Bicycler wrote:Re: the helmet issue and its (ir)relevance. I have no idea what is acceptable in criminal trials. Could someone shed some light? Would the defence be allowed to argue that someone is not guilty of causing death by ..... driving because the deceased ought to have worn something which would have prevented the collision from resulting in his death? If that would be permissible then, given that everyone knows how helmets save lives, it is not as irrelevant to a successful prosecution as we might want it to be.
I think it's quite easy to show that a helmet is irrelevant as a cause in the accident. It might not be considered irrelevant in whether the victim died. However, the few times that insurance companies have tried to reduce compensation on this basis, in UK courts, it has not, that I am aware, been allowed. That's not to say it won't ever be, but thus far it has not been.