Posts Tagged ‘accident’

A recent high court case in the UK where a cyclist and motorcyclist collided (Smith v Finch 2009), the judge ruled that the cyclist could have been found partly liable if wearing a helmet would have prevented or reduced his or her injuries. What this means is that cyclists who don’t wear helmets can be found guilty of contributory negligence if they are injured in a road accident in the UK. Ouch!

In an interview with BikeRadar, Richard Brooks from a UK law firm explained the ruling in that if you are injured and a cycle helmet could have reduced your injuries, you may not be able to recover full compensation.

He also added, “Cyclists who “expose themselves to a greater degree of injury” by not wearing a helmet can now be found to be negligent, even though it is not a legal requirement in the UK to wear head protection when cycling. However, for this to happen it would have to be proved – using medical and other evidence – that a helmet would have prevented all of their injuries or made them a good deal less severe.”

Interesting judgement this and one I’m sure will be opening up debates amongst cyclists. That said,I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts on this, so please leave a comment below.

The company whose lorry that shed a wheel that killed schoolboy cycling star James Berry, was fined £4000 after admitting two offences of keeping a vehicle in a dangerous condition. The lorry was found to have 28 additional defects and was unfit to be on the road.

Earlier this year, two mechanics that carried out repairs to the vehicle two days before the incident were cleared of James Berry’s manslaughter.  It was also revealed that police discovered that the owners of the tipper truck, operated by Island Drainage and Groundwork Ltd, kept no specified maintenance records for the vehicle

The wheel came off the truck and rolled across the road striking James on the head as he was returning from a training ride with a group of riders including Mark Cavendish. James, who was 13, died from his injuries the following day.

Sadly, two and half years since the tragic killing James on December 29, 2005, the new Transport Act has still not been made law due to delays in enacting transport legislation in the Manx Government.

A sad state of affairs for legislation once again in the UK! And a measly £4000 fine – they are obviously not serious about this at all?

Just came across this one on the news wires. Makes for some interesting reading. Am sure this will open the wound on the age old ‘helmet or no helmet’ debate:

Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – The number of bike-related deaths among children younger than 16 fell by more than half after a Canadian bike-helmet law went into effect, a new study shows.

The Ontario law, which came into force in October 1995, mandated that bicyclists younger than 18 wear a helmet.

Researchers found that in the seven years after the law went into effect, the number of bike-related deaths among children dropped by 52 percent. Between 1991 and 1995, there was an average of 13 such deaths per year; between 1996 and 2002, that number dropped to six.

In contrast, the researchers report in the journal Pediatrics, there was no reduction in deaths among bicyclists age 16 and up — including adults, who were not subject to the helmet law.

“These findings support promotion of helmet use, enforcement of the existing law, and extension of the law to adult bicyclists,” write the researchers, led by Dr. Patricia C. Parkin of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

It is well-known that bike helmets can cut the risk of dying in a cycling accident, but the extent to which helmet laws reduce death rates has been less clear.

The current findings, according to Parkin’s team, suggest that Ontario’s law made a “significant contribution” to the lower child death rates seen in the years since its introduction.

I wonder if I should send this onto the girl at Giro following the email she sent to me when I was looking for helmet safety stats?