The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[srw]

Insurers work on risk. If you reduce the apparent risks, the insurers are more likely to be sympathetic to your plight, in case of a traffic collision, or similar.

I believe you said the same a couple of weeks ago, and I called you out then. I'll do so again now.

On what do you base your fanciful belief?

 

[mjr]

Insurers work on risk. If you reduce the apparent risks, the insurers are more likely to be sympathetic to your plight, in case of a traffic collision, or similar. For that reason I reckon that wearing a "silly pointless useless crap plastic ineffective" helmet, might be worthwhile.

But that's just guessing that insurers would regard helmet use as reducing an apparent risk rather than increasing apparent risk by allowing you to compensate.

It's nice to have a choice though.

But not nice enough for you to take action to preserve it? Helmet use erodes one of our strongest defences of this choice:
"At these levels making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on levels of cycling . . . We will continue to monitor wearing rates . . . and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time."—[Official Report, 5 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 639W.] (HT @irc - now let's see if @srw or anyone explains away all the similar official statements in that link to be civil service speak that means something other than non-usage being a good defence against compulsion.)

 

[Racing roadkill]

But that's just guessing that insurers would regard helmet use as reducing an apparent risk rather than increasing apparent risk by allowing you to compensate.


But not nice enough for you to take action to preserve it? Helmet use erodes one of our strongest defences of this choice:
"At these levels making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on levels of cycling . . . We will continue to monitor wearing rates . . . and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time."—[Official Report, 5 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 639W.] (HT @irc - now let's see if @srw or anyone explains away all the similar official statements in that link to be civil service speak that means something other than non-usage being a good defence against compulsion.)

However, not all my rides warrant helmet use ( subject to my risk assessment of the ride in question) and (shock horror) I do ride a lot of my trail rides / park rides / 'traffic free' routes etc. without a lid. I've never found a long road ride etc. to pass the 'should I wear a lid or not' part of the risk assessment. So I've never done these rides without a lid, since the time I didn't risk asses the ride, and found out the hard way, why that's not always a great idea. I use a fairly simple model for my assessments, and thus far, it seems to have worked well.

 

[ufkacbln]

Insurers work on risk. If you reduce the apparent risks, the insurers are more likely to be sympathetic to your plight, in case of a traffic collision, or similar. For that reason I reckon that wearing a "silly pointless useless crap plastic ineffective" helmet, might be worthwhile. I've also conducted some 'helmet tests' in my time. Despite having my head walloped into various solid objects, whilst wearing a lid, I've never suffered a head injury. The one time I did get my head whacked into a solid object, whilst riding a bike, it did end up with a head injury / unpaid time off work, and it hurt. So I deduce, that wearing a decent well designed lid, has at least some merit. It's nice to have a choice though.

Far from it, insurance companies work on any excuse they can find not to pay out... Even without any evidence such as in the case of helmets

Otherwise there would be proportional cases

The guy racing in a peloton and high risk is treated exactly the same as the old person pooling to the shops despite totally different risks

 

[srw]

But that's just guessing that insurers would regard helmet use as reducing an apparent risk rather than increasing apparent risk by allowing you to compensate.


But not nice enough for you to take action to preserve it? Helmet use erodes one of our strongest defences of this choice:
"At these levels making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on levels of cycling . . . We will continue to monitor wearing rates . . . and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time."—[Official Report, 5 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 639W.] (HT @irc - now let's see if @srw or anyone explains away all the similar official statements in that link to be civil service speak that means something other than non-usage being a good defence against compulsion.)

Even the MPs recognise that the PM's answer is civil-service speak for "go away and don't bother me about that".

Rather than focussing on one part of the debate, push the "Next Section" link a few times and skim the transcript. You'll find a pretty decent rehearsal of most of the discussions on here - albeit in rather more ...err... parliamentary language. And evidence that people do listen to organisations like CTC.

 

[srw]

Far from it, insurance companies work on any excuse they can find not to pay out... Even without any evidence such as in the case of helmets

Otherwise there would be proportional cases

The guy racing in a peloton and high risk is treated exactly the same as the old person pooling to the shops despite totally different risks

That's a set of suggestions almost as preposterous as RR's, and I invite you to produce evidence.

Insurance companies' claims departments understand the law, and understand that to demonstrate contributory negligence they need to demonstrate that the actions of the claimant contributed to their injury. Which is why there's never been a successful contributory negligence reduction made for someone not wearing a helmet in ordinary riding. (@User will point out that there's an odd case to do with racing).

 

[srw]

However, not all my rides warrant helmet use ( subject to my risk assessment of the ride in question) and (shock horror) I do ride a lot of my trail rides / park rides / 'traffic free' routes etc. without a lid. I've never found a long road ride etc. to pass the 'should I wear a lid or not' part of the risk assessment. So I've never done these rides without a lid, since the time I didn't risk asses the ride, and found out the hard way, why that's not always a great idea. I use a fairly simple model for my assessments, and thus far, it seems to have worked well.

Either that or injury while cycling is so rare that you've never been put in a position to find out whether it works well.

 

[ufkacbln]

That's a set of suggestions almost as preposterous as RR's, and I invite you to produce evidence.

Insurance companies' claims departments understand the law, and understand that to demonstrate contributory negligence they need to demonstrate that the actions of the claimant contributed to their injury. Which is why there's never been a successful contributory negligence reduction made for someone not wearing a helmet in ordinary riding. (@User will point out that there's an odd case to do with racing).

Would it be pedantic to point out that in order for their to be a "Successful contributory negligence case" that there must have been a case in the first place?
The insurance companies try it on and are unsuccessful simply because others have common sense

As for evidence ...... please provide details of any insurance policy for cyclists and find one that offers any assessment of usage, style of riding or oany other factor

 

[srw]

Would it be pedantic to point out that in order for their to be a "Successful contributory negligence case" that there must have been a case in the first place?

Yes. And irrelevant. @Racing roadkill proposed that a helmet would be a useful defence against an insurance company. He's talking about claims.

The insurance companies try it on and are unsuccessful simply because others have common sense

No to both. Because insurance companies know the law. It's nothing to do with common sense.

As for evidence ...... please provide details of any insurance policy for cyclists and find one that offers any assessment of usage, style of riding or oany other factor

Now you're talking about policy wording, not about claims.

 

[Scoosh]

MOD NOTE:
@Cunobelin amd @srw - let's not get bogged down in [slightly] OT posts/ discussions/ debates/ arguments, please ...

 

[mjr]

Would it be pedantic to point out that in order for their to be a "Successful contributory negligence case" that there must have been a case in the first place?

It's been tried and precedent established IIRC. I'll update this post with the link when I have time unless someone has time to search around on www.bailii.org before I do.

Well that was easy: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/53.html

 

[newfhouse]

Leading on from this, why are the tests that the helmets have to pass set at such a low standard? Whoever thought that was an acceptable standard?

Are other fashion accessories tested against standards?

 

[Hugh Manatee]

Well, it has finally happened. A fellow rider considered it his business that I wasn't wearing a magic hat. I think he was slightly annoyed that once he caught me on a hill, (not a difficult task these days) I was able to turn it up sufficiently to get on his wheel.

There I was happily nattering about the unseasonably hot weather and how far was he out for when he opened his part of the conversation with, "No helmet then?"

Restraining myself from saying, "Mum, is that you? Wow you have really let yourself go!" I settled instead for, "No and I don't wear on driving or walking either."

He then invited me to listen to a story where a helmet had saved his life. Thankfully I was able to swing off left without having to hear his story. I wasn't sitting comfortably and didn't give him a chance to begin.

If you are reading this, I thank you for your concern. Actually, no I don't. Next time keep your opinions and shaggy dog stories to yourself.

 

[Mugshot]

Well, it has finally happened.

The first of many

 

[Hugh Manatee]

The first of many

I hope not. This was the first ever. I expect the sight of a six foot bald man gurning his way around Staffordshire would put all but the most evangelical plastic hat fans off. Add to that I use rides to work things through in my head, I tend to mutter to myself a bit, most would turn around and head in the other direction.