Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
Here's the issue- let's say I'm a motorist who is at fault and hits a cyclist. If the cyclist is wearing a helmet the chances of serious injury go down significantly. That can have ramifications towards insurance; and even the "how bad I feel about the incident" factor.
I was cycling with a buddy when he got hit by a vehicle. He landed helmet first and actually broke his collar bone. The helmet was trashed; but he was OK once his collar bone healed.
The driver/ his insurance had to pay a few thousand in damages; instead of a 6 or 7 figure lawsuit.
|
Touché! Interesting Angle I've never seen presented. Perhaps change the way insurance works in these circumstances?
To me it seems similar to a pedestrian getting hit by a car wearing a helmet vs. one that isn't. Or better yet, how about the stats showing that pedestrians are more likely to get hit by a vehicle in countries that give the pedestrian the right of way? Does the invisible hand of the law do a better job protecting citizens or does common sense?
The best way to reduce the amount of injuries stemming from motor-vehicle/pedestrian or motor-vehicle/cyclist collisions is to reduce the amount of vehicles on the road.
Then again, I walk to work so I'm just playing devil's advocate.
