A cyclist is owed a duty of care by all other road users and by the bodies responsible for the Highway. The standard of care owed is that which a "reasonably careful" person should exercise. A cyclist also owes a duty of care to himself, therefore if an accident is caused entirely by his or her own carelessness a claim for compensation will fail.
Many cyclists who are injured do not take legal advice because they think that the accident was their own fault. In many cases the accident may, in part, have been caused by the lack of reasonable care by both the cyclist and the driver in question. In these circumstances a cyclist will be able to claim compensation, however will only receive a proportion of the compensation to which he or she would have been entitled, had the third party been entirely to blame. If, for example, a Court decides a cyclist was 50% to blame for an accident, then he or she will receive half the full value of his or her claim.
Are cyclists obliged to wear cycle helmets and will it affect their claim if they were not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident?
Cyclists are not obliged by law to wear a helmet, however the British Medical Association strongly recommend their use when cyclists are using the public highway and especially in the case of children. The debate continues on the issues of contributory negligence for the failure of cyclists to wear a safety helmet and the issue has yet to be finally determined by the Courts. It is likely that a Court would find a degree of fault on the part of a cyclist for failing to wear a safety helmet, but only if his or her injury was sustained to the head and the wearing of a helmet would have prevented or reduced the head injury. However, a cycle helmet is designed for falling from a stationary cycle, and recent medical opinions show that wearing a helmet can make little difference in serious accidents.
