Origamist
Legendary Member
or could have hit him anyway & spread his brain all over the road
Nice. But you do realize the brain damage he suffered was to the frontal portion of his brain? This is a consequence of the brain hitting the skull.
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.
We're lucky to have an collision investigator in our midst. I also saw Cracknell's helmet on TV and IIRC, the damage was predominantly to one side - but hey, now I'm sounding like you! What's more, you do realize the helmet cracked, don't you? You might not like the notion that a helmet could have contributed to Cracknell's collision and brain injury, but you need to consider disbenefits as well as benefits.
Last edited: