They recognize as a “commuting accident” the case of a worker who was hit while riding 44 kilometers by bike to get to work.

It is a case in Spain Link. What do you think guys?

Translation with Chat GPT:

"The judge rules that the worker has the right to choose their means of transportation and cannot be forced to drive a car.

The Social Court No. 3 of Santander has upheld the claim of a worker who requested that the accident he suffered while cycling from his workplace to his home, a 44-kilometer journey, be considered a commuting accident.

In a ruling that is not yet final, as an appeal may be filed with the Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Cantabria, the judge asserts that the worker "has every right in the world to cycle to his workplace, even if the distance is significant."

The ruling explains that in spring and summer, the worker, a sports instructor, was accustomed to cycling to work on a racing bike, taking an hour and forty minutes to complete the journey. In May 2023, while returning home from the sports center where he worked, he was hit by a vehicle and suffered a fractured collarbone.

The judge confirmed that, based on both the location and the time of the accident, the instructor was indeed on his way home from work. "The timing fits," the judge notes, as the worker had covered 22 kilometers in forty-five minutes.

The next point addressed is the legal issue, which the judge describes as "very interesting." He explains that classifying an accident as in itínere requires several elements to be met, all of which are present in this case, including the so-called "modal element" or "suitability" factor.

In this regard, the judge questions whether cycling was an appropriate means of returning home, or whether it would have been more sensible to use a private vehicle or public transport. In contrast to the position of Social Security and the work insurance company, which argued that using a bicycle put the worker's physical safety at risk, the judge points out that there may have been no public transport available, that the worker might not have owned a car, or that he might have "rejected" using one "in favor of a not insignificant commitment to environmentalism."

Furthermore, the judge adds, "it could be that the worker wished to improve his health during the summer or spring months." "It is undoubtedly a significant distance, but the worker has every right in the world to cycle to work, even if that distance is substantial," the judge continues, adding that "forcing the worker to commute by vehicle could infringe upon his legitimate right to promote his health."

Finally, the ruling notes that the instructor "used a national or local highway, not an irregular or off-road path," and that it "was the normal, usual route." "It would be a completely different situation if the journey had taken place in the dead of night, on poorly passable roads, or in icy, incessant rain, wind, or similar conditions," the judge concludes."