Child brain injury compensation reduction

Reduced child brain injury compensation

A High Court judge ruled this month that cyclists who fail to wear one should receive up to 15 per cent less compensation for injuries resulting from accidents in which the helmet could have made a difference - despite the fact the severely injured cyclist in question was not to blame for the crash with a speeding motorcyclist.

And there was then the tragic death of the British actress Natasha Richardson, at the age of 45, from a seemingly innocuous fall on the ski slopes of Canada, which could probably have been prevented if she had accepted a £6 crash helmet from an instructor.

Ann Weitzel, branch manager at the Cambridge branch of the brain injuries charity Headway, says the death of the Hollywood star underlined the importance of helmets in protecting against injury.

"It was a seemingly minor accident, but it ended in the worst possible way," she says.

"It doesn't take much to cause a brain injury, which can have a truly devastating effect.

"This is why we support the wearing of cycle helmets. We deal with a number of brain injuries from cycle accidents and they can affect every aspect of people's lives.

"I'm always reminded of the example of Tom Howes, a Cambridge engineering graduate, who was knocked off his bike. He suffered brain injuries but he has battled back and is now one of our patrons. However, he says he would certainly have been killed without a helmet."

Tom, who lay undiscovered in a ditch for eight hours after the accident in 1997, recently told the Cambridge News how he'd suffered memory, speech and vision problems for years as a result of the bruising to his brain.

He said doctors at Addenbrooke's had told him he would probably have "died on impact" if he hadn't been wearing his helmet.

A 2007 survey by Cambridgeshire County Council, taken at specific points around Cambridge, showed that 38 per cent of over-16s and 40 per cent of under-16s were wearing helmets when cycling - figures which are considered "favourably high" compared to national statistics.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) advocates the use of a helmet and says that, if worn correctly, a helmet "is effective in reducing the risk of receiving major head or brain injuries in an accident".

However, at the same time it also points out that helmets do not guarantee protection. Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at RoSPA, says: "We recommend cyclists wear helmets because helmets take the force of the impact rather than the head or the brain."

But Martin Lucas-Smith, coordinator for Cambridge Cycling Campaign, whose latest publication features only two cyclists in helmets, while 40 are pictured without one, argues there is evidence to show helmetless cyclists are actually safer than their helmet-wearing counterparts.

"There is research which suggests there is a 'risk compensation' factor when wearing a helmet," he says. "In the same way that drivers drove faster when airbags were installed in cars, people feel protected by helmets and take greater risks than they otherwise would.

"There was also evidence saying motorists drove closer to those with helmets, and research which disputes how effective helmets are in the most serious crashes.

"Focusing on helmets does not address the real causes of road danger - speeding cars and poor traffic design. For instance, virtually no-one wears a helmet in Holland, where everyone cycles, and their accident rate is much better than ours.

"We are not anti-helmet - about half of our committee wear one - but making them compulsory would put off a lot of people from cycling.

"That is why the British Medical Association (BMA) has consistently been against making cycle helmets compulsory for health reasons.

What you gain in safety, you lose as fewer people cycle and obesity rates increase."

However, in a parliamentary briefing paper prepared in January this year, the BMA stated clearly that it "urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children".

It added: "Best evidence supports the use of cycle helmets. They have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury and its severity should it occur. This does not apply to fatal accidents but in such instances the force of impact is considered to be so significant that most protection would fail. The consequences of traumatic brain injury are significant not only to the individual involved, but to their families and to society as a whole. BMA members, in particular accident and emergency staff, see at first hand the devastating impacts cycling injuries can have.

"Cycle helmets are now compulsory in some states in Australia, in New Zealand, in Spain, Iceland, the Czech Republic, and Canada and in 20 states in the USA. Studies in a number of these countries have shown that high usage rates of helmets as a result of legislation is associated with a reduction in cycle-related deaths and head injuries. Evidence supporting the wearing of cycle helmets continues to mount."

That's a view endorsed by Peter Hutchinson, honorary consultant neurosurgeon at Addenbrooke's Hospital, who regularly operates on cyclists with brain injuries.

"Helmets act as a cushion and protect the skull," he says.

"Common sense would dictate therefore that it reduces the risk to the underlying brain.

"If you're not wearing a helmet, there's an increased chance of fracturing your skull and causing a brain injury. If you are wearing one, then the helmet will fracture and protect the skull. It's better to have a fractured helmet than a fractured skull."