Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 8:24:00 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
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.

And it's so much better than Nugentworld.

You certainly are not recalling the ukrc cycling helmet
"discussions" with any degree of accuracy.

Certainly I am. If a cyclist is killed whilst wearing a helmet it
proves the helmet saved his life.

Prick.