And is so doing you missed the real point. Which is that the wearing or not of a helmet is only half of the equation. .
How are you still failing to understand what I'm saying to you here?
Really? Got any evidence to back up that claim? What speed did the accident happen at? How did the OP hit the ground?
I suggest you have a read of this before you make any further suggestions like that...
What sort of 'evidence' could I have to 'back up' a piece of speculation? Like I said, there's a possibility that a judge might find the helmet was 'in play' so to speak(and also the possibility that he might not), and therefore to discard any mention of a helmet as being worthy of mention as 'bollocks' is simply incorrect, as well as premature. I'm not saying it definitely played a part. I'm simply saying that neither of us have any evidence whatsoever, and you are the only one coming out with absolutes. Bearing that in mind it's ridiculous that you're so opposed to me stating my opinion on the matter.
And yet you came out with the assertions that you did. You may have read it - but it would appear from your assertions that you didn't understand it.
Could you elaborate? I don't see anything in there that refutes what I've said.