain stem tell me what to do.
That’s all well and good until you get hit and suffer a disabling injury that doesn’t kill you but leaves you unable to work. At that point, I feel about 99% sure you’re going to take the social security/medicaid benefits, so we all may end up paying for your desire to exercise your personal freedom. There are hospitals and nursing homes filled with people that are vegetables from motorcycle accidents that are all kept alive on the public dole.
But the fact remains, this case has nothing to do with government regulation. This was a civil suit between private individuals.
And why are you going to “higher” Ted Nugent? Is he not high enough already?
Ha! I work in hospitals, you dont have to tell me that. That still does not take away from the fact that if I do or do not wear a helmet is not your, nor Washington or Springfields concern. How about I tell you and your family that you can no longer eat Whoppers? They kill you right?
Time to end the “Nanny State”
But again, what in the world does this case have to do with the nanny state?