The Argument Over Compulsary Cycle Helmets

Once again the issue of personal injury law was brought into sharp focus in the news this week as famous rower James Cracknell was hit by a vehicle while filming on a bicycle in the United States. The accident happened in Arizona when the rower was struck by a lorry resulting in serious head injuries and bruising to the brain.

Fortunately he appears to be on the way to a full recovery which is expected to take over six months. Evidence suggests that such head and brain injuries to bikers in the UK are common regardless of the experience and care taken by the cyclist. It was lucky for James Cracknell that he was wearing a protective hat which probably saved his life. It raises once again the debate as to whether the wearing of protective head gear on bicycles should be a legal requirement. Many UK solicitors who specialise in such claims to cyclists struck by vehicles agree that the wearing of helmets should be enforceable by law.

Cycling is hugely popular in the UK. Just last year we biked 3.1 billion miles on UK roads and many bike users are very mindful of safety issues. Lights and reflectors are standard practice these days with many wearing high visibility jackets. However the fact remains that the majority of cyclists still do not wear safety helmets usually for reasons of vanity. In Australia and parts of America helmets are compulsory but UK law makers have held off this contentious area. Some believe that the helmet promotes complacency while others argue it is as essential as a motorbike helmet. The debate continues with no clear end in sight