The trouble is a helmet (& hi-vis jackets) are a clear fact. They were/were not there and they could have mitigated somebody else's incompetence in a specific incident.
The fact that someone who cares about their own safety, on all the available evidence can reasonably come to the conclusion that their overall risk is not significantly decreased by not wearing either. Thus they mitigating the risk elsewhere and it is unfair/unjust to penalise them because the specifics of a particular collision are aggravated by the helmet/hi-vis presence/absence. Hence ignoring all the instances were it had no effect or did prevent/mitigate damage.
The problem is that the prosecutors/defenders are going to have a hard time finding independent expert witnesses to back this up. In their absence the courts/judges use common sense. Problem with common sense is whiler it is often right it is in this case unsound.
The fact that someone who cares about their own safety, on all the available evidence can reasonably come to the conclusion that their overall risk is not significantly decreased by not wearing either. Thus they mitigating the risk elsewhere and it is unfair/unjust to penalise them because the specifics of a particular collision are aggravated by the helmet/hi-vis presence/absence. Hence ignoring all the instances were it had no effect or did prevent/mitigate damage.
The problem is that the prosecutors/defenders are going to have a hard time finding independent expert witnesses to back this up. In their absence the courts/judges use common sense. Problem with common sense is whiler it is often right it is in this case unsound.
