Whilst wearing a cycling helmet isn’t a legal requirement in the UK, going without one can place you in physical danger and reduce the compensation you may receive after a road traffic collision.
This article will explore the legal position of cycling without helmets to help cyclists make informed decisions.
Current Law
In the UK, cyclists of any age are not legally required to wear helmets despite the widely acknowledged benefits of helmets in crashes. Rule 59 of the Highway Code articulates that cyclists “should” wear helmets that “conform to current regulation.” This is advice, not a legal obligation, but there can be costly legal consequences for not wearing one.
Cyclists might be able to claim compensation if they are injured while cycling due to another person’s fault. For example, brain injury claims are often filed after cyclists are hit by vehicles and struggle to work and care for themselves afterwards.
However, if the cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet, the law can reduce their compensation, resulting in them failing to recover the money to meet their future needs.
Contributory Negligence
Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, contributory negligence states that if you suffer damage resulting from your fault and that of another, your compensation will be proportionally reduced. For this reduction to occur, it must be shown that you failed to take reasonable care of your safety and that this contributed to your damage.
For example, if a cyclist chooses not to wear a helmet and then suffers a head injury in an accident, this decision could be viewed as contributing to the severity of said injuries. This occurred in Reynolds v Strutt & Parker LLP [2011].
C, a cyclist at a work event, crashed and sustained permanent brain injuries. Only one of the 12 cyclists wore a helmet, and the employer was found liable for not assessing or communicating the need for helmets. Following Smith v Finch [2009], the court held C should have known helmets were available and that the obligation to wear one applied. It concluded C’s injuries would have been avoided with a helmet and reduced compensation by ⅔, reflecting C’s share of the blame.
E-bikes
E-bikes are classified as bicycles, and the same legal principles regarding helmet use and contributory negligence apply. In the UK, e-bikes cease motor assistance when cyclists travel over 15.5 mph and have a motor power output no higher than 250 watts.
Despite their ability to travel at higher speeds, potentially increasing the risk of injury, this does not change the cyclist’s accountability when wearing a helmet, meaning courts would likely apply the same approach to contributory negligence.
Helmet Technology
In the UK, the current helmet safety standard is BSEN 1078. This standard requires helmets to pass tests for impact absorption, retention system strength, and minimum field of view. Before BSEN, many cycle helmets were made to the older Snell B95 standard, which was more stringent and provided better protection against higher impact velocities.
Recent advancements in helmet technology, such as MIPS, SPIN, WaveCel, and Hovding 3.0, enhance cyclists’ protection by mitigating rotational head speeds and reducing brain injury risks. Courts may apply these higher helmet safety standards in the future, leading to more findings of contributory negligence.
Informed Decision Making
Ultimately, choosing to wear a helmet when cycling is a personal choice. Wearing one can reduce your risk of injury by absorbing some of the impact on your head. They may also help if you choose to file a personal injury claim by avoiding contributory negligence.