On the day that Bradley Wiggins won his historic gold medal at the London Olympics, a young cyclist was killed in a collision with a bus outside the Olympic Park. Responding to the tragedy on Twitter, the Tour de France victor remarked that legally requiring cyclists to wear helmets may be the way to go, "to give cyclists more protection legally".
Is Brad right? Where are we now when it comes to the growing body of PI claims by cyclists against motorists? Why should cyclists be in any different position to car drivers and seatbelts and motorcyclists with their helmets? Has the law not already dealt with this issue? If it hasn't, is the case law moving inexorably towards an automatic discount for cyclists injured but not wearing a helmet? If so, what if the helmet would have made no difference, e.g. broken arms? Some commentators have said that motorists tend to give more room to cyclists wearing helmets.
Together with a discussion of the practical issues for those involved in the litigation of such claims, these are just some of the questions and trends that Hardwicke Barristers (and cyclists) Jamie Clarke and Colm Nugent will be considering.
Jamie & Colm have extensive experience of bringing and defending claims involving the issue of reduction where the cyclist has not been wearing a helmet.
Upon successful completion of the accompanying quiz and feedback, practitioners may claim CPD hours as indicated on our CPD Information page.
|Date:||Published Monday 04 March 2013|
|CPD hours:||1 hour|