New court ruling sets precedent for accident counterclaims

No helmet? That’s contributory negligence…

A recent High Court judgement has taken into account whether or not a cyclist was wearing a helmet during a road collision, outlining that a cyclist is guilty of contributory negligence for choosing not to.

Despite helmet use not being compulsory under UK law, the judge overseeing Smith v Finch 2009 ruled the cyclist to be partially liable if wearing a helmet could be proven to have prevented any injuries sustained.

BikeRadar spoke to Richard Brooks from law firm Withy King who said: "this ruling means that if you are injured and a cycle helmet could have reduced your injuries, you may not be able to recover full compensation."

In this particular case Mr Smith was involved in a collision with Mr. Finch who was aboard a Yamaha motorcycle. Smith suffered serious head injuries, which resulted in him having no recollection of the crash.

The CTC has much more on this story here.

In other news...

Glasgow lights up to highlight cycling’s role in fighting climate change ahead of COP26

Some of Glasgow’s most iconic buildings and structures have been lit up with light projections …