Boris Bajic
Guest
I watched a documentary film about Cillian Murphy, an Irish bit-part actor supplementing his income by working as a bicycle courier in London.
In it he is hospitalised with what appears to be a cycling-related head injury. No reference is made to the nature of the injury during the documentary, although scars can clearly be seen on his head, as can evidence of shaving around a head wound.
It seems pretty clear to me that the injuries he suffered could have been avoided had be been wearing a helmet.
Coincidentally, many of the other people featured in the documentary were also helmetless. They died violent and horrific deaths, which cannot be coincidental.
Why do some so-called experts continue to ignore the evidence?
Watch the Murphy documentary and tell me you still think cycle helmets are a bad idea.
Gripping stuff, although only South London was as I remember it. The other parts seem to have fallen into some disrepair.
In it he is hospitalised with what appears to be a cycling-related head injury. No reference is made to the nature of the injury during the documentary, although scars can clearly be seen on his head, as can evidence of shaving around a head wound.
It seems pretty clear to me that the injuries he suffered could have been avoided had be been wearing a helmet.
Coincidentally, many of the other people featured in the documentary were also helmetless. They died violent and horrific deaths, which cannot be coincidental.
Why do some so-called experts continue to ignore the evidence?
Watch the Murphy documentary and tell me you still think cycle helmets are a bad idea.
Gripping stuff, although only South London was as I remember it. The other parts seem to have fallen into some disrepair.
