Cyclists will receive less accident compensation if not wearing a helmet – Telegraph

Another good reason to keep a helmet on when cycling in town.

Cyclists will receive less accident compensation if not wearing a helmet – Telegraph.

The plot thickens…

This entry was posted on Monday, March 16th, 2009 at 09:59 and is filed under Bits for Bikes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed or trackback from your own site. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Comments

  1. …”any injury sustained may be the cyclist’s own fault” and cyclists themselves could be held partly liable…
    A common belief. Blame the victim for getting in the way of the motor vehicle. Another symptom of the sad, sick, car-obsessed, bike-phobic culture we are unfortunate enough to find ourselves. When will they ever learn?
    …Although the speed of the collision meant the helmet made no difference to the eventual outcome of Mr Smith’s case, [because he wasn't wearing a helmet] in which the motorcyclist was held fully liable, it is feared the ruling could open the door to attempts to reduce damages by insurers…
    This has happened in the past. The CTC fought a similar case and beat off an insurance company trying to dodge its responsibilities. A cast iron reason why everyone who rides a bike should be encouraged to support a campaigning organisation like the CTC.

  2. Here Here! CTC is the best £30 you can spend.
    Tom Kevill-Davies
    The Hungry Cyclist – Pedalling The World For The Perfect Meal

  3. richard

    every accident i’ve had involing me on a bike and vehicle has always assumed i was at fault and i’ve had to prove i was innocent. what happened to innocent until proven guilty. insurance, police, media just assume you went through the red light over the kerb ran down a pensioner mugged someone then purposfully crashed yoourslef into a car.

  4. Indeed!
    And while we’re on the subject of “liability”, don’t forget that with that £30 we get £10 million worth of 3rd Party insurance. I’ve no idea what proportion of the £30 the insurance premium represents (neither do I care); whatever it is it’s still cheap as chips and demonstrates that the insurance industry has a better take on the risks that cyclists present than the “cyclists are a menace” detractors have.
    Apparently with our £58 family membership we as a family of four appear to present an even lower risk to the world at large.
    (Or it might reflect the fact that we only get the one bi-monthly magazine between us…:-))

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>