Drivers get head injuries in crashes all the time. Judges wouldn’t reduce their payment if they’re not wearing a helmet and neck brace while driving. Why the double standard?
>Judge Colin Daly reduces €20,000 damages award by €4,000 because cyclist had no helmet, which he said would have minimised her injuries
What really would have minimised her injuries would been if someone hadn’t driven a truck into her.
That’s a pretty major victim blaming precedent to set. What about if a passenger in a car isn’t wearing a seat belt and somebody crashes into them. It’s partly their fault for being injured?
Actually that’s not even a fair comparison.
Eta, seems more comparable to saying what do you expect to happen if you wear a short skirt
A shame she was wearing the danger helmet instead of the safety helmet
> He said the concussion had been her most serious injury.
> Awarding her damages of €20,000, he reduced the amount by €4,000 on the basis she had not been wearing a safety helmet, which would have minimised her injuries.
Skull fractures they do prevent, yes. But concussion – which the judge pointed out is the main thing here – no.
While I do agree with awards being reduced for failure to take responsibility for your own safety, I do also wonder how much of an impact the helmet would have had, and what the basis for the €4k was. Helmets aren’t designed for the type impact caused by a truck and they don’t eliminate brain injury, you can still get a concusion wearing a helmet. They’re low cost shock absorbers that will absolutely minimise the risk of head injury if you hit a pothole or clip a curb. But they’re not an adequate safety measure against large lumps of metal going at speed.
Amazing amount of stupid comments on this thread with OP leading the pack
Good.
in lots of other countries, its compulsory to wear a helmet when you’re on a bike. in Australia they will fine you for not wearing a helmet if you’re on a bike
You’re an idiot if you don’t wear a helmet. Consider the €4k idiot tax.
If it’s not in law that you have to wear a helmet then why should that affect the case.
As I understand it, the mechanism for a concussion is your brain smacking against the inside of your skull moreso than contact with a surface.
How much would the helmet have actually mitigated that? Isn’t that what all the uproar over American Football is, that the helmets prevented superficial damage but not the brain injury?
Talk about victim blaming.
I’m a cyclist and would never not wear a helmet but not against the law so it shouldn’t have an impact on the case
Victim blaming
A helmet won’t do anything for a concussion.
Jesus fucking Christ – lot of armchair lawyers in the comments here spouting their unqualified opinions on this “landmark” case lol
“I’m sentencing your rapist to 8 years in prison instead of 10 because you were wearing a very short skirt”
Makes sense. Imagine not wearing ppe and suing your company 🫣
It’s insane how many people here deny bicycle helmets reducing risk of head injury. It’s similar to those who argued against seatbelts when they were first made compulsory.
Makes perfect sense. It’s a reasonable expectation for a cyclist to wear a helmet, and thus claiming damages for a head injury will be reduced due to personal negligence.
21 comments
Drivers get head injuries in crashes all the time. Judges wouldn’t reduce their payment if they’re not wearing a helmet and neck brace while driving. Why the double standard?
>Judge Colin Daly reduces €20,000 damages award by €4,000 because cyclist had no helmet, which he said would have minimised her injuries
What really would have minimised her injuries would been if someone hadn’t driven a truck into her.
That’s a pretty major victim blaming precedent to set. What about if a passenger in a car isn’t wearing a seat belt and somebody crashes into them. It’s partly their fault for being injured?
Actually that’s not even a fair comparison.
Eta, seems more comparable to saying what do you expect to happen if you wear a short skirt
A shame she was wearing the danger helmet instead of the safety helmet
> He said the concussion had been her most serious injury.
> Awarding her damages of €20,000, he reduced the amount by €4,000 on the basis she had not been wearing a safety helmet, which would have minimised her injuries.
Bike helmets do sweet fuck all against concussion, though. The brain gets ripped around just as much either way. https://www.journalofsurgicalresearch.com/article/S0022-4804(20)30549-7/fulltext
Skull fractures they do prevent, yes. But concussion – which the judge pointed out is the main thing here – no.
While I do agree with awards being reduced for failure to take responsibility for your own safety, I do also wonder how much of an impact the helmet would have had, and what the basis for the €4k was. Helmets aren’t designed for the type impact caused by a truck and they don’t eliminate brain injury, you can still get a concusion wearing a helmet. They’re low cost shock absorbers that will absolutely minimise the risk of head injury if you hit a pothole or clip a curb. But they’re not an adequate safety measure against large lumps of metal going at speed.
Amazing amount of stupid comments on this thread with OP leading the pack
Good.
in lots of other countries, its compulsory to wear a helmet when you’re on a bike. in Australia they will fine you for not wearing a helmet if you’re on a bike
You’re an idiot if you don’t wear a helmet. Consider the €4k idiot tax.
If it’s not in law that you have to wear a helmet then why should that affect the case.
As I understand it, the mechanism for a concussion is your brain smacking against the inside of your skull moreso than contact with a surface.
How much would the helmet have actually mitigated that? Isn’t that what all the uproar over American Football is, that the helmets prevented superficial damage but not the brain injury?
Talk about victim blaming.
I’m a cyclist and would never not wear a helmet but not against the law so it shouldn’t have an impact on the case
Victim blaming
A helmet won’t do anything for a concussion.
Jesus fucking Christ – lot of armchair lawyers in the comments here spouting their unqualified opinions on this “landmark” case lol
“I’m sentencing your rapist to 8 years in prison instead of 10 because you were wearing a very short skirt”
Makes sense. Imagine not wearing ppe and suing your company 🫣
It’s insane how many people here deny bicycle helmets reducing risk of head injury. It’s similar to those who argued against seatbelts when they were first made compulsory.
Makes perfect sense. It’s a reasonable expectation for a cyclist to wear a helmet, and thus claiming damages for a head injury will be reduced due to personal negligence.