wrote:

JFJones wrote:

wiwth a helmet law in place, the motorist
can claim contributory neglegence (*)
on the part of the bicyclist, and
thus reduce the amount the motorist
has to pay. That is the real reason
for this law. It has nothing to do
with concern for bicyclists' safety.

In the U.S., all the helmet laws I have seen have explicit exclusions for
using helmet use or non-use as a contributing factor (good or bad) to an
accident.

Please don't interpret this to mean I support MHL's, just that I rather they
be defeated on their merits, not made-up "facts".

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address