Now this is NOT about re-opening the helmet debate, I just want to focus on this very particular story.
It's awful. A young kid hit by a car is killed. He dies of chest and abdominal injuries. At an inquest 53 weeks later his mother states that helmets should be compulsory for under-18s.
Now I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be. Again, this is not the thread to argue that. But calling for compulsory use on the basis of a death in which a helmet would have had no affect on the injuries.
The child's mother herself states, "Even though wearing a helmet would have made no difference to Maurice’s life I cannot understand why it is not illegal for children under 18 to ride a bicycle without a helmet and I know that this would have saved other children in other places."
What is also interesting is that the driver is a neighbour. He was driving a Jeep at between 30 and 40mph (his own statement) in a residential area. The kid came out of a driveway on the bike 'at speed' and there was 'nothing he could do'. On this (remember, after saying that all children should wear helmets even though it wouldn't have saved her son) she said, "We would like to make it clear that the other two families involved are our neighbours and our friends and we attribute no blame whatsoever to anybody and we hope our friendship will continue."
Admirable powers of forgiveness that we could all learn from really - although she then rails against the inquest having taken 53 weeks.
posts
