On 10/06/2019 20:15, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:32, 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?

That's more like it: deny, deny, deny.

It is impossible for me to deny something you haven't told me.