Non-food, non-entertaining content follows:
I got into a conversation on the Twitters about cyclists (the motor and the bike kind) and helmets. To be more precise, I was trying to make a point about the way we think about cyclist accidents/deaths when I tweeted:
"Cyclists should wear helmets, but asking if cyclists killed by autos were wearing helmets not so diff from asking what rape victim wore."
There were, understandably, various objections to this, and it seems as if it might make sense to take more than 140 characters to spell out my concern.
First and foremost - every cyclist should wear a helmet. All the time. I wore one as a bike messenger. I wear one now. I had an accident where a helmet made a big difference. With a day job that involves what goes inside the helmet, I yell at grasshoppers who don't wear them. I have bought helmets for students w/ money out of my own pocket. Helmets are good, and you should wear them whenever you are on a vehicle with two wheels.
But. In the context of the way many news outlets cover cyclist fatalities, the helmet/no helmet question works as a sublye way of absolving motorists of responsbility. There are many accidents where a helmet will do you a wold of good, but unfortunately, there are also accidents where a helmet won't help. A cyclist was t-boned by an SUV not far from our 02134 stomping grounds, and much was made of the lack of helmet. Not much mention of what helmet would do to prevent the massive internal injuries that result from being struck full on by an SUV. In that context -- the idea of blaming the victim -- I continue to think that playing up the helmet/no helmet question is acting what a victim did to deserve to be the victim of a crime. (Are there careless cyclists, too? Yes.)
To conclude:
1) Wear a fucking helmet.
2) If you choose to pilot a lump of steel and glass capable of moving more than a hundred feet in a second, watch what you're doing. There are too many ghost bikes as it is.
The moped death from auto argument is very similar, yet the helmet part is neglected. It automatically becomes the moped driver's fault for driving on roads. Which are, you know, obviously made only for cars. Those drunks shouldn't be on the road.
Posted by: daniel | Friday, 16 September 2011 at 11:22 AM
Glad you wrote this.
Posted by: Ellen Malloy | Friday, 16 September 2011 at 12:30 PM
I certainly agree that the helmet use or lack thereof is monumentally less important than underlying fault for the accident and should receive a commensurate amount of media coverage.
My sense is that the helmet status of the victim should only be mentioned when it is relevant to explain the extent of injuries, which is the only justifiable use of the information. If it's clear that the helmet wouldn't have helped, then it should not be mentioned. Even if it was relevant, I'd place it in a middle 'graph, certainly not up top.
On a bit of a tangent here, but at least in Georgia, if you're involved in an auto accident, and there's a lawsuit, the defendant is not allowed to tell the jury that the plaintiff wasn't wearing a seatbelt. I don't think there's a similar prohibition of mentioning that a cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, but I could be wrong.
Posted by: CPMontgomery | Friday, 16 September 2011 at 02:10 PM
thanks for sharing such informative and fantastic post..
Posted by: ugg online | Sunday, 18 September 2011 at 10:19 PM
There is obviously a lot for me to discover outside of my books. Thanks for the great read :)
Posted by: cheap uggs | Monday, 19 September 2011 at 08:54 AM
. If it's clear that the helmet wouldn't have helped, then it should not be mentioned. Even if it was relevant, I'd place it in a middle 'graph, certainly not up top.thanks for the good information..keep sending like this good information..
Posted by: web hoisting | Tuesday, 20 September 2011 at 06:34 AM
Good stuff as per usual, thanks. I do hope this kind of thing gets more exposure.
Posted by: supra shoes | Tuesday, 27 September 2011 at 06:42 AM
Bill fans should especially cherish every game the team victory. The team's most famous players when the number of Simpson, he is scoring the AFC in 1975 and 1973 the annual MVP, while the other players that Thurman - Thomas, in 1991, the year he was MVP and best offensive player. Although Bill's defense rotten miserable, but the team of Bruce - Smith and bais - Bob was the best defensive player three times the annual election, in which Bruce - Smith in 1990 and was elected twice in 1996.
Posted by: nfl custom jerseys | Thursday, 29 September 2011 at 10:58 PM
If you wish to be the best man, you must suffer the bitterest of the bitter.
Posted by: Gianmarco Lorenzi Shoes | Friday, 14 October 2011 at 05:01 AM
Really this website is proving amazing posts. I like this website because such a great opportunity for proving the nice posts. The point of view is very nice and the presentation wise. I am really like this information.
Posted by: miu miu handbags | Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 08:13 AM