Do you wear a helmet when skiing or cycling?

Asks Mark Gayler of Blakemores Solicitors, as there are distinct parallels in the current debate in both sports.

The recent death of British actress Natasha Richardson has brought to light the issue of wearing a helmet whilst skiing. It has been law in Italy since 1 January 2005 for helmets to be worn by under 13 year olds while skiing. In lower Austria, following a collision between Dieter Althaus, the Governor of the German State of Thuringia and an Austrian woman in which the Austrian woman, who was not wearing a helmet died, the compulsory wearing of helmets was rushed through and from 20 March 2009, the wearing of a ski helmet is compulsory for all under 15 year olds. Dieter Althaus survived (and was wearing a helmet) and has since been charged with manslaughter.

Dr Steven Sulheim, a Norwegian doctor has carried out studies which indicate that wearing a helmet can lead to 60% of all serious head injuries being avoided. Between 1998-2005, Dr S Levy, the chief of neurosurgery and neuro-trauma at St Anthony’s hospital in Denver Colorado carried out a survey and estimates that the risk of brain injury is reduced by 75%.

In view of these figures, why is there a debate? Opponents of the compulsory wearing of helmets point out that the most important aspect when skiing is to ski within your ability and the wearing of a helmet would lead to greater risks being taken by skiers or snowboarders as they feel protected and invulnerable.

There is a similar debate in the cycling world regarding the wearing of cycle helmets.

The number of people killed on our roads during 2006 (146) rose from a previous low in 2003 (114). If those who were seriously injured are added, the figure in 2006 was 2,446. Of these, almost a quarter, (23%), were children. A cyclist does not have the protection of a steel cage around them, as in a car, so injuries, particularly head injuries account for a higher proportion of those within this category. Most are male (4-1), and 84% of all accidents where the person is killed or seriously injured are within urban areas. (Department for Transport, Road Casualties Report for 2006). 70% of all cyclist deaths are caused by head injuries.

It seems sensible to most people that wearing a safety helmet would reduce the likelihood of sustaining a serious injury. However, cycle helmets are designed, not like motorcycle helmets or ski helmets, to specifically protect the rider if involved in a high speed collision, but to protect the rider if they fall from the cycle. They are therefore designed to absorb and spread some of the force generated when a rider falls from a height of about one metre, with an impact speed of 12mph or less. They are built to reduce the rate at which the brain, inside the skull, accelerates or decelerates by an impact. In relation to ski helmets, emergency surgeon Christian Kaulfersch at Schladming hospital in Styria said: "Crashes at 30kph are like falling onto concrete from the second floor.”

Therefore, where a cyclist is in collision with a motorcar and is thrown from the bike, the impact speed is normally considerably in excess of this and the cycle helmet is not built to withstand this type of impact.

In the Netherlands, where the use of bicycles has grown considerably, the casualty rate for pedestrians and cyclists is much lower (30% of all road deaths) than in the UK (45% of all road deaths). The major difference is that, as a matter of Government policy, cyclists are segregated from fast moving and dense motor traffic. Speed limits have been reduced to 18.6 mph (30km/h) in many residential areas and in rural areas to 37.2mph (60kph).

At 20mph, 90% of pedestrians hit by a vehicle will survive. At 40mph, 85% will die.

A recent study in America examined bicycle related death rates in Ontario Canada, from 1991 to 2002, among cyclists aged 1-15 years of age and 16-19 years-of-age. The results showed that there were 362 bicycle-related deaths in the period of 1991-2002. Of these, 107 were children aged between one and 15-years-old. Only nine of the 107 children who died were reported to have been wearing a helmet, three in the pre-legislation period from 1991-1995 and 6 in the post-legislation period from 1996 - 2002. After mandatory helmet use was put into effect in 1995, deaths per year fell 52%, from 13 to 6, in the 1-15 year-old age group. In contrast, deaths in the 16-19 age group, of which the majority of people weren't required to wear a helmet, rose slightly from 21 to 22 per year. Overall, comparing cycle related deaths between States with compulsory helmet wearing and States without such laws showed a significantly greater reduction in those States with compulsory helmet wearing laws.

The wearing of seatbelts has been compulsory by law for years now, as has wearing motor cycle helmets since 1973. However, it is still not law to wear a cycle helmet or, in many European countries and beyond, ski helmets. Insurers will argue that the failure to wear a cycle helmet is a contributory factor in the injuries sustained, almost as a matter of course. Will they now start arguing the same where skiing accidents are concerned?

The deduction for contributory negligence varies dependent upon the blameworthiness of the individual, as laid down by Lord Denning in Froom v Butcher in 1975. If the injuries would have been avoided, the deduction will be 25%. If the injuries would have been reduced, then a 15% contribution would apply. The onus is therefore on the Defendants to prove that the failure to wear a cycle helmet has a causative link with the injuries sustained. If the insurers cannot show that wearing a helmet would have made a difference to the injury sustained, there will be no deduction.

However, why take the risk, both in relation to the risk of not wearing a helmet and in relation to any arguments on contributory negligence by insurers?

The ski club of Great Britain believe that increasing numbers of countries will make it compulsory for children to wear helmets when skiing, but do not believe it will be made compulsory for adults. If it is Law to wear a helmet, this strengthens the argument that an Insurer will make regarding contributory negligence.

The wearing of a helmet in skiing is becoming more acceptable. More adults are now wearing helmets. The same applies in cycling, although perhaps, at a slower rate.


If the worst does happen, and a loved one suffers a head injury, then specific professional advice should be sought from a specialist in dealing with head injury claims. Support can also be obtained from charities such as Headway (www.headway.org.uk) or the Child Brain Injury Trust (www.cbituk.org) or the British Institute of Brain Injured Children (www.bibic.org.uk ).

Headway is running a Brain Injury Week between 11-17 May to highlight the effect of acquired head injuries on the individual and their families. They are also promoting the use of cycle helmets whilst cycling under the banner “Use your head, wear a helmet”. There is a “Wheely Big Relay”, a cycling event held at Richmond Park in London on 15 May to raise funds for Headway to assist in their nationwide activities to help and support brain injured individuals and their families.

So, what is the conclusion? Where statistics in both sports show that the risk of suffering brain injury is greater when a helmet is not worn, why not wear one? There are issues about personal liberty and freedom of choice, as well as arguments that wearing a helmet may lead someone to be more reckless, but the effect of a devastating head injury are felt forever, and by all members of a family. Why therefore take the risk?

Mark Gayler is an Associate Solicitor at Blakemores Solicitors in Birmingham, a Senior Litigator of APIL and a specialist in dealing with Head Injury claims.

If you require assistance following a motor accident that was not your fault please contact Blakemores Injury and Insurance department on 0121 234 9300.

ENDS.

Note to editors:

Blakemores is a leading Midlands law firm, specialising in injury & insurance claims, dispute resolution, immigration, family & childcare, conveyancing, commercial property and wills, trusts, tax and probate. With over 170 staff across two offices in Birmingham and Leamington Spa the firm provides great value legal advice to a wide range of private and commercial clients throughout the UK.

For further information please contact:

Sarah Jacks, Marketing and Business Development Manager, Blakemores Solicitors
Rachael Palmer, Operational Manager of Blakemores Injury and Insurance Claims Department
Mark Gayler, Associate Solicitor, Blakemores Solicitors, Injury and Insurance Claims Department

Blakemores Solicitors
40 Great Charles Street
Birmingham B3 2AT Tel: 0844 873 5316