So then, a guy who was in a coma for 4 months after being knocked off his bike by a van has woken up and is recovering well. YAY!
But, Yahoo has reported that basically it was his fault because he wasn't wearing a helmet (didn't want to mess his hair up) and makes NO mentioned of the van driver hitting him in the first place.
I never normally respond to rubbish like this in the comments section, but couldn't resist this time. Cue all the knuckle draggers on Yahoo telling me I should pay road tax or some other crap.....
Article here:
[url= http://uk.news.yahoo.com/teen-left-in-coma-from-horror-bike-crash-hugs-his-dad-and-says-hello---after-waking-up-from-four-month-coma-135134328.html?vp=1#W3mCo0h ]Crap Yahoo Article...[/url]
link bait alert
[i]link bait alert[/i]
Wassat mean?
Has Wiggins really backed campaigns to make helmets compulsary??
warton - Member
link bait alert
Yeah. Wassat mean??
Link bait: post deliberately controversial headline/article to attract traffic via this sort of link and earn revenue from advertisers when pages are displayed.
Will also push Yahoo up results list for anyone using google after visiting this page.
article reads pretty clear to me, he was hit by a van. Dad is saying his lad refused to wear a helmet and he is/was now in a coma.
There is a chance he would not have been in a coma had he worn a lid, Dad now campaigning to make them compulsory.
Do you know that the driver was at fault? Perhaps a dangerous assumption
Oh shit, why did I read the comments?? Same old same old from Internet morons. 🙄
[i]Will also push Yahoo up results list for anyone using google after visiting this page.[/i]
[sarcasm]What a nightmare!![/sarcasm]
DezB - MemberHas Wiggins really backed campaigns to make helmets compulsary??
He made some comments, probably without fully engaging his brain and no the media jumps on them at every opportunity:
It's a suggestion that the article's been written in order to stir some outrage, get some furious commenting, and sharing in places like this, drive up traffic to the site and ad revenue as a result.
ie, it's all sorts of wrong and they know it. But by being sucked into being outraged and linking to it, you're rewarding their decision to write and publish.
Edit: late to the party with the explanation. Don't know if it's definitely all sorts of wrong in this case. but it is the reason STW have inserted a warning page when people try to direct link to the Daily Mail.
some pretty dumb reporting there. some pretty dumb comments too.
[i]article's been written in order to stir some outrage[/i]
Ah, I see - not stumpy01 posting it here.
Is that all our outrage against poor driving has become: traffic for shitty news sites? 🙁
The Daily Mail thrives on link bait - I seem to remember they have the highest traffic (by a big margin) compared to any other tabloid.
Shock articles + social media
Strange that [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-25076816 ]this article[/url] makes no reference to whether the rider was wearing a helmet or not.