It’s Your Own Damned Fault!
This today via Adrian Fitch’s Random Ramblings - a story about bicycle helmets, accidents and blame as reported in BikeRadar. Putting it simply:
Involved in an accident on a bike? Hit by another vehicle, and suffer a head injury as a result?
Weren’t you wearing a helmet?
Then you’re partially to blame. Maybe.
Or at least that’s one way you could read the judgment in Smith v Finch 2009. Basically Smith was knocked off his bike by Finch (note the ‘n’ - it’s not Adrian Fitch!) who was speeding and passed too close to Smith when he tried to overtake. Smith got a bang on the back of the head, and a rapid rotation of the skull as he came off the bike, causing some brain injuries, resulting in memory loss of the incident. So Smith sued Finch for damages.
Finch’s hot-shot legal team countered, saying that as Smith wasn’t wearing a helmet, he had contributed to his own injuries.
The judge agreed, except that in this case:
- The point of impact was on a part of the head not normally covered by bike helmets
- The cyclist’s speed was greater than 12mph (above a bike helmet’s design parameters?)
- The rotational injury was a contributory factor (one that needn’t have involved any impact to the head?)
So it’s maybe not as bad as it might seem, if you don’t like wearing a helmet. If it were, then you’d have to ask what next - pedestrians that get run over deemed partially liable if they’re not wearing a helmet? Or how about drivers of small cars involved in crashes with larger cars? Surely by opting to buy the smaller vehicle, they’ve contributed to the severity of any injuries they receive?
UPDATE:
I came across this classic on Yehuda Moon & The Kickstand Cyclery that pretty much makes the point - click through to the Yehuda Moon site to enlarge:
Hmm…
So as cars produce carcinogens and cancer related substances, if you need healthcare due to either of these highly common illnesses and you own a car, then you’re at least partially to blame?
BTW I discovered something interesting when researching bike helmets for myself: ‘Brake!’ the UK’s very pro-helmet safety organisation has a list of corporate sponsors on their website, here: http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=1449 A lot of car insurers and solicitors are listed. If helmets are widely accepted as essential it would of course be easier to avoid paying damages to cyclists if they aren’t wearing one, even if your insured driver is in the wrong.
Not that that has anything to do with it, of course. They’re just trying to give back to the community.
Andy: good point about carcinogens. The thing is none of this stands up to logical analysis. We know that wearing a helmet inside a car is a good idea (which is why rally drivers wear them), but no lawyer or insurer would dream of saying a car occupant was to blame for a head injury the received in the event of a crash because they weren’t wearing a helmet. But of course logic doesn’t enter into these matters: it’s a case of a minority group being persecuted, alas.
[...] A few months ago, there was the case of Smith V Finch, where the judge agreed that although Finch knocked Smith off his bike by overtaking too close, Smith could have been held partially responsible for his injuries, as he wasn’t wearing a helmet. [...]