A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Time for fishing helmets



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 11th 19, 04:49 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Time for fishing helmets

On 11/06/2019 15:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 13:46, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 13:16, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 10:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 02:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 21:16, TMS320 wrote:
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.

You are well aware of the official advice that cyclists should
wear safety helmets when cycling. You are well aware that doctors'
organisations recommend the same thing, and for the same reasons.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82


It doesn't tell me what professionals are involved.

https://helmets.org/bmareport.htm

It says:
"The BMA has strongly supported the advice..."

But don't worry too much. Many people (including myself) support
your right not to "look like a tit".

I am perfectly comfortable, thank you.

Given the paranoid reaction of your good self (and of certain
others) when the question of compulsion occasionally arises, I'm
inclined to treat your "perfectly" as a substitution for "usually".

Don't change the subject.


I haven't done so. I addresssed your post on the current subject. You
said you were perfectly comfortable on the subject of cycling safety
helmets.


Oh? From a two word question you're trying to perform your telepathy act
again.


You did not ask a question. You stated that you were "perfectly
comfortable".

Do you always have ssuch difficulty with basic analysis of grammatical
categories?

That is not the impression you have given me over time.


Unchanged.


That's what I said.

You haven't answered my question.

Here it is again. What professionals?


Those who evaluate and make recommendations on road safety (including
the writing of the Highway Code, usually strongly supported by many
posters here, but apparently unreliable on the question of cycling
safety helmets), and the medical profession.


It is not inconsistent to agree with some sections of the HC but not
others.


I accept that it isn't unusual, if that's what you mean.

It is inconsistent to preach adherence to the rules laid out in the
Highway Code to others but to disdain to do so for oneself. Apart from
anything else, what moral authority can one summon up for any part of
the Code whilst simultaneously disrespecting the bits that don't happen
to suit you?

Why shouldn't everyone do exactly the same (ie, pick and choose, as you
do)?

NB: I am not suggesting that anyone should "pick and choose". That is
your position, not mine.

It was all there, above, already.


Unlike you I can't read invisible text.


Nothing was invisible.

You should have gone to Specsavers.

Don't rely upon an over-interpretion of the word "professional".
It can mean a member of a learned profession. It can also mean someone
who does a particular thing (eg, writing the Highway Code) for a
living. There's no wriggle available to you there.


The man that comes round in a van to fix your boiler is a
"professional". Perhaps with your loose interpretion you took his advice
about aspirin?


I'd already explained to you that there is no available wriggle for you
there. Yes, it is normal everyday English usage to refer to someone who
does a "job with a knack" - for a living - as "professional". Like lots
of other words in our language, it has (at least) two meanings which are
similar but not identical.

But then, as we saw above when you failed to understand the difference
between a question and an assertion (insisting that your assertion had
been a question), English is not exactly your long suit.
Ads
  #32  
Old June 11th 19, 07:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kerr-Mudd,John[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 374
Default Time for fishing helmets

On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:49:09 GMT, JNugent
wrote:

On 11/06/2019 15:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 13:46, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 13:16, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 10:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 02:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 21:16, TMS320 wrote:
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:

This is a proper disagreement, not just a one-word insult.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
  #33  
Old June 11th 19, 08:41 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default Time for fishing helmets

On 11/06/2019 16:49, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 15:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 13:46, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 13:16, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 10:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 02:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 21:16, TMS320 wrote:
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.

You are well aware of the official advice that cyclists should
wear safety helmets when cycling. You are well aware that
doctors' organisations recommend the same thing, and for the same
reasons.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82


It doesn't tell me what professionals are involved.

https://helmets.org/bmareport.htm

It says:
"The BMA has strongly supported the advice..."

But don't worry too much. Many people (including myself) support
your right not to "look like a tit".

I am perfectly comfortable, thank you.

Given the paranoid reaction of your good self (and of certain
others) when the question of compulsion occasionally arises, I'm
inclined to treat your "perfectly" as a substitution for "usually".

Don't change the subject.

I haven't done so. I addresssed your post on the current subject. You
said you were perfectly comfortable on the subject of cycling safety
helmets.


Oh? From a two word question you're trying to perform your telepathy
act again.


You did not ask a question. You stated that you were "perfectly
comfortable".

Do you always have ssuch difficulty with basic analysis of grammatical
categories?


Not as much as your technique of taking a reply to one thing and using
it as a reply to something unrelated.

That is not the impression you have given me over time.


Unchanged.


That's what I said.

You haven't answered my question.

Here it is again. What professionals?

Those who evaluate and make recommendations on road safety (including
the writing of the Highway Code, usually strongly supported by many
posters here, but apparently unreliable on the question of cycling
safety helmets), and the medical profession.


It is not inconsistent to agree with some sections of the HC but not
others.


I accept that it isn't unusual, if that's what you mean.

It is inconsistent to preach adherence to the rules laid out in the
Highway Code to others but to disdain to do so for oneself. Apart from
anything else, what moral authority can one summon up for any part of
the Code whilst simultaneously disrespecting the bits that don't happen
to suit you?


If a cyclist tells you off for driving in a manner that endangers
him/her, he/she has every right to do so. If a cyclist chooses not to
follow advice that doesn't affect you it is none of your business.

Why shouldn't everyone do exactly the same (ie, pick and choose, as you
do)?

NB: I am not suggesting that anyone should "pick and choose". That is
your position, not mine.


See above.

It was all there, above, already.


Unlike you I can't read invisible text.


Nothing was invisible.


Your reply to my question about the professionals involved in cycle
helmet advice is still invisible.

You should have gone to Specsavers.

Don't rely upon an over-interpretion of the word "professional".
It can mean a member of a learned profession. It can also mean
someone who does a particular thing (eg, writing the Highway Code)
for a living. There's no wriggle available to you there.


The man that comes round in a van to fix your boiler is a
"professional". Perhaps with your loose interpretion you took his
advice about aspirin?


I'd already explained to you that there is no available wriggle for you
there. Yes, it is normal everyday English usage to refer to someone who
does a "job with a knack" - for a living - as "professional". Like lots
of other words in our language, it has (at least) two meanings which are
similar but not identical.


Exactly. You haven't answered my original question.

What professionals?

But then, as we saw above when you failed to understand the difference
between a question and an assertion (insisting that your assertion had
been a question), English is not exactly your long suit.


You always reply to a simple question that only needs a short answer
with a long essay telling us why you don't want to.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do helmets go bad over time? RS Techniques 22 July 13th 06 12:54 PM
Do helmets go bad over time? Stan Cox UK 7 July 13th 06 12:54 PM
Helmets - mean time betweef failures flyingdutch Australia 4 January 16th 06 03:41 AM
time trial helmets Katharine & Paul Australia 5 August 4th 04 08:21 AM
time trial helmets Katharine & Paul Techniques 8 August 2nd 04 10:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.