Yet more victim blaming & helmet effectiveness assumptions

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 3391
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Bramber, West Sussex

Yet more victim blaming & helmet effectiveness assumptions

Postby squeaker » 23 Oct 2016, 10:03am

"42"

kwackers
Posts: 11816
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Yet more victim blaming & helmet effectiveness assumptions

Postby kwackers » 23 Oct 2016, 10:21am


Excessive speed wasn't a issue - do you think he was exceeding the 12mph rating of a bicycle helmet?

Mattyfez
Posts: 349
Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 7:24pm

Re: Yet more victim blaming & helmet effectiveness assumptions

Postby Mattyfez » 24 Oct 2016, 6:14pm

kwackers wrote: do you think he was exceeding the 12mph rating of a bicycle helmet?


Witness - "She told the inquest she saw the schoolgirl being thrown over the car by the impact."

Quite possibly...

rualexander
Posts: 2264
Joined: 2 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Contact:

Re: Yet more victim blaming & helmet effectiveness assumptions

Postby rualexander » 26 Oct 2017, 9:32pm

Saw this in the TV listings for 24 Hours in A&E

Screenshot_20171026-211911-01.jpeg


So they wouldn't have bothered sending him for a CT scan if he had been wearing a helmet?

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 8044
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Yet more victim blaming & helmet effectiveness assumptions

Postby Cunobelin » 27 Oct 2017, 6:49am

I knew those helmets were good, but not that good!

The cyclist has spinal, abdominal and chest injuries, yet the reason for the CT is "not wearing a helmet"

I wonder just hw the helmet would have saved him from the other injuries

Then of course, there were the epileptic and the elderly man , both suffered exactly the type of head injury that a helmet could have prevented

Typical selection of helmet hypocrisy