A visitor to Chicago might want to take in a bike ride, especially on a nice day along Lake Michigan. That individual might have second thoughts though because he or she didn’t bring a helmet. There’s nothing to worry about in the context of bicycle helmets in Chicago. That’s because neither the City of Chicago or the State of Illinois have bicycle helmet laws. In fact, only a small minority of municipalities in the state have them. In Chicago, only bicycle messengers and delivery people are required to wear helmets, and they work mostly in the Loop area. Even commercial bicycle rental businesses like Divvy aren’t required to provide helmets to their customers.
What About Children on Bikes?
No, neither the State of Illinois nor the City of Chicago have enacted laws that might require children to wear bicycle helmets either. Again, some municipalities in Cook County and its surrounding collar counties have them. If you live or plan on traveling to one of those municipalities, you’ll want to know whether helmets are required for children under a certain age.
What About Comparative Negligence in the Event of an Accident?
If a bicyclist is injured in an accident, Illinois recognizes that he or she might be partially at fault for it. That’s when the law of comparative negligence is triggered. Illinois is what’s known as a modified comparative negligence state. In such a state, a person who is determined to be more than 50% at fault is barred from receiving any compensation at all for the injuries that they claim, but if he or she is determined to be 50% or less at fault, compensation can be recovered. The percentage of fault that’s determined to be attributable to the bicyclist is deducted from any verdict amount. For example, if a rider is determined to be 30% at fault for a crash, a verdict of $100,000 would be reduced to $70,000.
Comparative Fault and Head Injuries
The weight of authority on the benefits of bicycle helmets in the prevention of head injuries in an accident is strong. In a bicycle accident case involving a fractured arm, hip or leg and no head injuries, any defense arguments about not using a helmet aren’t going to be permitted. They’re irrelevant and immaterial. What can come to issue though is not wearing a helmet and suffering a head injury that might have been prevented or the severity of which might have been deduced had the rider been wearing a helmet. Whether that failure to wear a helmet and suffering a head injury is comparative negligence is a question for a jury to decide, and any comparative negligence that might be attributable to a rider for not wearing a helmet might have an influence on a verdict amount.