If only they'd worn a helmet...

Lawyers defending injured cyclists from a claim for contributory negligence will have a much easier task.

You think?

If all the reports are from news already to there I don't see any issue with relatives coming across this thread.

You really can't see the issue of an news article on a traumatic event, being used as an agenda for something unrelated, having any impact for those concerned?

I share the view that it is not clear why this thread exits although I am sympathetic to the view that de-bunking the myth of helmet effectiveness needs constant effort. There have been similar lists elsewhere as well as the more macabre "A helmet didn't save my life" list.
It can at times be useful to examine the circumstances leading to traumatic brain injuries. The main lesson is that they are very complex situations. An apparently trivial fall can lead to serious injury while a high impact crash doesn't always result in serious injury - and whether or not a helmet is worn is not the determining factor.
When lawyers supporting an injury claim are faced with a possible reduction in payout due to non helmet use it would be great if we could offer simple evidene to help them. Sometimes lawyers just give in and accept a reduction without arguing - that shouldn't happen but it does.
Grant Incles has recently set out the complexity of preparing the arguments against a payout reduction https://www.leighday.co.uk/Blog/November-2017/The-efficacy-of-helmets-a-legal-perspective [it's a long read].
For me the problem with this thread is that it will be ignored by the people who need it most - those that believe that wearing a helmet makes them 'safe' and those that keep telling us that a helmet saved their life [when of course it didn't].