He is 58 years old and still hasn't figured out that he needs a helmet...
FWIW, I've definitely had my brain saved by a helmet, as a kid on a rural gravel road during an encounter with a fencepost, and again in a tumble from another skid on a city sidewalk...but I have also had a crash caused by a structural failure on a stem that sent me on an endo landing on my shoulder and back, sliding across the sidewalk to the road. If it weren't for the cars that stopped, it wouldn't've mattered if I was wearing a helmet or not.
Since the rider was actually struck by the car, it is pretty likely that the lack of a helmet didn't contribute much, if anything, to the lack of survival. That's not uncommon.
A helmet only really helps in survival when it's a "simple tumble" off the bike.
A full-on large-vehicle-collision is unlikely to care whether there is a flimsy foam thing on the head; the crushing mangling injuries to the rest of the body are much more likely to take the rider out.
Nothing wrong with wearing a helmet--it's great head protection in a large number of bicycle-only accidents.
But it isn't likely to make much of a difference when being run over by something dozens of times more massive than the rider, and shouldn't be a reason to disparage the dead for being run over without one.
Now, deliberatly riding out into an intersection with moving traffic, as the article indicates happened (whehter it is correct or not is not yet determined; insufficient detail presented), might be an excuse for disparagement.
Geezer POV over.
