shouldbeinbed
Rollin' along
- Location
- Manchester way
I apologise in advance for the pointless thread that will probably ensue but I felt the need to get this off my chest.
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?page=3&news_id=39245
I try not to get too wound up at these things but the way this has been reported here has hit the annoy button.
It reads like an Cracknell advert for helmet compulsion, makes no mention of the EN standards that this collision sounds to be way outside of, implies that the massive trauma would have been prevented by the helmet: maybe so or mitigated in some way, but by the serious level of injury reported unlikely it would have offered enough cushioning to afford him any sort of prior state of good health and it's pure speculation anyhow without anything in the way of comparative testing.
This juxtaposition of thought reported without a hint of irony just makes me want to laugh or cry
Carmel McLoughlin ...... She said: 'I remember Mr Mason standing out because it's unusual to see a cyclist who doesn't have a hi-vis jacket or a helmet.'
--------
Pedestrian Neil Trevithick had been trying to overtake the crowds by walking in the bus lane on the opposite side of Regent Street, and was one of the first to reach Mr Mason.
if the same car had hit and killed Neil while he was jaywalking in the Bus lane would there have been the same huge focus on a helmet?
I fail to understand why intelligent professional people manage to live in the fantasy world where people walking and killed by cars: oh dear, how sad, they couldn't be expected to do any more to protect themselves.
but put the person on a bicycle and run them down and there's a sudden expectation that proximity to a bike frame would imbue a chunk of polystyrene with some sort of exponential power to protect.
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?page=3&news_id=39245
I try not to get too wound up at these things but the way this has been reported here has hit the annoy button.
It reads like an Cracknell advert for helmet compulsion, makes no mention of the EN standards that this collision sounds to be way outside of, implies that the massive trauma would have been prevented by the helmet: maybe so or mitigated in some way, but by the serious level of injury reported unlikely it would have offered enough cushioning to afford him any sort of prior state of good health and it's pure speculation anyhow without anything in the way of comparative testing.
This juxtaposition of thought reported without a hint of irony just makes me want to laugh or cry
Carmel McLoughlin ...... She said: 'I remember Mr Mason standing out because it's unusual to see a cyclist who doesn't have a hi-vis jacket or a helmet.'
--------
Pedestrian Neil Trevithick had been trying to overtake the crowds by walking in the bus lane on the opposite side of Regent Street, and was one of the first to reach Mr Mason.
if the same car had hit and killed Neil while he was jaywalking in the Bus lane would there have been the same huge focus on a helmet?
I fail to understand why intelligent professional people manage to live in the fantasy world where people walking and killed by cars: oh dear, how sad, they couldn't be expected to do any more to protect themselves.
but put the person on a bicycle and run them down and there's a sudden expectation that proximity to a bike frame would imbue a chunk of polystyrene with some sort of exponential power to protect.
