[Closed] Helmets again, reduced compo?

I dunno, I mean I feel sorry for the guy but kinda understand the judge. Another couple of pints of Guinness and I'll sing the song of praise for the judicial system so feel free to ignore my wisdom.

The Judge had to make a tough deicision. The motorcylist would have hit him anyway, but you would also have to be really stupid not to wear a helmet. It sets a precedent as it were, "always wear a helmet, else you wont get as much compo if you're hit"

Or just, always wear a helmet.

The Judge had to make a tough deicision.

Not really - he appears to have decided the motorcyclist is 100% liable as a helmet wouldn't have helped in this instance - but simply used the opportunity to rant about his personal prejudices. IANAL, but I suspect that given it was just a comment and didn't affect the judgement it will thankfully have a lot less legal weight than the article suggests (the last time a judge tried to apply contributory negligence to not wearing a helmet it was appealed and overturned IIRC - obviously there is nothing to be appealed here as it didn't affect the outcome, hence not setting any sort of precedent).

you would also have to be really stupid not to wear a helmet

Oh, go on then - we haven't had a good helmet argument in a couple of days - do explain why. References to studies which prove beyond reasonable doubt that wearing a helmet will always help and never has any negative consequences get you lots of bonus points.

Woah can of worms territory.

It deosnt have to be proven that it will always help or that it will never have negative consequences, but I would say that if you crashed and hit your head on a tree/rock/other persons bike/tarmac it would probably feel better with a helmet than without one - and you may even live.

Do you have any proof to the contrary? Surely the same would go for not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle?

Also as a plus you'll get more compensation.

Woah can of worms territory.

You appear to have wielded the requisite tool.

Do you have any proof to the contrary?

Oh there's plenty out there, but I really can't be bothered right now. However I'd suggest the onus is on you to find proof to support your argument, given you waded in with the "you would also have to be really stupid" line.

Also as a plus you'll get more compensation.

It would make no difference at all in any case yet decided in court as far as I'm aware. Do you know differently?

I was speaking figuratively. Why did i ever take the bait.

I'll do a phd on it if you like and settle the whole argument.

But you would have to be stupid surely, I honestly can't think of a single reason NOT to wear one, apart from hat hair. But I'm young and naive evidently. I realise it wont reduce the risk of an accident, but it will most likely reduce the risk of serious injury.

I'll go read the wikipedia page/journal abstracts and come armed with evidence next time I open my mouth.

But you would have to be stupid surely, I honestly can't think of a single reason NOT to wear one

Similarly can't think of a single reason not to wear one when walking down the street (stats suggest that peds wearing helmets would save far more lives than cyclists wearing them). Does that make all peds stupid? Similarly, the risk of riding a motorbike, with or without a helmet is far greater than the difference between wearing a helmet or not on a bicycle. Is anybody who rides a motorbike stupid? Do you see where I'm going with this, and just how silly your statement is yet?

But I'm young

That would be a reasonable excuse, as you may well not have seen all these arguments, and be basing your opinion on "common sense", in which case I'll let you off.

So "common sense" is a risky endeavour in these parts, I shall use it more wisely in future, thank you!

Similarly can't think of a single reason not to wear one when walking down the street

Yes but you are aware of the risk associated with mountain or road biking, making them more obvious and as such would be more inclined to take the necessary precautions to mitigate said risks if they were to occur.

I'm also aware of the risk when walking down the street, yet choose not to wear a helmet. Does that make me stupid?

Oh, and yes you're right, I am aware of the risks when cycling, which does sometimes make me wonder why I bother when on the road.

Well yeah where've you been, i've been wearing a helmet for walking down the street for years. Do you know how dangerous it is out there.

There is a difference but i can see what your argument is based upon.

Do you wear a helmet? Would you ever tell someone "I wouldnt wear a helmet if i were you because pedestrians don't"? That one was rhetorical.

Do you wear a helmet?

Yes - though not quite 100% of the time. I'd also encourage other people to wear bike helmets (certainly off-road, I'm more indifferent about on-road). However I'll stand up for people's right not to wear a helmet if they so choose, and would fight to prevent compulsory helmet legislation.

Does that help at all?

Indeed.

I agree that they shouldnt be made a legal requirement, for one how would you police that effectively? But mainly it is as you say someones right not to wear one and their choice, it still doesnt make it very sensible not to wear one.

it still doesnt make it very sensible not to wear one.

Well that's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Agreed.