On 10/06/2019 18:36, Simon Jester wrote:

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.

You seem to inhabit a peculiar world of your own. You certainly are not
recalling the ukrc cycling helmet "discussions" with any degree of accuracy.