However, even in the knowledge that TyT is trolling and will not make any reply...
This article again fails to show anything to really support TyT's real agenda on helmets.
A head injury was reported, but there is no mention of the severity of other injuries or whether they were a contributory factor. The "serious injury" could be the fractured leg if this is complex, that article does not at any point state that the head injury itself was "serious". A fractured skull can in fact be fairly minor in the overall clinical picture.There is also no mention of where these diagnoses arose - is it in fact accurate?
The article has also failed to justify in any way whether a helmet would have made any difference in a high energy impact like this.
TyT has again unwittingly achieved the opposite of his intentions and proved the point of the first post by showing how some people have an unswerving belief in the magic powers of a helmet despite evidence of the limitations.
Thank you for illustrating so precisely the issue of blind faith in helmets.
TyT's help in supporting the issues of reliance on helmets however does not stop there!
The article also states that witnesses:
''The man on the bike was going at quite a speed. He came off the pavement and was hit by the car.
So it would appear that (if one accepts this as "evidence") that the cyclist had failed to make adequate observations and had been at least partially at fault.
Thanks once again TyT for raising the question whether we should be preventing accidents (would this have occurred at all if the cyclist had been properly trained and riding in a safe manner) or accepting dangerous riding in the hope that a helmet will prevent an injury.
Anyway another question to add to the many that TyT is ignoring:
Prevention of the accident is surely more effective than trying to minimise the injures that result. Do you feel that training in this case and (presumably) preventing the accident would have been a better option?
:troll:
