To ask my DDs to wear helmets when they go out on their bikes?

[LackingInspiration]

Because I'm starting to feel like an overprotective mother (and I so am not one of those!). All the other children in the street don't wear helmets, and my DDs are so good at keeping theirs on, but I know it annoys them.

The thing is that, unlike most of the decisions DH and I have made about parenting, we've just swallowed the standard advice about helments, without researching the ins and outs of them. So what's the deal?

Am I being overprotective? Or haven't I read enough research and arguments to make an informed decision?

we don't wear walking helmets, or driving helmets on the streets. they would help about as much as cycling helmets.

Contributory negligence implies that a cyclist is in some way to blame for an accident. Cycle helmets may reduce severity of injury but they do not mean the accident is less likely to happen as could be argued in the case of lights/hi viz clothing. If anything studies show drivers drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets increasing the risk of collision. It's a screwed up world when people think that being hit by a car through no fault of your own is partly your fault just because you're a cyclist.

I couldn't turn round and tell some parents that their permanently brain damaged child would not be getting as much compensation to help with ongoing care needs because they weren't wearing a helmet. Especially as helmet wearing is not a legal requirement and current helmets are not designed to protect from the impacts from cars.

shabbapinkfrog I am so sorry for your loss . It is unimaginable.

I hope you don't ever blame yourself for not making your son wear a helmet - the evidence is that helmets make not a jot of difference in a bike/HGV collision and had your DS simply walked behind the lorry (equally possible) he could well have sustained the same injuries and pedestrians simply don't habitually wear helmets. It is quite possible that the medics opining at the inquest were searching for some sort of logic to cope with the unpalatable truth of an untimely death, and had no real way of knowing in what circumstances your son might have survived. I hope you take this the right way - I am desperately hoping that you are not heaping guilt on top of grief.

Young cyclists (all cyclists) need most of all to be told to stay well away from lorries. I tell mine to go on the pavement rather than cycle near a heavy goods vehicle and never, ever to undertake one (btw I appreciate that your DS didn't undertake but was reversed into, tragically).

Victoria: yes, in law. And in fact.

There is a spectacular mish-mash of law being cited.
Eggshell skull is a completely different legal rule and has no bearing on contributory negligence. There is something known as the "but for" principal which relates to negligence. But for x happening, y would not have resulted. This obviously applies to the party who causes the accident. But for the driver hitting the cyclist, the cyclist would not have been injured. It can also be used in relation to contributory negligence. But for the lack of a cycle helmet, the injuries would, on the balance of probabilities, have been less severe.
Damages are quantified very strictly and there are clearly set-out rules which are followed. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make a defence lawyer immoral for applying it.
And yes, if you failed to wear a seat-belt, you would be penalised via contributory negligence. But for the lack of the seat-belt, the injuries would have been less severe.
Finally, my understanding is that the statistics show that cycle helmets have reduced the number of fatalities, but the number of serious injuries have increased. This is because people who would have otherwise have dies, survive due to the helmet, but sustain very serious injuries.
My partner and a large number of our friends are competitive road cyclists and we have a lot of literature kicking around the house. I have also seen a report into this by a major insurance company - from an entirely cynical point of view, insurance companies would prefer people not to wear helmets as the compensation payable to a seriously, permanently injured young person is much, much higher than in the case of a fatality.

Agree with anne555 again! Where did you get your law degree Tyler?

Excellent post tentative. Cycle helmets are a good idea but they are no substitute for kids being taught how to cycle safely and defensively.

In the case of seat belts there is very clear evidence that they reduce certain injuries, hence the contributory negligence.

Such evidence does not exist for cycle helmets, therefore any claim of contributory negligence is on very shaky ground. I believe that currently there haven't been any awards made against cyclists as in these instances there was no evidence that wearing a helmet would have prevented the severity of injury. There have just been some summing up remarks by a judge after he found against a claim for contributory negligence.

To use your wording "but for the lack of the cycle helmet, the injuries, on the balance of probabilities, would have been less severe"

There is no conclusive evidence that this is true, no balance of probabilities. There is evidence that helmets protect against some injuries, there is also evidence that they do not protect and even make other types of injuries worse.

tyler - you don't know what you are talking about - the limited information you have gleaned from google isn't making you look any better informed.

Contributory negligence is assessed on a case by case basis. If, in any case, there is medical evidence to the effect that the injured person was partly responsible for their injuries, their damages are reduced accordingly.

This can apply where the person has not worn a helmet/seatbelt/any other protective equipment, or where they have embarked on an inherently dangerous activity without due consideration for their own safety.

I am not expressing an opinion, its a matter of law and fact.

If the medical evidence is to the effect that in a given case the injuries would have been less had a helmet been worn (which will not, obviously be true in all cases), then the damages awarded are reduced by the court. You can "disagree" with this till the cows come home - its simply what happens.

I don't think its a good use of my time to engage with you any further on this. You obviously think you know better than doctors/lawyers etc who actually sort these cases out day after day and are oblivious to the extent of your own ignorance.

Victoria - to answer your question, the drunk driver in that scenario is responsible for the accident. If damages were assessed at say 10K, the next step for the court would be to assess the extent to which you had contributed to your own injuries. If your injuries were mostly a result of chemical burns, they might reduce your damages by as much as say 75%, as you had failed to take reasonable care for your own safety by driving around with an open jar of nasty chemicals on your lap. In this scenario you would only get 2.5k of the damages. If most of your injuries were broken legs etc caused by the accident and not the chemicals, the reduction would be much lower - maybe only 10%.

The same applies to cycle helmets - if your injury is to the head and the medical evidence is that a helmet would be reduced/eliminated it, your damages will be reduced significantly. If you are claiming for broken legs, its irrelevant whether you had a helmet on and there would be no reduction.

If the injury is to the injured person's head but is so severe that they would have been killed anyway, there is no reduction, because their failure to wear a helmet has not materially contributed to the eventual harm.

And yes, if you failed to wear a seat-belt, you would be penalised via contributory negligence. But for the lack of the seat-belt, the injuries would have been less severe.

Ok, but that doesn't help us with the question in the topic very much. There is sound evidence in favour of wearing crash helmets when driving, but people don't, and that omission is never raised in court. Why then should I be expected to wear one while cycling?

And while seatbelts don't really have any safety downsides, cycle helmets certainly do. While you could perhaps say in respect of a given accident that a helmet would have reduced the extent of the injuries for that particular accident, that's not sufficient to show that there was any negligence by the cyclist in failing to wear one in the first place - unless there is sound evidence that cycle helmets reduce injuries overall, it's doesn't make sense to wear one.

There are 10-11 times more serious head injuries to pedestrians than cyclists per year - why aren't they expected to wear helmets?

Most activities are more dangerous than cycling: swimming, football, tennis. For none of these activities are people expected to wear special safety gear, but they are all much more dangerous than cycling.

Finally, my understanding is that the statistics show that cycle helmets have reduced the number of fatalities, but the number of serious injuries have increased. This is because people who would have otherwise have dies, survive due to the helmet, but sustain very serious injuries.

Could you please provide a source for this?

Joanne - you would only be penalised for not wearing a seatbelt if the evidence in the particular case was to the effect that wearing a seatbelt would have reduced your injuries. If you are killed in an unsurvivable massive head on collision, and the medical view is that you would have died anyway, the damages that your next of kin received would not be reduced for contrib, because that wouldn't be correct based on the facts of your own case. The same goes for cycle helmets - they don't make a difference in every case, but where the evidence is that they would have done, you are deemed in law to be partly the author of your own misfortune in that had you been wearing a helmet you would not have been as seriously injured, and your damages are reduced according to the extent to which the absence of a helmet caused your injuries, in your particular case. In any given case, the helmet might have made no difference, a tiny difference (e.g. 5%), or a massive difference (e.g. 90%). Medical experts provide opinions in individual cases to assist the parties in agreeing an appropriate reduction, or to assist the court where parties can't agree settlement terms.

Can you provide me with a case where costs have been reduced due to the cyclist not wearing helmet?

'The well established starting point is that of Froom v. Butcher [1976] QB 286, where the Court decided that unless a case was ?rare and exceptional? there should be a reduction for contributory negligence of 25% for a failure to wear a seatbelt where the injuries could have been prevented. If the injuries would have been less severe, 15% contributory negligence was to be applied.'

So I think you're being a bit misleading in quoting 90%, as it implies that that would ever be an appropriate reduction in damages, which is clearly not the case.

The case law on cycle helmets doesn't seem quite so well-settled, but I think we are on a rather massive diversion here anyway, the relevant question for most people is not

"If I am hit by a maniac and suffer horrific brain damages, will I get 100% compensation, or perhaps only 75%?", but rather:

"Is there sound evidence to suggest that wearing a cycle helmet will improve my safety?"

No amount of anecdote or case law is going to answer that question, and thus far in 200+ posts nobody's provided it, so I think it's safe to say it doesn't exist.

But I might be wrong......

what do you mean "costs"?? do you mean damages??
This is not a good use of my time!!

Joanne - I was trying to illustrate the point. There are very few cases where the reduction would be that high - I was just pointing out that it will vary from case to case. A reduction of 50% is relatively common (see for example ashbridge v christian salveson) but higher than that is rare. I am not going to spend any more time arguing with the google-educated lawyers of the UK!!! Hopefully this baby will turn up soon and the temptation of MN to while away maternity leave will pass..........

Joanne - incidentally - personal injury litigation has moved on just a tad since the 70's.

Tyler80 - if you are going to set up GoogleLaw.Com, then at least use Google a bit more throughly. There is a pretty well established practice of automatically reducing cycling injury claims by between 20 and 25 percent for lack of a helmet. The relevant cases that you will find reported are generally challenges to this practice. There is at least one case where the reduction was not made due to evidence that the helmet was not relevant to the injury.

Google will also lead you to a whole host of conflicting studies, some nicely listed on single summarising page.

In relation to fatalities being replaced by serious injuries - this information came from my partner who, as I mentioned cycles seriously, but, more relevantly, works in the reinsurance industry and had access to some research which he found particularly interesting as a cyclist.

Incidentally, he is on the fence about whether a helmet will protect against serious injury, given the conflicting information, but he errs on the side of caution and wears one at all times. His reasoning is that even if a helmet will not save his life in an accident that was going to be fatal no matter what, it will certainly reduce the risk of head injury in a less serious impact, ie falling off the bike, rather than hitting a vehicle.

There is certainly evidence that helmets reduce the severity of injuries in some circumstances, particularly in children. In light of this, I cannot possibly see any reason not to wear one.

annec555 - your DH is very sensible - does he also wear a walking helmet, for precisely the same reasons? and a driving helmet?

for pedestrians and drivers have also been know to suffer nasty head injuries.

All I know is my dd 5 had a cycling accident at the weekend when she fell off her bike and smacked her head at quite a speed on a huge jagged flint rock. Her correctly fitted helmet was amazing,her head just sort of bounced off it and she just got up non plussed. The story would have been completely different if she hadn't had a helmet on.

My dp cycles 13 miles each way to work and says he wouldn't dream of cycling without one.

My dc have always had them and always will as do all the kids in our road.

The difference between walking is you're not sitting up high,going at speed in the middle of a road next to cars.

Couldn't give a stuff re stats it's just basic common sense,kids aren't the most sensible and road worthy cyclists,half the time they ride bikes far too big.

to tell the truth - I cycle a lot and I wear one.

and I have fallen off my bike many times and hurt my hips, wrists, shoulders and cut my legs. Never banged my head.

I wear my helmet mainly to signal my respect for the wishes and concerns of Mrs Stubborn

Stubbornhubby - no, he does not wear a walking helmet, nor a driving helmet during normal driving. When he went on some track days, howver, he wore a driving helmet as that is considered to be an appropriate level of precaution.
His not wearing walking and driving helmets does not in any way negate the common sense thinking behind wearing a cycling helmet. As MilaMae says, when cycling you are travelling at speed and raised up at a height. Leaving aside any issues of other people's negligence, this is obviously a situation where falls may occur. His logic is the same as mine when choosing to wear a riding hat while horseriding.
Just because someone doesn't choose to try to negate every possible risk in their life does not mean that their wish to reduce a particular and obvious risk is any less sensible.

To summarise:

• lots of people say anecdotally that helmets are wonderful
• whereas studies have shown, repeatedly, that seat belt laws save lives, the same hasn't been found in respect of bicycle helmets
• nobody has explained why only cyclists are expected to wear helmets, when far more pedestrians suffer from serious head injuries.
• two people have claimed that not wearing a cycle helmet will reduce damages, annec555 going so far as to claim it's an 'automatic reduction'. One case has been cited, Ashbridge v Christian Salvesen, which involved a workplace injury where an employee was burned by a washing machine that he failed to clean properly, and damages were reduced by 50%. www.balindaandco.com/Blog/Accident-At-work-Whose-fault-was-it/ The relevance of this to cycling is shrouded in mystery. Annec555 also alluded the 2009 case of Smith v Finch, where a helmet would not have been of any benefit to the victim, but the judge opined that had it been so, it would have been appropriate to reduce damages. This decision caused some consternation, but since this opinion was not material to the decision in the case, it was not taken to the Court of Appeal.

The automatic reduction is pretty well established - remember that the vast majority of cases settle before court. This reduction is generally factored into any offer.
And no, I didn't allude to the case of Smith v Finch which I have not read. I was referring to a 2001 case where similar facts were found.