You don’t have to wear a helmet – but it’s better for you and your family if you do

Cycling, it's as divisive as it is dangerous.

Gone are the days of stiff, creaking and cumbersome bicycles with three gears or fewer. Improvements in modern tech and road surfaces mean an amateur cyclist can quite comfortably achieve a speed of up to 40mph on a smooth flat surface.

The potential energy generated by moving at such speeds means that if something goes wrong then the injury to the rider - or even a pedestrian - is likely to be serious.

So to what extent should officials intervene?

Should there be a legal requirement for the likes of helmets or insurance?

In many respects, and with many things considered, the short answer is no.

However the long answer affords us the chance to consider the factors at play that impact everyone. 

At present, the law grants cyclists a fundamental freedom to choose to wear a helmet. 

The benefits and flexibility of this right to choose… whether to have insurance… has to be balanced against the risks. For example, a person may choose to not wear a helmet on a 1km slow pootle to the shop on a single speed, whereas a lycra-clad weekend warrior doing a 50-mile rural ride will probably want to take extra precautions. 

Risks are peculiar to the environment, and what is perceived as a risk is also potentially subjective depending on the rider’s knowledge and abilities. They differ from country to country, city to city, or even from road to road. This is a very important consideration for the cyclist themselves when they decide which gear they ought to select for the journey they are planning on undertaking. This is all part of the flexibility of cycling.

The terminology utilised in the current Highway Code reflects this flexibility. Cyclists are directed in Rule 59 that they “should” wear a helmet. The use of the word “should” is indicative of the advisory status, rather than a legal requirement. 

(It is therefore curious to note the Highway Code says riders “must” use lights at night – but maybe more on that another time...)

UK case law also reflects this as we saw in 2004 with the case of Swindon v Annabelle's (Berkley Square) Limited. A cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, was injured after being knocked off his bike by a dog. The insurers tried to say the cyclist should receive less compensation as he was not wearing a helmet. But the court refused to reduce the cyclist’s damages, pointing out it was not a legal requirement.

And that remains the case – there is no legal requirement for cyclists to wear a helmet and there is no law that says they need to have insurance. 

Personally, I do think it is a good idea for any cyclist to always wear a helmet. The longer the journey, the greater likelihood of having to cycle on a more dangerous road, and the importance of using a helmet is even greater. 

Having said all this, there may be particular short journeys where an experienced cyclist decides that actually they will forgo using a helmet on the grounds of simplicity and flexibility. 

Helmet use is an issue that everyone has an opinion on – even if they don’t cycle or drive – because it’s one of those issues that aligns with “common sense”.

As it currently stands, the UK arguably strikes a sensible balance on helmet use – it affords cyclists the freedom to choose but also makes it clear that your choice has consequences (i.e if you don’t wear a helmet then suffer a head injury in a crash then your compensation amount will likely be challenged). But it’s not overly prescriptive and onerous insofar as it does not oblige cyclists to use helmets, or to carry insurance policies. 

Thus the freedom of individuals to pick up a bicycle and go, is protected. 

But I suppose, given my experience as a cyclist, driver and personal injury solicitor who has helped injured people in cycling accidents, I will take a personal stand and say:

Please please always wear your helmet. It’s not just saving your future it’s also saving the future of your loved ones as a helmet can spare them the upset of having to care for you, or worse...   

Image

Sam Cowie, Partner

Inverness Office

* This blog follows an Inverness Courier news story.