Originally Posted by
joejack951
Can you cite any case where this occurred? Sounds like more fear mongering to me. If anything, if it ever did occur it is a good reason to reconsider the constant promotion of helmets. For most cyclists in most places, a helmet is not a legal requirement.
If even a case can be found where "the drivers lawyer [tried] to make it all [the helmetless cyclist's] fault or at least partly fault if not wearing a helmet" as suggested by rydabent, did any judge or jury (other than in rydabent's fantasy) accept such an argument seriously when determining liability? Especially in any location where helmet wear is not required by law?