View Poll Results: What Are Your Helmet Wearing Habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
52
10.40%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
24
4.80%
I've always worn a helmet
208
41.60%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
126
25.20%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
90
18.00%
Voters: 500. You may not vote on this poll
The Helmet Thread 2
07-31-16, 06:45 PM
#2251
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,502
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2092 Post(s)
Liked 639 Times
in
430 Posts
Originally Posted by M.G.L. Chapter 85 Section 11B(2)
...
(iii) Any person 16 years of age or younger operating a bicycle or being carried as a passenger on a bicycle on a public way, bicycle path or on any other public right-of-way shall wear a helmet. Said helmet shall fit the person's head, shall be secured to the person's head by straps while the bicycle is being operated, and shall meet the standards for helmets established by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. These requirements shall not apply to a passenger if the passenger is in an enclosed trailer or other device which adequately holds the passenger in place and protects the passenger's head from impact in an accident.
(iv) A violation of clause (ii) or (iii) shall not be used as evidence of contributory negligence in any civil action.
(iii) Any person 16 years of age or younger operating a bicycle or being carried as a passenger on a bicycle on a public way, bicycle path or on any other public right-of-way shall wear a helmet. Said helmet shall fit the person's head, shall be secured to the person's head by straps while the bicycle is being operated, and shall meet the standards for helmets established by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. These requirements shall not apply to a passenger if the passenger is in an enclosed trailer or other device which adequately holds the passenger in place and protects the passenger's head from impact in an accident.
(iv) A violation of clause (ii) or (iii) shall not be used as evidence of contributory negligence in any civil action.
Ask them who does the above apply to (hint, people below a what age, operating what where in which state. Does clause (iv) apply to anyone else? Better still, ask them what laws and precidents in contributory neglignce apply to YOU?
Or not. Personally I think this is a truly weak reason to wear a helmet, but that's just me.
-mr. bill
08-02-16, 12:40 PM
#2252
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Was in a situation yesterday where i'm sure my helmet prevented myself getting hit by a car. 3 lanes of traffic had made a gap to allow a car turning left to pass through. I couldn't see him. By the time I rode into the gap and saw him, he slowed down in anticipation of me coming by. I was hidden behind the rows of cars, except my helmet was just above them. I believe that's how he was able to spot me.
A situation where you might regret not wearing a helmet is very possible.
"I shouldn't have worn a helmet" - No One Ever
A situation where you might regret not wearing a helmet is very possible.
"I shouldn't have worn a helmet" - No One Ever
08-02-16, 12:52 PM
#2253
Senior Member
Originally Posted by mr_bill
So you two hire your own legal researchers already.
Originally Posted by rydabent
In the case you get into an accident with a car, the drivers lawyer will try to make it all your fault or at least partly your fault if you are not wearing a helmet.
If you don't agree with rydabent that this a. ever happened and b. is ever going to happen, then we agree and the full burden of proof lays on rydabent's shoulders since he is making the bogus claim.
08-02-16, 01:27 PM
#2254
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
227 Posts
Originally Posted by HBxRider
"I shouldn't have worn a helmet" - No One Ever
08-03-16, 07:52 AM
#2255
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,499
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,213 Times
in
823 Posts
Originally Posted by joejack951
Thoroughly confused. Do you agree or disagree with rydabent's claim:
If you agree, surely there must be some case one of you can cite to bolster your case that this might happen to someone else in addition to the poor soul who got scammed the first time.
If you don't agree with rydabent that this a. ever happened and b. is ever going to happen, then we agree and the full burden of proof lays on rydabent's shoulders since he is making the bogus claim.
If you agree, surely there must be some case one of you can cite to bolster your case that this might happen to someone else in addition to the poor soul who got scammed the first time.
If you don't agree with rydabent that this a. ever happened and b. is ever going to happen, then we agree and the full burden of proof lays on rydabent's shoulders since he is making the bogus claim.
Someone "might" in the future claim that any injuries suffered by a bicyclist in a collision with a motorized vehicle is entirely the fault of the bicyclist because the cyclist was riding a bicycle instead of driving a motor vehicle which could have offered more personal protection in case of a collision.
Or someone "might" in the future claim that any injuries suffered by a recumbent rider in a collision with a motorized vehicle is entirely the fault of the recumbent rider because the cyclist was riding a recumbent instead of a typical bicycle with a higher profile that is easier to see in traffic.
08-03-16, 08:05 AM
#2256
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
227 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
No one can prove or disprove what someone "might" claim in a future court case. Someone "might" claim ANYTHING, no matter how preposterous or irrelevant. Of course that is no evidence that such a claim was ever made, much less successfully made, in the past. Or will be successful in the future.
...
...
08-03-16, 08:46 AM
#2257
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,499
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,213 Times
in
823 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton
FWIW it does come up sometimes in states where fault is allocated by comparative negligence. You may want case cites and the ultimate resolutions, but I'm not going to say one way or the other how well that works in municipal and magistrate courts, nor in settlements. It's not that easy to get that information. But it's reasonable to say that wearing a helmet avoids it in the first place.
Again, ANYTHING "might" be presented in court, no matter how preposterous or irrelevant.
08-03-16, 04:48 PM
#2258
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
227 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Just as reasonable to say, (assuming that it is legal for adults to ride without a helmet) as not riding a bicycle in traffic, or perhaps not taking the lane avoids claims of comparative negligence for not driving a "safer" vehicle in traffic.
Again, ANYTHING "might" be presented in court, no matter how preposterous or irrelevant.
Again, ANYTHING "might" be presented in court, no matter how preposterous or irrelevant.
08-03-16, 05:37 PM
#2259
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,499
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,213 Times
in
823 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton
All I can say is that I have seen claims of comparative negligence with respect to the helmet, and not about those other things. Making up unreasonable examples of what "might" be claimed is inconsequential to the fact that not wearing a helmet sometimes "is" claimed as comparative negligence.
08-04-16, 02:48 PM
#2260
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,502
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2092 Post(s)
Liked 639 Times
in
430 Posts
Again, hire your own lawyer already if you want your answer to your legal question.
It's been my experience that clients who hire themselves as their own lawyer give horrible legal advice to themselves. Especially when they know nothing about the law.
As respectfully as I can put it, you don't have a clue.
-mr. bill
It's been my experience that clients who hire themselves as their own lawyer give horrible legal advice to themselves. Especially when they know nothing about the law.
As respectfully as I can put it, you don't have a clue.
-mr. bill
08-04-16, 03:04 PM
#2261
Str*t*gic *quivoc*tor
Can anyone cite a case where a cyclist involved in a crash was found at fault or negligent, even by a percentage, for not wearing a helmet...?
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
08-05-16, 07:36 AM
#2262
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
227 Posts
Cordy v. Sherwin Williams Co., 975 F. Supp. 639, 641 (D.N.J. 1997).
Nunez v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, 217 F. Supp. 2d 562, 564 (D.N.J. 2002).
Let me be clear that I don't know anything about these cases except that they are cited by "LITIGATING THE INVOLUNTARY DISMOUNT—NUNEZ V. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS AND THE VIABILITY OF A BICYCLE HELMET DEFENSE by Hans N. Huggler
As noted there, "The Note concludes that the bicycle helmet defense is a viable strategy
for reducing a defendant’s damages when an un-helmeted cyclist has
incurred head injuries that could have been prevented through helmet
use. In the 10 jurisdictions whose jurisprudential and legislative environments
make them “target states,” the defense should be a natural extension
of the seatbelt defense, even where the seatbelt defense itself has
been statutorily curtailed. "
Nunez v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, 217 F. Supp. 2d 562, 564 (D.N.J. 2002).
Let me be clear that I don't know anything about these cases except that they are cited by "LITIGATING THE INVOLUNTARY DISMOUNT—NUNEZ V. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS AND THE VIABILITY OF A BICYCLE HELMET DEFENSE by Hans N. Huggler
As noted there, "The Note concludes that the bicycle helmet defense is a viable strategy
for reducing a defendant’s damages when an un-helmeted cyclist has
incurred head injuries that could have been prevented through helmet
use. In the 10 jurisdictions whose jurisprudential and legislative environments
make them “target states,” the defense should be a natural extension
of the seatbelt defense, even where the seatbelt defense itself has
been statutorily curtailed. "
08-05-16, 08:47 AM
#2264
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
227 Posts
Yes and there are also some weaker statutes in some states providing that the failure of children to wear helmets is not admissible as negligence against the parents. It seems reasonable that these statutes arise from precedent where helmet non-use has been claimed as contributory in the past.
08-05-16, 09:10 AM
#2265
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,502
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2092 Post(s)
Liked 639 Times
in
430 Posts
Originally Posted by wphamilton
Yes and there are also some weaker statutes in some states providing that the failure of children to wear helmets is not admissible as negligence against the parents. It seems reasonable that these statutes arise from precedent where helmet non-use has been claimed as contributory in the past.
-mr. bill
08-05-16, 11:22 AM
#2266
Senior Member
Originally Posted by wphamilton
Cordy v. Sherwin Williams Co., 975 F. Supp. 639, 641 (D.N.J. 1997).
Nunez v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, 217 F. Supp. 2d 562, 564 (D.N.J. 2002).
Let me be clear that I don't know anything about these cases except that they are cited by "LITIGATING THE INVOLUNTARY DISMOUNT—NUNEZ V. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS AND THE VIABILITY OF A BICYCLE HELMET DEFENSE by Hans N. Huggler
As noted there, "The Note concludes that the bicycle helmet defense is a viable strategy
for reducing a defendant’s damages when an un-helmeted cyclist has
incurred head injuries that could have been prevented through helmet
use. In the 10 jurisdictions whose jurisprudential and legislative environments
make them “target states,” the defense should be a natural extension
of the seatbelt defense, even where the seatbelt defense itself has
been statutorily curtailed. "
Nunez v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, 217 F. Supp. 2d 562, 564 (D.N.J. 2002).
Let me be clear that I don't know anything about these cases except that they are cited by "LITIGATING THE INVOLUNTARY DISMOUNT—NUNEZ V. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS AND THE VIABILITY OF A BICYCLE HELMET DEFENSE by Hans N. Huggler
As noted there, "The Note concludes that the bicycle helmet defense is a viable strategy
for reducing a defendant’s damages when an un-helmeted cyclist has
incurred head injuries that could have been prevented through helmet
use. In the 10 jurisdictions whose jurisprudential and legislative environments
make them “target states,” the defense should be a natural extension
of the seatbelt defense, even where the seatbelt defense itself has
been statutorily curtailed. "
08-05-16, 01:04 PM
#2268
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
227 Posts
Originally Posted by joejack951
I have only made it through the first case, Cordy vs. Sherwin Williams (Cordy v. Sherwin Williams Co., 975 F. Supp. 639 (D.N.J. 1997) :: Justia) but I cannot fathom how that case could possibly be used to support the conclusion you've quoted. It is an explicit example of a court rejecting a defendant's claim that the cyclist was negligent for not wearing a helmet. The case also addresses the issue of comparing seatbelts and motorcycle helmets and declares that neither is relevant to the issue of wearing a bicycle helmet which is not a legal requirement for an adult in NJ.
Schneider National was successful in asserting it in 2002.9"
I'm just lifting the cites, and this quote, from that original link. You aren't disputing that the defense used the lack of a helmet as a comparative negligence defense, surely?
08-05-16, 02:40 PM
#2269
Senior Member
Originally Posted by wphamilton
"While the District Court rejected Sherwin Williams’s attempt to assert a “bicycle helmet defense” in 1997,
Schneider National was successful in asserting it in 2002.9"
I'm just lifting the cites, and this quote, from that original link. You aren't disputing that the defense used the lack of a helmet as a comparative negligence defense, surely?
Schneider National was successful in asserting it in 2002.9"
I'm just lifting the cites, and this quote, from that original link. You aren't disputing that the defense used the lack of a helmet as a comparative negligence defense, surely?
I think my post makes it pretty darn clear that I don't deny that defense was used. But it wasn't successful. And had it been, it would be a shame since the helmet would likely have done little to nothing to help the plaintiff and was not a legal requirement.
Off to read the second case...
08-05-16, 03:06 PM
#2270
Senior Member
Originally Posted by mconlonx
Can anyone cite a case where a cyclist involved in a crash was found at fault or negligent, even by a percentage, for not wearing a helmet...?
Here, uncontradicted studies conducted by various national agencies reveal that helmets significantly reduce the incidence of death from head injury, which is the leading cause of bicycling fatalities. It has been reported that anywhere from 70 to 85 percent of all fatal bicycle crashes involve head injuries. Nat'l Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin., State Legislative Fact Sheet (April 2002); see also National Safety Council, Fact Sheet Library: Enjoy Safe Bicycling, https:// www.nsc.org/library/facts/bicycle. htm (last visited July 11, 2002). According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) at the U.S. Department of Transportation, "[b]icycle helmets are 85 to 88 percent effective in mitigating head and brain injuries, making the use of helmets the single most effective way to reduce head injuries and fatalities resulting from bicycle crashes." U.S. Dept. Of Trans. Nat'l Hwy. Traffic Safety Admin., State Legislative Fact Sheet (April 2002); see also Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute ("BHSI"), A Compendium of Statistics from Various Sources, https:// Bicycle Helmet Statistics (last visited July 11, 2002). Indeed, numerous organizations, including the NHTSA, the BHSI and the National Safety Council promote the use of helmets by all cyclists. Id.; see also Nat'l Safety Council, Fact Sheet Library: Enjoy Safe Bicycling, https:// www.nsc.org/library/facts/bicycle.htm (last visited July 11, 2002).
08-05-16, 03:53 PM
#2271
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
227 Posts
Originally Posted by joejack951
I will have to go read the details of the second case. I made my comments based on you posting the first case as if it supported the conclusion you quoted. It did not and this new quote says just that. I only looked at the case posted, not the link you posted. If you knew the case didn't support the conclusion, why didn't you note that?
I think my post makes it pretty darn clear that I don't deny that defense was used. But it wasn't successful. And had it been, it would be a shame since the helmet would likely have done little to nothing to help the plaintiff and was not a legal requirement.
Off to read the second case...
I think my post makes it pretty darn clear that I don't deny that defense was used. But it wasn't successful. And had it been, it would be a shame since the helmet would likely have done little to nothing to help the plaintiff and was not a legal requirement.
Off to read the second case...
The note from the legal scholar that it is a viable defense in at least the 10 states, is apparently quoted from case law or notes from case law. I included it to show that it's not a fanciful concern, as has been argued here.
As I said to ILTB, I do not intend to look up case law nor to comment on how effective the defense is. For one thing, many of these cases are in magistrate courts or equivalent which are not recorded, and aside from being a lawyer who specializes in those types of cases, or making a special study of it, there is no possible way of knowing what arguments were made, why the judges came to a particular decision and so on. I'm not going to speculate about that.
But someone asked about whether it's ever been tried, and if it had any success there, and I think that the link I provided is a really good discussion of it. He claims that "Schneider National was successful" in 2002. It appears that the other case was successful and helmet related arguments were raised. I'm not arguing cases - I'm just proving to the skeptics that they're real.
08-05-16, 09:27 PM
#2272
Senior Member
Originally Posted by wphamilton
The two case cites show that the defense was tried in two well-known cases, which apparently is in dispute.
Originally Posted by wphamilton
The note from the legal scholar that it is a viable defense in at least the 10 states, is apparently quoted from case law or notes from case law. I included it to show that it's not a fanciful concern, as has been argued here.
Originally Posted by wphamilton
As I said to ILTB, I do not intend to look up case law nor to comment on how effective the defense is. For one thing, many of these cases are in magistrate courts or equivalent which are not recorded, and aside from being a lawyer who specializes in those types of cases, or making a special study of it, there is no possible way of knowing what arguments were made, why the judges came to a particular decision and so on. I'm not going to speculate about that.
Originally Posted by wphamilton
But someone asked about whether it's ever been tried, and if it had any success there, and I think that the link I provided is a really good discussion of it. He claims that "Schneider National was successful" in 2002. It appears that the other case was successful and helmet related arguments were raised. I'm not arguing cases - I'm just proving to the skeptics that they're real.
08-06-16, 06:53 AM
#2273
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
227 Posts
@joejack951 the Lewis & Clark Law Review linked earlier has a different take on it than you do. We're all free to accept or reject the analysis of lawyers and law students of course, but I provide it because @mconlonx and @I-Like-To-Bike requested information. I'm not going to argue their conclusions against you.
In short, to the two questions raised, yes the helmet defense IS used and it is not a case of "you can argue anything" in court. Secondly, the helmet defense has prevailed in some cases and failed in others.
In short, to the two questions raised, yes the helmet defense IS used and it is not a case of "you can argue anything" in court. Secondly, the helmet defense has prevailed in some cases and failed in others.
08-06-16, 07:05 AM
#2274
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 339
Bikes: Motobecane Century Pro Ti Disc
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes, but if wearing a helmet could reduce damages, then I would argue why didn't Schneider have a gee whiz bang accident avoidance laser beam system? There are accident avoidance systems on the market, and since Schneider choose not to install them, it is now their fault the accident happened in the first place.
08-06-16, 07:15 AM
#2275
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 340 Times
in
227 Posts
Originally Posted by 2 Piece
Yes, but if wearing a helmet could reduce damages, then I would argue why didn't Schneider have a gee whiz bang accident avoidance laser beam system? There are accident avoidance systems on the market, and since Schneider choose not to install them, it is now their fault the accident happened in the first place.
