New helmet law in Jersey

[Poacher]

Do try and keep up

I'm keeping up quite well, thank you.
Since you seem to rather hard of understanding, I'll repeat my request:
Please quote the post and explain where and how TMN argued that a point of view should be outlawed.

A simple enough request, I think. Can you respond with the details, and without unwarranted sarcasm?

 

[Origamist]

Probably because whilst it saved his life he was still brain damaged......it's not exactly a marketing success I would suggest !!!!!

Or you could look at it another way: as I understand it, Cracknell was hit by the wing mirror of a large truck. If he was not wearing a helmet, the wing mirror could have missed him completely and he would still be alive, but without the brain damage.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Or you could look at it another way: as I understand it, Cracknell was hit by the wing mirror of a large truck. If he was not wearing a helmet, the wing mirror could have missed him completely and he would still be alive, but without the brain damage.

Or if the truck driver had been looking....

 

[Dan B]

Or if the truck driver had been looking....

Now you're just being silly

 

[Big Nick]

Or you could look at it another way: as I understand it, Cracknell was hit by the wing mirror of a large truck. If he was not wearing a helmet, the wing mirror could have missed him completely and he would still be alive, but without the brain damage.

I think it hit him in the back of the head

 

[Big Nick]

The other thing to question about it is the claim by the doctor, that without it he would have died. If this had been expressed in terms of probability, might have been more likely to, etc. I would have more respect for it. As it stands though it is just another wild claim based on what exactly?

Professional opinion?

Perhaps weighing up the damage to the helmet had that force been directly to the skull?

 

[Dan B]

Shoulders on top of your head? Join the circus

Shoulders in the usual places either side of my neck where they usually serve quite nicely to keep the head off the ground if I should fall off (or be knocked off) sideways. Seriously, how often have you (or anyone you know) come off your bike and hit the top of your head rather than the side or back?

 

[Big Nick]

I'm keeping up quite well, thank you.
Since you seem to rather hard of understanding, I'll repeat my request:
Please quote the post and explain where and how TMN argued that a point of view should be outlawed.

A simple enough request, I think. Can you respond with the details, and without unwarranted sarcasm?

The post re 'you've made your point now go away' on page one.

Effectively if you don't agree with me then I don't want to know/I don't want your participation or viewpoint/you're banned or however you want to put it

Like I said, try and keep up (that's warranted sarcasm in my book btw)

 

[Big Nick]

So pretty much guesswork being given an elevated status by virtue of the person's position.

Yes, professional opinion however I would say given more on the basis of experience of head injuries and their causation factors rather than just guessing and his elevated employment position

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

If Andrew Green, Minister of Housing for Jersey is also chairman of Headway, is this not a breach of charity commission rules? A politician using his own charity to gain legislative power. That sounds clearly political.

 

[Origamist]

I think it hit him in the back of the head

The back of the helmet seems more probable given that he was wearing one at the time and it split. However, the increased surface area at the rear made the impact more and not less likely.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

One can only admire the faith.

Or lament it.

GC

 

[up hill struggle]

If he was not wearing a helmet, the wing mirror could have missed him completely and he would still be alive, but without the brain damage.

or could have hit him anyway & spread his brain all over the road

Or if the truck driver had been looking....

if every driver on the road did everything there suppose to there would be no need to discuss any safety issues on the road, unfortunately not all road user do what is needed to keep everyone else safe.

I think it hit him in the back of the head

your correct, the point of impact was to the back of the helmet meaning that it would have him on the back of the head had he not been wearing the helmet & when shown on the television looked like it had been hit by a sledgehammer.

given the damage to the helmet caused by the impact i don't believe its unreasonable to assume the rider would have been killed or at the very least suffered a hell of a lot more damage to his brain, meaning the helmet did what it was supposed to do & prevented a more serious injury or possible death.

Whether he wears one everytime he rides a bike or gets paid by the helmet manufacturer to endorse this brand or any brand of helmet isn't the issue. The fact is that on this occasion he was wearing a helmet & it did what it was supposed to do & probably saved his life.

if a law is passed making it a legal requirement for a child to wear a cycle helmet while riding there bike & as a result of that law even one child survives an accident that otherwise may have killed them or left them disabled then its worth forcing them wear a helmet, unless of course those who are opposed to the law also believe that a childs life is not worth saving?

 

[Big Nick]

One can only admire the faith.

Faith in a neurosurgeon? not just faith Adrian, awe is more appropriate in my situation after seeing the amazing treatment my wife had when she underwent brain surgery in 2010

 

[Big Nick]

@Big Nick, please don't misrepresent me. I asked you to go away if all you were going to do was assert that you wanted compulsion for us all and then moan about how this thread would go the way of all the others. You then went on to make sure that was exactly what happened.

No misrepresentation took place