|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |