How Helmet Use Affects Bicycle Accident Injury Claims in California

How Helmet Use Affects Bicycle Accident Injury Claims in California

• September 26, 2025
• Categories: Personal Injury

Bicycle accidents often result in severe injuries for cyclists and pedestrians, and the question of whether a rider was wearing a helmet becomes immensely significant in legal claims. In California, understanding how helmet use impacts collision claims is crucial for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists who are either seeking compensation after an accident or defending themselves when being sued. Injuries from bike accidents can include broken bones, concussions and traumatic brain injuries, and road rash, all of which require immediate medical attention. This can cost thousands of dollars for injured victims.

California Bicycle Helmet Laws

California has specific laws regarding bicycle helmet use, but these requirements vary by age. It’s important to adhere to these laws, and police reports after accidents should make note of whether a cyclist was wearing a helmet.

Age-Based Requirements

For cyclists under 18 years of age, California law mandates helmet use. According to California Vehicle Code Section 21212, minors must wear properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmets that meet safety standards while riding on public roads, bike paths, or trails. Violations can result in fines up to $25.

For adult cyclists (18 years and older), there is no statewide legal requirement to wear a helmet while riding. This distinction is important because the law was changed in 2015 to remove the helmet requirement for adult bicyclists. However, some California cities and municipalities have local ordinances requiring adults to wear helmets, creating a patchwork of helmet mandates throughout the state. Cyclists should check local regulations before riding.

California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Laws and Helmet Use

Despite the lack of a statewide legal requirement for adults to wear helmets, not wearing one can still affect an accident claim through California’s “pure comparative negligence” doctrine. The pure comparative fault system means:

1. Each party involved in an accident can be assigned a percentage of fault.
2. A cyclist’s compensation may be reduced by their percentage of fault.
3. Recovery is still possible even if the cyclist is partially at fault, as long as they are not 100% at fault.

How This Applies to Helmet Use

If a cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet during an accident, it doesn’t automatically bar them from receiving compensation. However, it might reduce the amount they can recover:

• If a court determines that not wearing a helmet contributed to the severity of injuries, the cyclist’s compensation can be reduced proportionally.
• For example, if a cyclist is awarded $200,000 in damages but is found to be 30% at fault for not wearing a helmet, they would receive $140,000 ($200,000 minus $60,000/30%).

Impact Based on Type of Injury

The effect on a legal claim of not wearing a bike helmet in California can be different depending on the type of injury sustained:

• When a cyclist suffers head or brain injuries in an accident, not wearing a helmet is more likely to affect their claim:
  • The defense may argue that a helmet would have prevented or reduced the severity of a concussion, TBI, or brain swelling.
  • This argument can be compelling, given there is research showing helmets reduce the risk of head injury by approximately 63%-88%.
  • Expert testimony may be needed to determine how much a helmet would have helped in the specific crash situation.

For injuries unrelated to the head or neck (such as broken limbs, internal injuries, or back injuries), the lack of a helmet generally shouldn’t impact the claim:

• Whether or not a cyclist wore a helmet should have no bearing on other injuries such as fractures or back and spinal injuries suffered in bicycle collisions.
• If you suffer a broken ankle, for example, the fact that you weren’t wearing a helmet would be irrelevant to your compensation.

If you’re a bike rider or a pedestrian who has been injured in a bicycle collision, you may be entitled to financial compensation. Consulting a skilled bicycle accident attorney is the best way to make sure your legal rights are protected.

Why Choose Neale & Fhima?

At Neale & Fhima, our personal injury attorneys have more than 40 years of combined experience in handling bicycle accident cases in California. We know the complexities of fault and liability under California law, and we use this knowledge to pursue the highest compensation possible for our clients. Attorney Aaron Fhima is among the best and the brightest when it comes to negotiating aggressively with insurance companies and winning cases. We’re not afraid to take a case to trial, if necessary. Our legal team is transparent and will explain to you the legal process, potential challenges, and estimated value of your claim before you make a decision about hiring us. We have many satisfied clients who refer friends and family to our law firm.

Statistics on Bicycle Crashes and Helmet Use

Each year, approximately 900 people die in the U.S. from injuries sustained in bicycle crashes, and more than 500,000 bike victims are treated in emergency departments. Head injury is by far the greatest risk posed to bicyclists, accounting for 33% of emergency room visits, 66% of hospital admissions, and 75% of deaths. Facial injuries to cyclists occur at a rate nearly identical to that of head injuries, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Library of Medicine.

Research consistently shows that helmets significantly reduce injury risk. Understanding the actual protection helmets provide is relevant to determining their impact on legal claims:

• Helmets reduce the risk of head injury in bicycle crashes by approximately 63%-88%.
• They provide equal protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from other causes (68%).
• Injuries to upper and mid-facial areas are reduced by about 65% with helmet use.
• Around 54% of bicycle accident fatalities involved riders not wearing helmets.

These statistics can influence how courts and insurance companies view the “reasonableness” of not wearing a helmet, even when a cyclist is not legally required to do so.

Insurance Company Tactics to Defeat Bicycle Accident Claims

Insurance companies often attempt to use a cyclist’s lack of helmet as leverage during claims. There are several common arguments insurance representatives will use to intimidate accident victims and try to force them to settle for low-ball offers. When a cyclist without a helmet files a claim, insurance companies typically:

• Deny the claim or offer less compensation up front because the cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet
• Argue pure contributory negligence, insisting that not wearing a helmet contributed significantly to the severity of the injuries
• Claim that, while not legally required, wearing a helmet would have been “reasonable” under the circumstances.

Defense attorneys often aggressively employ this “helmet defense” in bicycle accident cases. They will argue that the cyclist’s injuries would have been far less severe had they been wearing a head protection, and, therefore, the cyclist should bear some responsibility for the extent of their injuries. The success of the helmet defense depends on:

• The specific circumstances of the crash
• The nature of the injuries sustained
• Expert testimony regarding whether a helmet would have actually lessened the impact of the injuries.

Countering These Arguments

Cyclists and their attorneys can counter these arguments by:

• Emphasizing that adults aren’t legally required to wear helmets under California law
• Pointing out that the lack of a helmet is relevant only for head injuries, not other types of injuries
• Demonstrating that the other party’s negligence was the primary cause of the accident.

For any cyclist involved in a bike accident in California, working with an experienced bicycle accident attorney is crucial to navigate these complex issues and ensure fair compensation.  The attorney can help demonstrate that the other party’s negligence was the primary cause of the accident and that any reduction for not wearing a helmet should be minimal, particularly for injuries other than those to the head.

Neale & Fhima Will Fight for the Compensation You Deserve in Bike Collision Claims

At Neale & Fhima, our personal injury lawyers will enforce your rights and protect you from the bullying tactics of insurance companies when you’ve been injured in a bicycle accident. Our law firm has recovered more than $50 million in rightful compensation for accident victims throughout Southern California. Our lawyers are tough and unflinching when negotiating with insurance companies. We are committed to getting the maximum payout possible in your case. Our caring legal team will support you with concern and empathy throughout the legal process, and we’ll keep you informed every step of the way.  For a free consultation about your bike accident case, call us at 888-407-2955.