A Reason for H*lm*t Use?

hyweljenkins@hotmail.com

http://tinyurl.com/3tnqo

"Gill Green's life fell apart when her husband was killed in a road
accident as he cycled to work. Now she has been told her payout from
the insurance company may be cut - because her husband wasn't wearing a
cycle helmet."

--
Hywel

Colin Blackburn

hyweljenkins@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/3tnqo
>
> "Gill Green's life fell apart when her husband was killed in a road
> accident as he cycled to work. Now she has been told her payout from
> the insurance company may be cut - because her husband wasn't wearing a
> cycle helmet."

No, a reason for Mrs Green to challenge the insurance company's
decision. As John Franklin says in that article,

"The insurance companies do try it on. They're very good at scaring
people off because part of their job is to minimise the amount they pay out.

"But when it has gone to court, as far as I know, the claimant has
always received full compensation.

"It's not a hard and fast rule, it's every case on its own merits.

"Not only is there no legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets but
there's an increasing amount of evidence that they don't do anything at
all, especially in cases as severe as fatalities."


Colin

Paul - xxx

hyweljenkins@hotmail.com composed the following;:
> http://tinyurl.com/3tnqo

It may be Tinyurl's fault, but that link won't open for me .. 'course it
may be NTL's server too ..

> "Gill Green's life fell apart when her husband was killed in a road
> accident as he cycled to work. Now she has been told her payout from
> the insurance company may be cut - because her husband wasn't wearing
> a cycle helmet."

Why should anyone wear something that isn't a legal requirement?

Just 'cos the insurance company, by doing their job, try to wriggle out
of paying doesn't actually mean she won't get full compansation at all.
I think (can't be sure) that whenever an action like this has gone to
court, the insurance company has had to pay up.

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ...
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Colin Blackburn

Paul - xxx wrote:
> hyweljenkins@hotmail.com composed the following;:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3tnqo
>
>
> It may be Tinyurl's fault, but that link won't open for me .. 'course it
> may be NTL's server too ..

Works for me. Here's the full article from the Gloucestershire Echo
since it is of significant relevance for all cyclists.



Gill Green's life fell apart when her husband was killed in a road
accident as he cycled to work. Now she has been told her payout from the
insurance company may be cut - because her husband wasn't wearing a
cycle helmet.

Peter Green, 59, died from head injuries after he was in collision with
a Ford Sierra at the junction of Hales Road and Hewlett Road in
Cheltenham in April.

The driver of the car, Anthony Leach, was fined £200 for careless
driving in November.

But seven months after the crash Mrs Green, 61, has not received an
insurance payout.

She can no longer rely on income from her husband's job at Premiere
Products in Prestbury and only has her pension to make ends meet.

Mrs Green is devastated. She said: "I had to pay for the funeral and
everything. Luckily I had a little bit saved. Apart from that, I've just
got my pension.

"I had to wait until the court case was over until I could claim from
the driver's insurers.

"I've now had a letter back, but it keeps going on about the fact he
wasn't wearing a helmet.

"I don't understand why because it's not the law to wear one.

"They're offering a certain amount but they say that to get the whole
amount I have to get an independent doctor to prove to them that he
would have been no better off if he'd been wearing a helmet at the time
of the crash.

"Otherwise they say they'll knock 15 to 20 per cent off.

"It's ridiculous. We'll never know if a crash helmet would have saved
him and it'll cost a lot of money to get the doctor's report.

"They shouldn't be penalising us like this."

Mrs Green said she would be consulting her solicitor.

She said although a little extra money would be welcome it would never
compensate her for her loss.

"All the money in the world won't make up for my husband not being here.
It won't replace him.

"It's difficult without him. I have good days and bad days. Luckily I
have a very good family and they all look after me pretty well.

"It's horrible not having him here. The worst time is 5pm when he would
have been coming home from work. I find it very difficult. I've got no
one to share things with."

Helmet use is not compulsory among cyclists in the UK, although the
Government is considering the issue.

A spokesman for the CTC, the national cyclists' organisation, said the
organisation's lawyers had come across similar cases where insurers had
claimed cyclists involved in crashes were negligent by not wearing a helmet.

He said: "There's no legal authority to support the provision that not
wearing a helmet is negligent.

"Cyclists aren't obliged to wear helmets and in fact we've got lots of
evidence to suggest helmets aren't all they're cracked up to be."

Cyclists injured in accidents or the families of cyclists killed in
crashes can claim up to £50,000 compensation from the insurer of the
party who caused the accident or, if they are not insured, through the
Motor Insurers' Bureau.

To bring a claim you must be able to prove that the vehicle driver was
responsible for the accident and that his or her negligence caused the
deceased's injuries.

A spokeswoman for the Association of British Insurers was unable to
comment on Mrs Green's case.

A spokesman for the AA, which is not connected with the case but acts as
a broker for 24 insurance companies, said: "This is fairly typical.

"The insurance companies will consider a cyclist has a duty of care to
protect himself.

"In a claim, if it's regarded that not wearing a helmet was material to
the cyclist's injuries or death, it would be regarded as contributory
negligence.

"You can compare it with a driver not wearing a seatbelt. Twenty per
cent is a fairly typical reduction.

"It can be distressing for the victims and their families, and there are
suggestions an EEC directive is being considered which would change the
situation in favour of the cyclists."

John Franklin, who lives in Prestbury Road, Cheltenham, is a member of
the Cycle Campaign Network.

He said: "I've been an expert witness in similar cases.

"The insurance companies do try it on. They're very good at scaring
people off because part of their job is to minimise the amount they pay out.

"But when it has gone to court, as far as I know, the claimant has
always received full compensation.

"It's not a hard and fast rule, it's every case on its own merits.

"Not only is there no legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets but
there's an increasing amount of evidence that they don't do anything at
all, especially in cases as severe as fatalities.

"To tell a widow she's not going to receive the full amount she's due
because her husband wasn't wearing a helmet is the final insult."

David Hansen

On 12 Jan 2005 01:28:23 -0800 someone who may be
hyweljenkins@hotmail.com wrote this:-

>http://tinyurl.com/3tnqo

I also noted this:

"Peter Green, 59, died from head injuries after he was in collision
with a Ford Sierra at the junction of Hales Road and Hewlett Road in
Cheltenham in April.

"The driver of the car, Anthony Leach, was fined £200 for careless
driving in November."

So, even though the motorist was actually fined for not driving
properly the "newspaper" implies that the cycle crashed into the
car.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

MSeries

hyweljenkins@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/3tnqo
>
> "Gill Green's life fell apart when her husband was killed in a road
> accident as he cycled to work. Now she has been told her payout from
> the insurance company may be cut - because her husband wasn't wearing a
> cycle helmet."
>


I have typed three replies to this and deleted each one. Cases like this
make me fume.

To answer your question IMO it is not a good reason for using a (:-). I
shall still be uncomfortable for 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the
time and still only very slightly vulnerable to being killed.

Paul - xxx

Colin Blackburn composed the following;:
> Paul - xxx wrote:
>> hyweljenkins@hotmail.com composed the following;:
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3tnqo
>>
>>
>> It may be Tinyurl's fault, but that link won't open for me ..
>> 'course it may be NTL's server too ..
>
> Works for me. Here's the full article from the Gloucestershire Echo
> since it is of significant relevance for all cyclists.

Thanks, it's appreciated. I suspect NTL's server (my ISP) is playing up
as I'm having some trouble with surfing too.

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ...
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

David Hansen

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:03:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
<notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote this:-

>Just 'cos the insurance company, by doing their job,

Is it their job to cause more grief to the family of the victim? I'm
not sure that it is.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

BigRab

Colin Blackburn wrote:
Well, the AA wrote actually:

> "In a claim, if it's regarded that not wearing a helmet was material
to
> the cyclist's injuries or death, it would be regarded as contributory

> negligence.
> "You can compare it with a driver not wearing a seatbelt. Twenty per
> cent is a fairly typical reduction.


Then you can say that motorists have a duty of care to themselves if
the don't wear a h****t either as head injuries are a common cause of
death in cagers accidents.

Pedestrians likewise. No it's only cyclists that are discriminated
aginst by the insurance companies in this manner.
Aff my soapbox.......

Robert

hyweljenkins@hotmail.com

Colin Blackburn wrote:
> hyweljenkins@hotmail.com wrote:
> > http://tinyurl.com/3tnqo
> >
> > "Gill Green's life fell apart when her husband was killed in a road
> > accident as he cycled to work. Now she has been told her payout
from
> > the insurance company may be cut - because her husband wasn't
wearing a
> > cycle helmet."
>
> No, a reason for Mrs Green to challenge the insurance company's
> decision. As John Franklin says in that article,

I agree. The insurance company's standpoint is disgraceful. Their
client was seemingly responsible for the death of another road user.
Perhaps they should be trying to prove that had Mr Green been wearing a
helmet he'd still be alive and well today.

It could have been the case that Mr Green had survived but with severe
handicaps that would incur far more expensive medical bills that paying
out on his death will.

--
Hywel

Paul Rudin

Colin Blackburn <colin.blackburn@durham.ac.uk> writes:

> hyweljenkins@hotmail.com wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/3tnqo
>> "Gill Green's life fell apart when her husband was killed in a road
>> accident as he cycled to work. Now she has been told her payout from
>> the insurance company may be cut - because her husband wasn't wearing a
>> cycle helmet."
>
> No, a reason for Mrs Green to challenge the insurance company's
> decision.

... although the courts are required to take into account failure to
observe the HC (and it has a rule for wearing helmets). The question
is whether such failure makes any difference to the outcome on a case
by case basis.

Al C-F

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:07:57 GMT, Paul Rudin <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>Colin Blackburn <colin.blackburn@durham.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> hyweljenkins@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/3tnqo
>>> "Gill Green's life fell apart when her husband was killed in a road
>>> accident as he cycled to work. Now she has been told her payout from
>>> the insurance company may be cut - because her husband wasn't wearing a
>>> cycle helmet."
>>
>> No, a reason for Mrs Green to challenge the insurance company's
>> decision.
>
>.. although the courts are required to take into account failure to
>observe the HC (and it has a rule for wearing helmets). The question
>is whether such failure makes any difference to the outcome on a case
>by case basis.

How about the following argument:

Based on evidence that suggests that rotational injuries are both more
detrimental to the brain and more likely if a helmet is worn, and in
the absence of any authoritative studies providing findings either
way, one decides that one is safer without a helmet.

Whether one is safer or not, it can be an honestly held belief and
therefore one cannot be charged with negligence.

Please feel free to pick holes, either to demolish or strengthen my
argument.

JLB

David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:03:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
> <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote this:-
>
>
>>Just 'cos the insurance company, by doing their job,
>
>
> Is it their job to cause more grief to the family of the victim? I'm
> not sure that it is.

It's not their job to cause grief, but there is nothing to make them
take such grief into account. Although insurance companies might not be
private companies, who have an unavoidable legal duty to act at all
times in the financial interests of their shareholders [1], they do have
a duty to their other policy holders not to pay out unjustified claims.
Unfortunately, that leads to this sort of carry on, as they test the
limits of what is justified in a claim.

There are several fundamental problems with the whole concept of
insurance. It is possible that on balance it is better that insurance is
allowed (and even encouraged or in some instances compulsory) rather
than made illegal, but I am bemused by the apparently generally held
view that insurance is a Good Thing.



[1] A point hammered home rather well in recent documentary film "The
Corporation", leading to the conclusion that a company / corporation is
inevitably driven by the rules to act as a psychopath, no matter how
individually decent its directors might be.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Paul - xxx

David Hansen composed the following;:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:03:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
> <notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote this:-
>
>> Just 'cos the insurance company, by doing their job,
>
> Is it their job to cause more grief to the family of the victim?

What a stupid question. Of course not, they just send out the standard
'let's try to wriggle out of paying compensation' letter. Grief just
doesn't come into the equation for the company involved.

In many cases, I guess, this might cause grief to the recipient of such
letter, but I seriously doubt that causing grief is the prime intention.
The prime intention is to make money or limit losses.

--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
(8(!) Homer Rules ...
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."