Hi Roy!

 

I enjoy reading your continuous stream of communications, from time to time, and am writing about a recent development concerning the award of a reduced level of damages for an injured cyclist because the cyclist was not wearing a crash helmet. I am no supporter of crash helmets for cyclists, in part because it reduces cycling to a sports mode associating with the largely pointless riding of mountain bikes on the road. I prefer to use a bike rather in the same way as an umbrella, not to make a statement of one's individuality, but to use it when one needs to.

 

That aside I question how effective the standard cycle helmet is in protecting the head against car or lorry collision. Impacting a slow 40t lorry travelling say at 40kmph, could transfer enough energy to a cyclist equivalent to the cyclist travelling at say 65kmph, well above normal speeds of a cyclist. I think that probably to protect against such impacts one would need to wear a motorcycle type crash helmet. There may be some grounds for appealing against Direct Line on this basis, although I'm no expert!

 

I am something of an expert in head injury and associated legal claims, for my wife received one when she was run down by a cyclist whilst on a pedestrian crossing. After six years she has not received one penny, for although the cyclist was found guilty of carelessness his insurers continue to procrastinate. So your comment about pedestrians wearing crash helmets is well taken, especially if you're in holiday in Italy, where the accident happened!

 

Best regards,

 

Kenn