Are cyclists’ helmets really compulsory?

Cyclists are partly to blame for their injuries if they fail to wear a helmet, the Sunday Times reports today. Because of a High Court ruling, riders without head protection could have their damages cut by 15%.

But a closer look at the judgment delivered by Mr Justice Griffith Williams as long ago as January 22 shows that the cyclist who brought the case, Robert Smith, 55, from Brightlingsea, Essex, will not have his compensation reduced. This is because the judge found that Mr Smith’s serious brain injuries would not have been reduced or prevented if he had been wearing a helmet when he was hit by Michael Finch, 30, a doorman, who was riding a 600 cc sports motorcycle at “excessive speed” and “too close” to the cyclist.

More generally, though, the judge did say that “the cyclist who does not wear a helmet runs the risk of contributing to his/her injuries”. He added: “As it is accepted that the wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances, it must follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence would wear one, no matter whether on a long or short trip or whether on quiet suburban roads or on a busy main road.”

That said, it was for the defendant to prove not only that the claimant had failed to take such care of himself as would be reasonable by wearing a helmet, but also that this failure contributed to his injuries. This was what Mr Finch could not establish.

Martin Porter QC, a specialist in personal injury work and a keen road-racing cyclist, argues here that there are “reasons why a rational cyclist will, either occasionally or habitually, wish to exercise his right not to follow the optional advice that the highway code provides”.

But the QC also says that Mr Justice Griffith Williams’s comments are “arguably obiter” — which means they are not binding on other judges.

If I may offer advice as a non-cyclist and a non-lawyer, it would be that all cyclists should wear head protection. A helmet will reduce the risk of injury; it will also reduce the risk that any damages for injury are reduced because another judge has decided to follow this ruling.

It is also fair to say that this case was about an accident in 2005; helmets are more widely worn than they were four years ago, making failure to do so less excusable.

But the ruling is not quite as clear-cut as you might think from reading the newspapers.

Posted at March 15, 2009 02:44 PM