08-14-2017, 11:35 AM
"While the (lack of) helmet was not the cause of the accident, it could of mitigated damages. No different than I get rear ended, but was seriously injured as I didn't have my seat belt on and was ejected from the vehicle."
One difference is that wearing a seat belt is the law, and wearing a helmet is not. There are a lot of other differences.
Even when we're talking very specifically about helmets and bicycling, the common mindset is that helmets somehow prevent collisions between motorists and cyclists. Even you just wrote "Normally, the helmet/door lock/etc. advice is given as a generality for others to learn from, and hopefully to prevent a future incident."
Markster understood my point perfectly and expounded it well in post 1848. Police can give advice, anyone can give advice, but when police are advising on different actions in the same way, people naturally come to view them as equally important, which is not the case.
One difference is that wearing a seat belt is the law, and wearing a helmet is not. There are a lot of other differences.
Even when we're talking very specifically about helmets and bicycling, the common mindset is that helmets somehow prevent collisions between motorists and cyclists. Even you just wrote "Normally, the helmet/door lock/etc. advice is given as a generality for others to learn from, and hopefully to prevent a future incident."
Markster understood my point perfectly and expounded it well in post 1848. Police can give advice, anyone can give advice, but when police are advising on different actions in the same way, people naturally come to view them as equally important, which is not the case.