CTC – the UK’s national cyclists’ organisation has condemned a judge’s decision to reduce the sentence handed down to a driver because the cyclist he killed wasn’t wearing a helmet.
Denis Moore, 50, collided with cyclist James Jorgensen, 55, last September on a roundabout in Seaham, County Durham. Jorgensen died 8 days later of severe head injuries. Although the court was told that Moore was only driving at around 20mph, Moore’s solicitor acknowledged that his client had suffered a “momentary lapse of concentration”.
At Durham Crown Court last Friday, Judge Richard Lowden gave Moore a 24-week suspended prison sentence. He said the fact that Jorgensen had not been wearing a helmet was a “mitigating factor” and Moore’s sentence would be reduced accordingly. The judge reached this decision without hearing any evidence about the effectiveness of helmets, or whether a helmet would have made any difference to Jorgensen’s injuries.
CTC’s Campaigns & Policy Manager Roger Geffen said: “My first thoughts are for Mr Jorgensen’s family. I cannot imagine how they must be feeling. If bereavement wasn’t enough, they now have a Judge effectively saying Jorgensen himself was partly to blame for his own death, simply because he wasn’t wearing a helmet. There are still serious doubts about the effectiveness of cycle helmets, particularly in preventing serious or fatal injuries, and there is no law requiring cyclists to wear them. This sentence is an extraordinary example of a judge blaming the victim for his own death”.
The decision comes just over 100 days after a civil law case where High Court Judge Griffith Williams gave his opinion that in principle, cyclists without helmets could face reduced damages if it were shown that a helmet would have prevented or reduced their injuries. In the case he was considering, however, he concluded that a helmet would not have prevented the serious injuries suffered by cyclist Robert Smith due to a collision with motorcyclist Michael Finch.
The Government is currently reassessing the evidence on cycle helmets as part of a wider study on cyclists’ safety, in a tacit acknowledgement that the evidence about their effectiveness is still far from clear. The interim findings of the helmet part of the study are expected next month, with a final report due out by the end of the year.
Ends
For more information contact CTC’s Press Office on 0844 736 8453 or 07786 320713.
Notes to editors:
All CTC members are covered by legal advice, which is provided by RJW. More details on CTC’s Accident Helpline can be found http://www.rjw.co.uk/ctc
CTC - the UK’s national cyclists' organisation is the oldest and largest cycling body in the UK. Established in 1878, it now has 70,000 members and affiliates in 250 clubs across the UK. We provide a comprehensive range of services, advice, events, and protection for our members and work to promote cycling by raising public and political awareness of its health, social and environmental benefits. For more information see www.ctc.org.uk.
· High Court Judge Justice Wyn Griffiths offered the opinion on 22nd January this year that a cyclist’s decision not to wear a helmet could in principle be regarded as “contributory negligence” if it could be showed that the injuries suffered could have been reduced or prevented if the cyclist had worn a helmet. In the Smith v Finch case he was considering however, he ruled that a helmet would not have made a difference, as the impact force was more than a cycle helmet could have been expected to withstand. The courts have reached the same conclusion in every similar case which they have considered. Paul Kitson, the partner at solicitors Russell Jones and Walker who runs CTC’s legal service, has offered the opinion that the case will make little if any difference in practice, a view echoed by barrister Mark Porter QC in an article in New Law Journal on March 9th this year. See CTC’s webpage on the Smith v Finch case, and CTC’s stance on cycle helmets.
· The Judge’s remarks come less than a fortnight after New Scientist magazine reported on a study by Piet de Jong of Macquarie University which assesses the costs and benefits of helmet laws. Using a new mathematical model, de Jong shows that the health costs of helmet laws – due to their deterrent effect on cycle use and the associated loss of physical activity – are almost bound to far outweigh any possible reductions in head injury costs thanks to helmet-wearing.
· CTC’s new ‘Safety in Numbers’ campaign was launched in Parliament last week by CTC President and broadcaster Jon Snow – see video. MPs from all 3 main parties attended the launch. After a presentation from Chris Watts of the Department for Transport outlining the Government’s draft Road Safety Strategy, CTC’s Roger Geffen unveiled new CTC research showing that cycling gets safer the more cyclists there are and called on the Government to aim for more as well as safer cycling.
· CTC is urging all cyclists to contact their MPs asking them to sign an Early Day Motion (EDM 1431) which has been tabled by Gwyn Prosser MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, in support of CTC’s “Safety in Numbers” campaign. You can do this automatically with just a couple of clicks
· Irresponsible driving is identified in CTC’s ‘Safety in Numbers’ campaign as one of the factors which deter people from cycling, and which therefore needs addressing in order to maximise the benefits of more and safer cycling. CTC is particularly concerned about the new offence of “causing death by careless driving”, introduced by the Road Safety Act 2006, which came into force on 18th August 2007. In law, the word “careless” is supposed to mean driving which falls below the expected standard but without being obviously “dangerous”. “Careless driving” is supposed to be about a failure to drive with due care – “momentary lapses of attention” are not supposed to be any part of the term’s legal definition. CTC will launch a campaign later this year to strengthen road traffic law and its enforcement, thereby increasing awareness of the responsibility which all road users have for one another’s safety.