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.

The Smith v Finch reasoning

14.The kernel of Griffith Williams J’s Judgment in respect of fault is expressed thus:

The Authorities

9.Decisions directly on point have been surprisingly scarce. There has not yet been a case where a Court has found both that a cyclist has been at fault in not wearing a helmet and that this fault has made any difference. Were such a case to arise the maximum deduction should be 15% in accordance with Froom (“a good deal less severe”) since it is hard to imagine a case where injury would be avoided altogether (25%).

10.There are differing decisions (both first instance High Court) as to whether a cyclist is at fault in not wearing a helmet.