accident liability...Help!

General
61

Re: Re: accident liability…Help!

Sorry Ian but you didn’t say
“minor but painful and inconvenient injuries”
you said
“The key issue is the sort of anecdote that goes “I had an accident and I was wearing a helmet and if I didn’t I’d be dead” is, frankly, bollocks. You simply don’t know that. You can’t know that unless you do it again identically and are dead.”
And
"They are excellent, for example, at preventing
road-rash on the scalp (though may may exacerbate brain injuries in doing so)�
when referring to helmets (and I trust the second MAY is a typo).

I probably ought to have said ‘inferred’ earlier rather than ‘said’ but you used the term ‘sort of anecdote’ to describe an extreme example originally from MrBoogiejuice I believe. I took it that your view was that you couldn’t know if wearing a helmet in a given situation was advantages, am I right in thinking that’s your view?

I have seen some pretty awful road rash and wouldn’t call it minor or inconvenient but more importantly brain trauma resulting in brain injury is definitely not minor and the required force to cause death is low. There have been several resent cases highlighted in the UK of death from brain trauma through falling onto pavement with no vehicles involved.

I do not take death lightly though you seem to take head injury lightly.

62

You could check with the CTC whether you’re covered when unicycling. One of either them or the BCF did tell me they’d cover unicyclists on their 3rd party insurance, but I can’t remember which and it may have changed.

The best thing as far as riding near cars, in traffic etc goes is not to fall off or crash. Obviously this doesn’t account entirely for situations where the other person is doing something dangerous, but other than if you’re riding in traffic, you should always be in control and aware of what’s going on.

The other thing is realising that in the case of a traffic collision, action against you is the least of your worries, the chances of anyone actually taking such an odd and hence unpredictable situation to court are so low that they’re not worth worrying about. Just focus on not getting crashed into for the purposes of not being dead.

My law person says that what your solicitor friend said is a good call especially given the oddness of what you were doing and the uncertainty as to whether you’d be a cyclist or a pedestrian, I guess MikeFule will have a better idea of exactly what (if anything) to do.

Joe

ps. I think we should stop the boring old fart helmet war thing as it’s not really relevant to Kit’s problem at the moment and everyone has read it all before, it’s not big or clever however much the respective sides know about physics.

63

Re: accident liability…Help!

Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> writes:

> They are excellent, for example, at preventing road-rash on the
> scalp (though may may exacerbate brain injuries in doing so).

As far as I can tell, the argument that helmets can increase brain
injury is based on abject speculation. The theory is sensible enough:
A helmet that is larger than a head might, by catching on impact,
create increased rotational acceleration of the brain. Rotational
acceleration is associated with brain injury.

The problem with this argument is that it has been shown to be
invalid: “Helmet designs, with long extensions at the front and rear,
do not appear to cause excessive rotational head acceleration.”

Indeed, this and other criticisms of cycling helmets are put to rest
in the paper I mentioned earlier (see the link I posted earlier in
this thread).

Ken

64

Re: accident liability…Help!

I wrote:
> Motorists have a legal obligation to drive at a speed from which they
> are able to stop in the distance that they can see to be clear ahead.
> That includes on blind bends. So ISTM that at least some proportion of
> the fault lies with her.

I’ve been thinking a bit more about this. Kit, I think you should go
back to the place where you were hit and check whether the motorist
would have passed a “Concealed Entrance” warning sign just before going
round the bend. If there is a sign, that should be to your advantage.
Take a photo of it. Also take photos of the accident site. If you have
a digital camera, put the photos on a website to help with this
discussion (and any discussion that may follow on uk.rec.cycling). If
you don’t have a website, e-mail some photos to me and I’ll put them on
a website.

Please note that I have no idea whether putting photos on the web would
prejudice any court case.

–
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” - Thomas Paine

65

I was planning to head down there this evening with a camera. Only trouble is I’m having problems uploading pics from the camera to my computer. I think the camera’s a little bit broken…I can take the memory card down to a photo developers tomorrow though. I’ve already taken pics of my injuries, and the damage to the coker. Though the rim damage on the coker is hard to see with the low quality digi cam of my sisters. I might just use my slr and get the photos put on CD.

Cheers for the offer of webspace. I’ll ask the solisitor chap I know if he thinks it would compromise any possible court proceedings.

Kit

66

Re: accident liability…Help!

stevenbrandist wrote:
> The result of an collision could result in some form of action being
> taken against me. I am a member of the CTC which includes third party
> insurance, the definition of a ‘cycle’ is 2 wheels, etc so I don’t think
> I’d be covered there.

The legal definition of a ‘cycle’ varies from one act of Parliament to
another, so unicycles are covered by some cycle laws but not by others.

The CTC is not supposed to discriminate between cyclists based on the
number of wheels. That’s why the name was changed from the Bicyclists
Touring Club to the Cyclists Touring Club in 1887 (more because of
complaints from tricyclists than from unicyclists). It would be
interesting to read the letters in Cycle if a unicyclist turned out not
to be covered…

–
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” - Thomas Paine

67

Re: accident liability…Help!

Ian Smith wrote:
>>* …However, I’ve a vague recollection that it might have
>>changed since then.

and nickjb responded:
> I think you are right there and it has changed to include unicycles.
>
> I’m sure Danny can point you to the bit of law.

The change that’s been discussed here in the past was in the 1994
Traffic Signs Regulations, which include unicycles in the definition of
a cycle. I now believe, though, that this definition applies only to
this particular act. Certainly the definition in the 2002 Traffic Signs
Regulations is in a section that starts:
“In these Regulations unless the context otherwise requires”

I believe that the relevant piece of legislation would be the 1835
Highway Act, which I believe contains something about driving carriages
on the footway. If the act’s definition of a Carriage is broad enough
to cover unicycles (which I think it probably is) then unicyclists will
be forbidden from riding on the pavement, otherwise we won’t.
Unfortunately I’ve never managed to get my mitts on that particular act.
I must find out whether Bristol library has a copy.

There are also rumours of EU legislation which exempt cycles with small
wheels from certain national legislation. I have never managed to find
this legislation, but I haven’t looked all that hard.

–
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” - Thomas Paine

68

Re: accident liability…Help!

On Wed, 18 May, unicus <> wrote:
>
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > In response to my comment that helmets could help with minor
> > injuries (specifically, “minor but painful and inconvenient
> > injuries”), you stated “I thought you previously said you couldn’t
> > know if wearing a helmet in a specific accident made a
> > difference?”
> >
> > I did not make that claim. You are misrepresenting me.
> >
> > Challenged, the best you can come up with is that I said that you
> > can’t tell whether an accident that didn’t cause death would have
> > killed without a helmet. This is true, and is entirely coherent and
> > compatible with my statement that they can be very good at prevented
> > minor but painful and inconvenient injuries.
> >
> > In other words, I did not say what you said I did. That or you
> > consider that death is a minor and inconvenient injury. Which is it?
>
> Sorry Ian but you didn’t say
> “MINOR BUT PAINFUL AND INCONVENIENT INJURIES”
> YOU SAID
> “THE KEY ISSUE IS THE SORT OF ANECDOTE THAT GOES “I HAD AN ACCIDENT
> AND I WAS WEARING A HELMET AND IF I DIDN’T I’D BE DEAD” IS, FRANKLY,
> BOLLOCKS. YOU SIMPLY DON’T KNOW THAT. YOU CAN’T KNOW THAT UNLESS YOU DO
> IT AGAIN IDENTICALLY AND ARE DEAD.”
> And
> “They are excellent, for example, at preventing
> road-rash on the scalp (though may may exacerbate brain injuries in
> doing so)”
> when referring to helmets (and I trust the second MAY is a typo).

I don’t know what you’re trying to achieve by repeatedly claiming
black is white, but it’s a matter of public record that I said exactly
what you claim I didn’t.

You can read it at unicyclist.com:
http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=313336

You can read it on google:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.unicycling/msg/ffe5ff09e4de6b3a?hl=en

You can read it on any news server that will give you the message
Message-Id: <slrnd8ltav.5qd.ian@acheron.smithnet>

It’s a matter of public record, trivially checked that I did indeed
say exactly what you say I did not.

I said (cut and pasted from unicyclist.com):
“pretty much everyone agrees that helmets are useful for preventing
minor but painful and inconvenient injuries. They are excellent, for
example, at preventing road-rash on the scalp”

You quoted the second sentence, so you can’t even claim not to have
seen the message where I said what you claim I didn’t say.

Just what are you trying to demonstrate? I DID say what you
repeatedly state I didn’t - you (and everyone else on teh planet with
a web browser) can clearly and trivially see I said it, and yet you’re
claiming I didn’t. Why?

> originally from MrBoogiejuice I believe. I took it that your view was
> that you couldn’t know if wearing a helmet in a given situation was
> advantages, am I right in thinking that’s your view?

No. I meant exactly what I said. I said exactly what I meant.

You are misrepresenting me, and in fact outright plain-and-simple
lying about what I said. I DID say what you claim I did not, as
anyone can clearly see.

Why are you caliming I didn’t say what I did?

regatrds, Ian SMith

69

I’ll get in touch with the CTC and find out the position and let you know my findings.

70

Re: accident liability…Help!

“MrBoogiejuice” <MrBoogiejuice@NoEmail.Message.Poster.at.Unicyclist.com>
wrote in message
news:MrBoogiejuice.1p6qe5@NoEmail.Message.Poster.at.Unicyclist.com…
>

> I suggested that I could pay half and she pay the other half which I
> think is more than fair since it was me who came out with the injuries.
> And having looked again today at where it happened and at the sort of
> speeds people were doing there in their cars compared to the speed she
> was going. I don’t think I was to blame for the accident.
>
Written rule of insurance claims is “Never admit liability” The insurance
companies tell you quite specifically not to admit liability.
And if it is not your fault then no way should you offer to pay half,
rather you should claim against her insurance if any damage was caused.
You should deny having made any offer, if it was not done in writing or in
front of witesses. If it was truly not your fault then claim against her
insurance for damage, injuries and inconvenience caused to you and your uni.
She is taking you on because of the unusual circumstances: trying to claim
a unicycle should not have been there at all. Insist on telling her
insurance company, get details of it from her. If nothing else it may
frighten her into not claiming against you if she thinks you are counter
claiming. The accident should also probably have been reported to the
police if in the UK, although they don’t usually care unless anyone is hurt.

Nao

71

I didn’t actually offer to pay half. I think my words were along the lines of…“So you want me to pay half?”. She then said…“No, I want you to pay the full amount.” At which point I said I’d be back in touch once I’d spoken to some people.

My mum was discussing all this with some friends at the pub and the general consensus from them was to just ignore it. If she wants to take things further she’ll have to do it through her insurance.

It’s all a bit of a conundrum. And one I’m quite bored of fretting over. I’d love to be able to just go to a pub and sit down with the woman and have a conversation with her instead of all this worrying about who’s going to take action against who and who’s liable for what.

And to think, when I was younger I wanted to be a lawyer…

72

Re: accident liability…Help!

On Thu, 19 May 2005, A. Lurker <a.lurker@lurking.com> wrote:

> I’m coming out from lurking to suggest not responding to Ian Smith

Wow. I’m so scary that you feel the need to anonymise yourself before
saying anything about me.

> http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?t=62117

Can you really not recognise what that is? Oh well.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |

73

I had a lawyer check it out and…

"I think s72 below is fairly conclusive though.

If the issue did come before a court they would look at the intention behind the act, in which case they would probably rule that unicycles were included.

SWEET & MAXWELL UNITED KINGDOM LAW IN FORCE HIGHWAY ACT 1835 CHAPTER 50 UK Statutes Crown Copyright. Reproduced by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

In-force date: March 31, 1991 (see Analysis Tab for Commencement
Information)

s 72 Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.

[…] [FN1] If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon; […] [FN2]; every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [level
2 on the standard scale] [FN3], over and above the damages occasioned thereby.

Notes:

Short title “The Highway Act 1835” given by Short Titles Act 1896(c.14)Meaning of “carriage” extended by Local Government Act 1888(c.
41,), s. 85(1)Preamble omitted under authority of Statute Law Revision (No. 2) Act 1890(c. 51)

[FN1] Words repealed by Statute Law Revision (No. 2) Act1888 (c. 57), s. 1, Sch. 1

[FN2] Words repealed by Highways Act 1959 (c. 25), Sch. 25 and London Government Act 1963 (c. 33), s. 16(2), Sch. 6 para. 70

[FN3] Words substituted by virtue of Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48), ss. 39, 46, Sch. 3

GENERAL MATERIALS

Royal Assent date - Long Title - Notes
UK-LIF ST 1835 c 50 s 72

UK ST 1835 c 50 s 72
END OF DOCUMENT"

… I think we can ignore the horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle bit, although not the potential puns.
It is legal stuff so I did fall asleep halfway through so may not be wholly relevant

74

Silly helmet wars are statistically proven to be circular annoying messes

Damn you Ian smith (and all who fight against him).
What started out as a lovely summer jaunt in the fields of ‘helping our fellow man’ has started to turn into a nasty somme of ‘my argument is more bitchy than yours’.
I may have avoided some of the subtler points of misrepresentation in the argument but the rundown seems to be this:

  1. ian smith makes an intelligent and valid point that mr boogiejuice should avoid making claims such as ‘if i hadnt worn my helmet, i would be dead’. as these claims are ubvioiusly rather unsuited to scientific testing, and as such cannot be used as a valid argument in a semi-legal dispute such as this.

  2. someone (i forget who) wonders why we cannot make such claims about helmets. others join in with their experiences/thoughts(predjudices?!) on the subject.

  3. Ian makes various points about how the ‘statistics’ widely used to show the efficacy helmet use are perhaps fallacious, and can be shown to prove things they dont, and as such we probably shouldnt use statistics as a criterion to judge said efficacy.

  4. certain people, including mr Boogiejuice, post comments about personal incidents they were involved in which have lead to their preference for/against helmets.

  5. Ian makes rather cynical comments along the lines of 'oh, well if you feel safe in a helmet, you must be right! Though he doesnt really give much reason/evidence to back up his seeming certainty in the uselessness of helmets (apart from certain cases of road rash and the like), Ian seems to feel in a concrete enough position to deny firsthand experience, which he probably sees as naive, ill-informed or something.

  6. people start to pick up on this.

  7. Ian gets angry.

  8. the argument contuinues from both sides, not really saying anything but getting more and more angry and bitchy. it deteriorates into a ‘quotefight’ where Ian and his foes try to prove each other ‘stupid’ or ‘wrong’ or something by pointing out how they have ‘misrepresented/misquoted’ each other.

  9. the original point is mainly forgotten, and everybody gets annoyed and bored with the whole slanging match and wishes that Ian and co would go test helmets against prick walls. perhaps walls with spikes. and fire.

Conclusion

  1. We cannot rely on many of the statistics given for the efficacy of cycle helmets. However, for the same reasons we cannot rely on statistics to disprove the efficacy of cycle helmets. We must accept that helmets may help, or may not (and that statistics give a warped view however they are used).

  2. People should try to stick to the thread’s subject and avoid getting into chest-banging pridematches. In a years time, will you really care if 3 people misread your comments on a unicycle forum?

  3. Ian smith REALLY, i mean REALLY needs to get Laid. (this probably goes for others, but man; you could smell the testosterone seeping form every one of Ian’s comments.)

  4. No. that’s probably enough for today.

x

75

I thought that my lawyer friend had found a not totally relevant bit, so asked her to read the thread. she refused to finish, stating that it was a load of drivel by a bunch of idiots.
(her opinion, not mine, but still entertaining)

76

Re: accident liability…Help!

A. Lurker wrote:
> I=92m coming out from lurking to suggest not responding to Ian Smith as=
=20
> he=92ll just keep spurting out his nonsense, misspelling =93the=94 and =
filling=20
> up our inbox, again. He could do well and stay in uk.rec.cycling.
<snip>
> | Please |
> | don’t feed the |
> | TROLL’s ! |
<snip>

I know I shouldn’t, but I’ll bite (once). I can assure you that Ian is=20
not a troll. He has taken time to post some very useful advice for Kit. =

He has unfortunately fallen into the trap of getting involved in a=20
helmet debate in a ng full of Americans and teenagers - something that I =

long ago learned to be futile.

(No offence is intended by this, but I have no doubt that plenty will be =

taken. Sorry about that.)

Personally I do not have the time or patience to get involved in a=20
helmet debate on rsu. Ian is to be congratulated for trying. He gets=20
understandably frustrated when people insist on quoting him out of=20
context and and attributing to him things that he did not write -=20
something that I’ve seen quite a lot of in this thread.

> BTW if he didn=92t wear a helmet he may not have been able to post anyt=
hing.
>=20
> http://www.cyclingforums.com/showthread.php?t=3D62117

It appears that you did not understand the post to which you refer.=20
There is an important concept here that may have been lost on you:
<URL:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=3Dirony>

–=20
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
“He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” - Thomas Paine

77

Re: accident liability…Help!

On Thu, 19 May, metro_tramp <> wrote:
>
> 3. Ian smith REALLY, i mean REALLY needs to get laid and CHILL THE FUCK
> OUT. (this probably goes for others, but man; you could -smell- the
> testosterone seeping form every one of Ian’s comments.)

It doesn’t really matter what you attribute my postings to.

Also, for reference, the fact that some people think helmets a good
idea doesn’t make me angry either. Furthermore, if you read all of
the thread you purport to summarise, you’ll find I did in fact state
that helmets are a good match for the head impacts likely in
unicycling (Message-ID: <slrnd8klo9.51b.ian@phlegethon.smithnet>, if
you want to check) and in fact the case for wearing a helmet while
unicycling is probably quite good (certainly better than for riding a
bike amongst traffic).

However, notwithstanding all of the above, I will not tolerate people
mis-representing my views, stating I said something that I did not, or
stating I did not say something that I did, without correcting the
record.

If you are happy for people to report you as holding opinions
opposite to that which you hold, that is of course your perogative.
However, it would suggest to me such apathy about the topic in
question that it wouldn’t have been worth expressing an opinion in the
first place.

If you state something, then someone claims you believe the opposite,
to fail to correct that person would seem to me to indicate that it
wasn’t worth making the statement in the first place. This is
especially so when the misreporting forms part of a permanent record -
as do news postings. Consequently, if I am misquoted or
misrepresented, I will correct each and every occurrence of the
misreporting that I come across. I’m sorry if you find such ensuring
accuracy to be tedious, but that is not going to change the fact that
I think accuracy is worth preserving.

regards, Ian SMith

78

Re: Re: accident liability…Help!

Have the courage of your sig and stand by your words, Danny.

79

Re: Re: accident liability…Help!

Stupid. Same old helmet argument with same old arguable statistics. A good set of statistics can be used to cloud any argument. Every statistical example you mentioned pointed in the same direction. If the solution were that obvious, helmets would be against the law. I’m afraid you are not being objective. It’s hard to listen to an argument with statistics from someone who has an agenda.

So, if you want to claim your helmet saved your life, you are no worse than someone saying God saved their life. If you want to say your helmet saved you from a big lump on the head, or at least a big owie, I believe you.

If you would rather be hit by cars or other things with a bare head than with a layer of dubious protection, be my guest. But don’t give him a hard time for being happy he wore his.

Back to the accident, everything I’m reading still seems to indicate that you rode in front of a car without seeing it. A blind corner is a blind corner for both of you. You should expect a car to be coming, while the driver should expect at least the possibility of something to be happening around the corner. If you remove the corner and obstructed view, the situation is more obvious, you seemed to ride out into her path. I’m still for the "pay 50% and consider yourself lucky (or unlucky, if you believe your helmet contributed to the accident). :slight_smile:

NOTE: Not being able to afford the 50% should not have any bearing on who’s right or wrong; remember to leave that out of the argument.

80

From a lawyer, exactly what one should expect. When it comes to what a court would have to say about this situation, for the most part we really have no idea.

I know that’s not helpful, but it’s something to keep in mind. Fifty versions of quoted law on whether a unicycle belongs on the street may not even come up in a decision of who is, or isn’t at fault. I’m going to stick with “you both are” and wish you the best of luck!