If you were knocked off your bike and someone else was to blame, you may be able to claim financial compensation for your injuries. But what happens if you weren't wearing a helmet?
Am I legally required to wear a cycle helmet?
Cyclists are not required by law to wear a helmet.
There is some debate as to whether it is safer to cycle with or without a helmet. Some studies have shown that wearing a helmet may give a cyclist a greater sense of protection and safety, potentially leading them to take more risks than they would if they weren’t wearing a helmet. A 2013 study found that drivers will also take more risks with cyclists wearing helmets, leaving less space when overtaking.
Assuming you don’t take additional risks when wearing a helmet, however, wearing a helmet is generally considered to be the safer option.
All other things being equal, your injuries will likely be less severe if you are wearing a helmet in a cycling accident.
Will my compensation be reduced?
If your injuries were caused by another party's actions or negligence, you will be entitled to compensation. The amount of compensation you receive will partly depend on the severity of your injuries and on the extent to which your life is affected.
Your solicitor will refer to the Judicial College tables to calculate the correct amount of compensation you should receive, based on your specific injuries.
However, if the defendant argues that your injuries were made worse because you weren’t wearing a helmet (contributory negligence), your compensation could be reduced.
Read more:
Calculate my cyclist accident compensation
What is contributory negligence?
Contributory negligence is a legal principle that comes into play if the injured party is partly responsible for their injuries. The defendant might offer a defence of contributory negligence, arguing that not wearing a cycle helmet means that you failed to take reasonable care to protect yourself.
However, just because you were not wearing a helmet does not automatically reduce your compensation. For a contributory negligence defence to succeed, the defendant must prove that your failure to wear a helmet contributed to your injuries, or made your injuries worse.
For example, if you leg was injured, your compensation won't be reduced by not wearing a helmet, as doing so wouldn't have made a difference.
Proving that there was contributory negligence can be difficult for a defendant. If a helmetless cyclist suffers a head injury in a collision with a speeding car, their compensation may also not be reduced, because they are likely to have suffered serious injuries regardless of whether a helmet was worn.
Split liability agreements
A split liability agreement is typically the solution when both parties are partly to blame (liable). In such cases, liability is divided between the parties on a percentage of blame basis.
For example:
A cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, suffered head injuries when hit by a car.
If the court finds that the cyclist's head injury would have been less severe with a helmet, the court might determine that the cyclist is 20% responsible for their injuries. In this case, a split liability agreement of 80/20 might be reached, meaning the cyclist would receive 80% of the full general damages amount.
Should I speak to a solicitor?
Speaking to a solicitor is a sensible move, even if you feel partly responsible for your injuries. An experienced personal injury solicitor can assess the details of your accident and advise you on the best course of action.
It may be that the defendant is fully liable for the accident, but even if your actions contributed to your injuries, claiming proportionate compensation can be a critical part of your road to recovery.
How we can help
Not wearing a helmet doesn’t necessarily prevent you from making a claim for a cycling injury.
While your compensation might be adjusted if it’s found that a helmet would have reduced your injuries, we can still help you make a no win, no fee claim.
Written by Chris Salmon on 14th August 2023