Time for fishing helmets
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash.

Time for fishing helmets
 

On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the
compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis
that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries
in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as
that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a
reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the
helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar
with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without
a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres
away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a
force-field indeed being the only means of protection.

And who knows? It could be right, I expect.

Time for fishing helmets
 

On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash.

Did the bigger boat have the nautical equivalent of fixed-wheel and no
brakes?

Perhaps the skipper believed that shouting "Get out of the way; I'm not
stopping" was sufficient?

Time for fishing helmets
 

On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the
compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis
that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries
in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as
that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a
reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the
helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar
with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without
a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres
away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a
force-field indeed being the only means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might as
well be a force field.

Time for fishing helmets
 

On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing
the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the
basis that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never
fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and another
to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of us who are
not immediately familiar with such items to the sole logical
conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage to keep his
head the crucial couple of centimetres away from collision with the
asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field indeed being the only
means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might as
well be a force field.

So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?

Asking for a friend.

Time for fishing helmets
 

On 10/06/2019 00:40, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash.

Did the bigger boat have the nautical equivalent of fixed-wheel and no
brakes?

Perhaps the skipper believed that shouting "Get out of the way; I'm not
stopping" was sufficient?

I have learnt from this group that those that shout get vilified so it
is much better to keep silent.

"the 75-year-old told investigators he couldn’t see where he was driving
because he was sitting down and the dash of his boat was blocking his view."

Time for fishing helmets
 

On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing
the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on
the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never
fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and another
to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of us who
are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole logical
conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage to keep his
head the crucial couple of centimetres away from collision with the
asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field indeed being the only
means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might as
well be a force field.

So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?

What professionals?

Asking for a friend.

Obviously.

Time for fishing helmets
 

On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:32:24 GMT, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the
crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing
the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on
the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely
accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never
fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and
another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of
us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole
logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage
to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from
collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field
indeed being the only means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might as
well be a force field.

So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?

What professionals?

Asking for a friend.

Obviously.

A proper response:
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1100.html
(slightly dated; but data trumps anecdote)


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

Time for fishing helmets
 

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 12:38:51 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the
compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis
that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries
in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as
that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a
reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the
helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar
with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without
a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres
away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a
force-field indeed being the only means of protection.

And who knows? It could be right, I expect.

I have no idea what you are trying to say but the phrase:
'Hook, line, sinker, rod, keep net, waders, sandwiches, thermos and copy of Angling Times'
comes to mind.

Time for fishing helmets
 

On 10/06/2019 16:29, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/06/2019 00:40, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash.

Did the bigger boat have the nautical equivalent of fixed-wheel and no
brakes?

Perhaps the skipper believed that shouting "Get out of the way; I'm
not stopping" was sufficient?

I have learnt from this group that those that shout get vilified so it
is much better to keep silent.

"the 75-year-old told investigators he couldn’t see where he was driving
because he was sitting down and the dash of his boat was blocking his
view."

An interesting parallel (thank you for confirming it):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I0Zs1G1ri4

There is none so blind as he who will not see, of course.