- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Helmet child Cyclist hit by truck driver has compensation cut after judge says lack of helmet contributed to injuries
A judge has cut the damages awarded to a cyclist, who was injured after being struck by a hit-and-run lorry driver, by 20 percent after claiming that she contributed to her own injuries by failing to wear a helmet.
Yesterday, Judge Colin Daly awarded Raissa Lopes De Andrade Aquino damages of €20,000, but reduced her compensation by €4,000 on the basis of “contributory negligence”.
The 22-year-old was cycling in Dublin on 26 July 2018 when she lost control of her bike after the driver of a heavy sand truck veered to their left near a set of traffic lights and hit her right shoulder, the Irish Times reports.
Ms Lopes, a waitress in the Irish capital, suffered a head injury in the crash, which caused concussion, as well as soft tissue injuries to her face, shoulder, and arm.
She was taken by ambulance to the Mater Hospital, where she spent four hours awaiting treatment, and was kept under observation for a further seven hours due to her head injury.
The motorist did not stop at the scene of the crash and could not be traced.
> Victim blaming? Headline suggests helmet would have saved the life of man killed by van
Following the incident, Ms Lopes took a case against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland, which provides compensation for victims of road traffic collisions involving uninsured or untraced drivers.
On Tuesday, Judge Daly told Dublin Circuit Civil Court that he found the cyclist’s details of what happened on the day of the crash to be consistent and reliable, and that she had given an honest account of how she had sustained her injuries.
However, the judge reduced Ms Lopes’ damages award by 20 percent to €16,000 because she was not wearing a helmet at the time of the collision which, he said, would have minimised her injuries.
According to Daly, by failing to wear “proper protection”, the 22-year-old had contributed to the extent of her injuries.
As evidenced by the judge’s remarks, the debate surrounding helmets – and the extent of their protection in the case of a serious road traffic collision – shows no signs of being resolved.
> Only five cycle helmets available in the UK get recommended status in new safety testing
In 2019, around the same time WalesOnline published a headline suggesting that a helmet could have saved the life of a 71-year-old cyclist who was killed after being struck by a van driver, Cycling UK released a statement which argued that “there is no justification for making helmet-wearing compulsory”.
“There are serious doubts about the effectiveness of helmets,” the charity said. “They are, and can only be, designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not serious traffic collisions.
“Some evidence suggests they may in fact increase the risk of cyclists having falls or collisions in the first place, or suffering neck injuries.”
> Government shuts down mandatory cycling helmets question from Conservative MP
Last month, the Department for Transport insisted that the government has “no intention” to make wearing a helmet while cycling a legal requirement in the UK.
Addressing a written question from fellow Conservative MP Mark Pritchard, the minister of state for the department Jesse Norman said that the matter had been considered “at length” during the government’s cycling and walking safety review in 2018.
Norman also added that while the Department for Transport “recommends that cyclists wear helmets”, the “safety benefits of mandating cycle helmets are likely to be outweighed by the fact that this would put some people off cycling”.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- E6toSE3 6 hours 45 min ago
I've posted before about being 69, lifelong cyclist as my main transport, much of it in, through, under, over London and how it's bicycles that...
- David9694 7 hours 47 min ago
I hope you're all checking your insurance policies, helmets, test certificates and road tax, it's the 2024 round-up...
- check12 9 hours 27 min ago
200 people out of a close by population of how many? Just build it and stop being a wuss
- Spangly Shiny 11 hours 43 sec ago
To paraphrase Field of Dreams, "Build it right and they will come: and use it!"
- Rendel Harris 13 hours 21 min ago
And a Happy Christmas to you, road.cc staff!
- Rendel Harris 14 hours 9 min ago
The odds of not being able to find a single pedestrian - just one, note, "any pedestrian" - in an area containing more than about ten of them who...
- bikeman01 15 hours 48 min ago
I love how wannabe racer reviewers talk about fork flex under braking like their tyres are made of glue. I find traction gives long before fork flex.
- hawkinspeter 16 hours 56 min ago
They don't make them like they used to
- LongitudeLatitude 17 hours 46 min ago
Thanks for using my picture of chocolate in your opening picture. The original can be found here, chocolate! | LongitudeLatitude | Flickr.
- lesterama 18 hours 13 min ago
Fair comments. I'll put my hands up and say I got the wrong end of the stick with this one. ¡Feliz navidad! Here's a pic for the season of goodwill.
Add new comment
60 comments
Whilst we have ignorant judges supporting the anti-cyclist bigotry, we will never move beyond car as default transport. Did the judge make that judgement based on facts presented in court, i.e. an expert informed him that the cyclist would have suffered less if they had been wearing a helmet which they had been previously advised to do? Did they compare all possible alternative outcomes had the cyclist been wearing a helmet? I wear a helmet, in part to keep my head warm. But they should never become compulsory for the exact reason highlighted in this case, that dangerous drivers will seek mitigation for their fuckwitted driving.
we have ignorant judges supporting the anti-cyclist bigotry
It's not just judges, it's society! This is from 2 days ago, although originally broadcast in 2007:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b00802hh
If you listen from 17 minutes on you can hear the driver smashing into the cyclist, and then 'we've killed a cyclist' to a peal of laughter from the audience. If they had driven over a basket of kittens it would have been 'outrageous bad taste'- but if it's a cyclist, it's funny. What's next? A soap where the driver kills a couple of cyclists, drives off immediately, and the friends say 'leave 'em, they're not worf it- and you'll have to live wiv it for the rest of your life'
The BBC is notoriously anti-cyclist, and that clip might be from 2007 but they haven't improved.
The BBC is notoriously anti-cyclist, and that clip might be from 2007 but they haven't improved
Can't be true! Didn't you see Twenty Twelve and W1A, the famous documentaries, in which prime characters are queuing at the BBC entrance with their Bromptons?
PS Dear BBC- time for some re-runs, along with The Thick of It
And, just to prove the point, here's a BBC article where they did a commuter race, and nobody here will be surprised that the bicycle won. But that wasn't enough for them, they had to damn cycling somehow, so they said
"....because there's every chance you'll be knocked down...."
https://www.facebook.com/bbcradiobristol/posts/pfbid06dxRfAGLvprFMPhVPDS...
"....because there's every chance you'll be knocked down...."
Anybody agree that the cyclist in the Bristol Commuter Race-Off looks like Art on Detectorists (except with longer hair)?
I'd love a soap to cover this subject... the cycling victim should be a pretty, young mother, a major character in the soap would be ideal.
The perpetrator, a new character to the soap. Driver on his phone, knocks off victim, kills them. Stops car, has to physically remove body from car, placing it in ditch and drives off, says nothing. It might be too much, but maybe another car stops, and asks if everything is alright, but leaves when driver says he's got it covered.
Goes to the garage with obvious signs of impact damage on the car, maybe a bit of blood / hair... maybe a blooded ear ring caught in the windscreen. Driver says he hit a 'deer', mechanic looks suspicious but fixes the car anyway, says nothing.
It takes two days to find the cyclists body in ditch, people are shown just driving past a mangled bike at the side of the road.
Victims family get desperate, search the roads, and body is found by the 9 year old daughter. Victims family spiral downward... victims partner can't support family alone, loses house, all gets really dark, really quickly.
Driver however, carries on as normal, indeed gets promotion and is shown living a great life.
Police show little interest, suggest, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, that cyclist had accident alone. Drop the case.
Everything is totally normalised... the audience just watches the drivers ever more successful life, and the torturous demise of the victims family.
Do you think people would get the satire?
You need to find the contact details for the Emmerdale writers.
(It would work better on Emmerdale Farm than one of the urban soaps IMO).
Frank Butcher ran over & killed Tiffany Mitchell, infact Pat also ran over and killed a pedestrian (did go to prison for that one) and then stone the crows Janine did it as well, on the exact same street as Frank, the Butcher family ladies & gentleman, Albert Square very dangerous to be a pedestrian, surprised they havent made it an LTN yet.
Well I didn't; it isn't satire, it's real life.
I'm not aware of any research that concludes that helmets prevent concussion? I don't think standard helmet testing even looks for it? So how did the judge conclude this?
I bet this was pushed by insurers bureau. I've said it before and I will no doubt say it again, insurers are arseholes and I wear a lid and hi hiz not because I think it's effective but because I think an insurance company will try and screw my family after I've been taken outby some fuckwit abusing the privilege of driving.
I thought that was the whole purpose of MIPS ?
It's industry funded, they'll consider the claim but they'll also push to pay out as low a figure as possible... clearly the article does not have enough information to support my assumption, but that's where I'm. If there is a court transcript that shows the judge proactively reduced compensation without nudging from the bureau, then my ghast will be flabbered, but I'd obviously accept it.
That and marketing. I don't doubt that MIPS is an improvement, but it's always going to be difficult to evaluate how much protection they actually provide.
Suit of armour in future then?
I had a similar payout 20 years ago having been hit by a speeding driver running a red light, yet for some reason the judge decided I was partly culpable for not wearing a bit of polystyrene on my bonce.
The law is an ass.
Since helmets don't prevent concussion, I'd be interested to hear what evidence the judge used to reduce compensation because of the concussion. I do hope this extremely misplaced judgment is challenged.
Presumably, the same judge reduces compensation paid to drivers and pedestrians who receive head injuries but weren't wearing a helmet. No? Then he is blatantly biased.
Appeal!
Andy Cox
We need individuals, as well as the wider system, to stop victim blaming. Instead, let’s relentlessly target the cause of road harm, while supporting crash victims. This will ultimately lead to a safer travel environment for all.
https://twitter.com/AndyCoxDCS/status/1618234180382642176
I'm curious as to what evidence was provided to show that those specific injuries would have been helped by a bicycle helmet. Presumably it was the MIB that provided the evidence in an attempt to reduce liability, but the article makes it sound like the judge just decided by themselves.
So, are they going to carry forward this level of victim blaming to the victims of knife crime (they failed to wear proper protection)?
I was curious about the concussion proof.
Ireland seems very anti-cyclist anyhow.
As a cyclist in Ireland, I can qualify that.
Yes, Ireland is very anti-cyclist.
I'm sure the judge reduces any compensation for concussion suffered by those in cars, if they're not wearing helmets?
Would the judge question if the helmet had MIPS or similar & that it was worn correctly, with chin strap is snug (unlike most pro riders)?
Pretty sure that is exactly how it works, it certainly is how it works in the UK.
I was under the impression that the judge decides based on evidence presented, or is that just wishful thinking on my part?
Also, there's the question of the amount - 20% is a lot for contributory negligence. The generally accepted standard is a maximum of 15% based on Froom v Butcher [1976] which relates to seatbelts. I don't understand how not wearing a cycling helmet which is not designed to deal with moving traffic collisions would be considered a greater negligence than not wearing a seatbelt which is specifically designed and tested for moving traffic collisions.
However, will this set a precedence for motor insurers to assign contributory negligence to pedestrians who are driven into when not wearing protective equipment as they cross a road?
"failing to wear “proper protection”, the 22-year-old had contributed to the extent of her injuries."
Classic victim blaming.
She was punished for failing to do something that's neither a legal requirement, nor is it endorsed by the main cycling body Cycling UK.
I can picture the judge now saying that a knifing victim contributed to his or her own injuries for not wearing a kevlar Army issue jacket...oh wait. The judge's reasoning, and decision, should be challenged.
Exactly.
Pedestrians not wearing helmets, or bomb disposal suits, or without reflective faces are just asking for it too aren't they.
Maybe the truck driver should use that €4000 on lessons in driving better
If you actually read the story you would have seen that the truck was untraceable and that the compensation monies came from the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland which pays out to victims of uninsured or untraceable drivers. Proof, if proof were needed, that all you are interested in is spaffing out your idiotic comments without even reading the story.
Calm down
Pages