Originally Posted by
Nachoman
Along those same lines, if some negligent driver creams you and causes severe head injury, you can bet that they're going to raise the defense of comparative negligence, if you're not wearing a helmet. In other words they will argue that the cyclist caused his own head injury by not wearing a helmet. The same argument is made all the time in auto accidents where injured victims weren't wearing their seat belts.
And cyclists could do a lot to stop falsely claiming that it's negligent to not wear a helmet. It would reduce the already absent validity of the contributory negligence claim.
Seat belts are legally mandatory, so you are actually breaking the traffic laws by not wearing one. Where helmets aren't (most states for adults), you're not breaking a law. Is it due care to others bank accounts that you wrap your head in Styrofoam now?
(And, I would say, seat belts are better demonstrated to be more effective than motorcycle helmets, much less bicycle helmets).