oh for crying out loud

Status
Not open for further replies.

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.
 

deptfordmarmoset

Full time tea drinker
Location
Armonmy Way
It won't make anything make any more sense but there was a post up yesterday with a link to the lawyer's blog here - http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/michael-mason-inquest.170526/
 
OP
shouldbeinbed

shouldbeinbed

Rollin' along
Location
Manchester way
cheers, the cyclist down forum is on my ignore list as I'd get too hot under the collar with some of the stories in there. I noticed MP's name in the court news article i linked and wondered if he'd be able to comment on it having been professionally involved.
 

steveindenmark

Legendary Member
I dont know why it concentrates on the helmet issue as it provides no evidence to say a helmet would have saved him anyway. I would be more interested in knowing why a motorists who was looking ahead and was eye tested at the scene, could not see the cyclist she killed. It was interesting to see that one witnesses noticed the cyclist because he was NOT wearing a vis vest.
 
OP
shouldbeinbed

shouldbeinbed

Rollin' along
Location
Manchester way
I dont know why it concentrates on the helmet issue as it provides no evidence to say a helmet would have saved him anyway. I would be more interested in knowing why a motorists who was looking ahead and was eye tested at the scene, could not see the cyclist she killed. It was interesting to see that one witnesses noticed the cyclist because he was NOT wearing a vis vest.
Yes.

MP's blog on it says that the Coronor stopped short of apportioning the helmet as a definite factor.

Quote from the blog post: The Coroner returned a finding of accidental death and declined an invitation to consider a Prevention of Future Death Report relating to a default 20 mph speed limit. He commented that Mr Mason had not been wearing hi-viz or a helmet but did not go so far as to suggest that either would have made any difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom