|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
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. Asking for a friend. Obviously. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 02:41 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 |