Alex Kotula v EDF Energy Networks (EPN) PLC, Morrison Utility Services Ltd,
and Birch Utilities Ltd

Court : High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division
Judge : His Honour Judge Simon Brown QC
Date of accident : 28/9/06
Date of Judgment : 15/6/10

Conclusion

37.It is suggested that it is neither right nor wrong for a cyclist to wear or not wear a helmet. It should be a matter of personal choice leaving the blame to lie with the person or persons responsible for the collision.

Evidence

Distraction

35.The promotion of helmets (whether by pronouncements that helmetless cyclists are at fault or otherwise) distracts from the far more important objective of reducing accidents. Levels of cycling are not likely to meet the hopes of government and local authorities until people in large numbers feel safe on bicycles. This requires confidence that they will not be run down by a motor vehicle. Nothing should distract from the imperative of bringing home to the motorist the full responsibility for the consequences of negligent driving around vulnerable road users.

© The safety of cycling

23.The degree of risk of head injury must be relevant to an assessment of fault under the 1945 Act. It cannot be sufficient that ‘failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury’ as the same holds true with the substitution of the word ‘motorist’ or ‘pedestrian’ for ‘cyclist’. The perception of risk in cycling is often much greater than the reality.