The law requires motorists to wear seat belts and if you ride a motorcycle you must wear a crash helmet. There is no requirement however (at least at the moment) for cyclists to wear a helmet.
Although cycling is by no means a dangerous occupation, you are vulnerable to the mistakes of motorists and others when riding a bicycle and these can cause serious injury. The question can therefore arise of whether a cyclist will be taken to have contributed to any injury suffered if he chooses not to wear a helmet although there is no compulsion to do so.
It is well-established law that where a person suffers injury through the fault of another, then the damages recovered will be reduced by such an amount as the court considers just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage. In cases where a driver has been injured but was not wearing a seatbelt the amount he is entitled to in damages will be dramatically reduced and the same will apply to a motorcyclist not wearing a crash helmet.
Whether the same principle will apply to a cyclist not wearing a helmet was considered recently in the case of Smith v Finch. Mr. Smith was knocked off his bike by a motorcycle ridden by Mr. Finch and suffered a traumatic brain injury. The fault clearly lay with the motorcyclist and substantial damages would have been awarded against him. However Mr. Smith had not been wearing a helmet.
In deciding the amount of damages to be awarded, the judge expressed the opinion that poor Mr. Smith was at fault in not wearing a helmet and as such could be taken to have contributed to his own injuries. However the defendant was unable to prove that wearing a helmet would have made any difference to the injury and therefore the damages awarded were not reduced.
Notwithstanding this the case is a dire warning for cyclists. As the judge said: