Crazy Biker Chick wrote:
Ah but it doesn't even appear that they need a helmet law to claim
this. In a case of a cyclist vs. the city of Toronto where the cyclist
was doored, the judge found the cyclist 25% at fault for not wearing a
helmet, although no helmet law yet exists for adults.

Well, when you ask a judge to impose artificial legislation, that's what
you get.
"Regardless, Deputy Judge Morris Winer evidently disagreed, although he
placed most of the blame on the driver (50 per cent), with the rest
divided between the city (25 per cent) and Ms. Evans (25 per cent) for
not wearing a helmet."

I might feel a little more in favor of the judge if he'd found the
cyclist responsible for some action, like riding in the door zone,
but the city? If the street was too dangerous to ride on, WTF was
the cyclist riding on it? If it wasn't too dangerous to ride on,
WTF did she sue the city?

Mitch.