Have you ever observed how media reports indicate the prominence of whether the cyclist in question was wearing a helmet?
I couldn’t resist quoting this short extract from Cycling Weekly this week.
Small section in Dr Hutch’s column
Great Cycling Inventions 2012 – The Bicycle Helmet as specified by the media.
“There are two sorts of bike helmet. There is the bastard offspring of a washing up bowl and the packaging your new TV came in, as illustrated in several photographs in this magazine. And there is the helmet that the UK’s general media talk about whenever they feel a sudden urge to discuss cycling safety.
The Media Helmet protects from all impacts. It is the solution to every known road safety problem, in that it provides a forcefield around the rider than prevents anything bad from ever happening to them.
In contrast, failure to wear your Media Helmet means that a huge sign is projected above your head at all times, saying. “It is fine to drive over this bloke. He’s not wearing a helmet, which means he rides through red lights and doesn’t pay road tax. No one will mind, and when the media come to report it , even if you hit him head on at 40mph in an articulated lorry while sending a text message, they’ll diligently note that he deserved it because he wasn’t wearing a helmet.’
If it somehow incredibly, comes to pass that you are knocked off your bike while wearing a Media Helmet and survive the experience, the press will diligently report that your helmet saved you from certain death, and that you should be sufficiently grateful about your miraculous preservation to not really mind being hit too much.”
Hat Tips
It’s true that the media always focuses on the use of the helmet regardless of who caused the accident. Reminds me of a recent story from America where a motorcyclist on the side of the road was hit by a car and badly injured. He was stopped, with his helmet off and yet the media still mentioned that he wasn’t wearing one.