Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Cycle Helmets : Bradley Wiggins Speaks Out
86 views
Skip to first unread message
The Todal
Aug 2, 2012, 4:22:53 AM8/2/12
to
Eh oop.
Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
compulsory.
Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
compulsory.
Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
JNugent
Aug 2, 2012, 4:27:29 AM8/2/12
to
QUOTE:
Wiggins said making it illegal to cycle without a helmet would make the roads
safer "because ultimately, if you get knocked off and you ain't got a helmet
on, then how can you kind of argue". He added: "[People] shouldn't be riding
along with iPods and phones and things on and [they] should have lights and
all those things.
"So I think when there's laws passed for cyclists, then you're protected and
you can say, well, I've done everything to be safe." He added: "It's
dangerous and London is a busy city and a lot of traffic. I think we have to
help ourselves sometimes.
"I haven't lived in London for 10 to 15 years now and it's got a lot busier
since I was riding a bike as a kid round here, and I got knocked off several
times. But at the end of the day we've all got to co-exist on the roads.
Cyclists are not ever going to go away, as much as drivers moan, and as much
as cyclists maybe moan about certain drivers they are never going to go away,
so there's got to be a bit of give and take."
ENDQUOTE
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Aug 2, 2012, 4:30:53 AM8/2/12
to
--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."
John Benn
Aug 2, 2012, 4:31:47 AM8/2/12
to
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
It's about time a high-profile cyclist spoke out about cyclists sharing some
of the responsibility for their own safety.
news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
of the responsibility for their own safety.
Ian Smith
Aug 2, 2012, 4:48:06 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:22:53 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
> compulsory.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
> compulsory.
>
And I'm sure everyone would consider that Lewis Hamilton is teh
ultimate expert on how to drive on the public road. Perhaps he'll
write teh next road traffic act.
Being able to ride fast in competition on closed roads does not make
you an expert on what is appropriate for leisure or commuting riding
on open roads. As has been repeatedly stated - if you think what
works for competitive cyclists must also apply to 'ordinary' cyclists
you need to explain why 'ordinary' drivers don't need nomex suits and
five point harnesses, and why you don't need to dress as a spaceman to
put fuel in your car.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
chris...@yahoo.com
Aug 2, 2012, 4:44:38 AM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 9:31 am, "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote in message
Good for Wiggins.
And as for idiot cyclists with earbuds plugged in listening to rap
crap how on earth can they be aware of the traffic around them if they
can't even hear it and their attention is on the 'music' anyway? The
other day I was nearly knocked down by an idiot not only cycling down
the Strand but texting at the same time. What next doing Facebook
whilst cycling? But its probably already been done.
And the idiots on Boris bikes cycling on pavements and going the wrong
way along one way streets are just as bad.
CJB
Cyclists need some
> "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote in message
And as for idiot cyclists with earbuds plugged in listening to rap
crap how on earth can they be aware of the traffic around them if they
can't even hear it and their attention is on the 'music' anyway? The
other day I was nearly knocked down by an idiot not only cycling down
the Strand but texting at the same time. What next doing Facebook
whilst cycling? But its probably already been done.
And the idiots on Boris bikes cycling on pavements and going the wrong
way along one way streets are just as bad.
CJB
Cyclists need some
John Benn
Aug 2, 2012, 4:54:32 AM8/2/12
to
"Ian Smith" <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnk1kfm...@acheron.astounding.org.uk...
richardm...@googlemail.com
Aug 2, 2012, 5:05:03 AM8/2/12
to
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 9:48:06 AM UTC+1, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:22:53 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote: > Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of > Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets > compulsory. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898 And I'm sure everyone would consider that Lewis Hamilton is teh ultimate expert on how to drive on the public road. Perhaps he'll write teh next road traffic act. Being able to ride fast in competition on closed roads does not make you an expert on what is appropriate for leisure or commuting riding on open roads. As has been repeatedly stated - if you think what works for competitive cyclists must also apply to 'ordinary' cyclists you need to explain why 'ordinary' drivers don't need nomex suits and five point harnesses, and why you don't need to dress as a spaceman to put fuel in your car. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|
True but the cyclists look up to Bilbo Baggins
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:22:53 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote: > Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of > Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets > compulsory. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898 And I'm sure everyone would consider that Lewis Hamilton is teh ultimate expert on how to drive on the public road. Perhaps he'll write teh next road traffic act. Being able to ride fast in competition on closed roads does not make you an expert on what is appropriate for leisure or commuting riding on open roads. As has been repeatedly stated - if you think what works for competitive cyclists must also apply to 'ordinary' cyclists you need to explain why 'ordinary' drivers don't need nomex suits and five point harnesses, and why you don't need to dress as a spaceman to put fuel in your car. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|
I would also like to see cyslists act with more decorum on pathways, they were not put there just for them.
John Benn
Aug 2, 2012, 5:17:03 AM8/2/12
to
<richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:6aa85550-e8f8-4cb4...@googlegroups.com...
> I would also like to see cyslists act with more decorum on pathways, they
> were not put there just for them.
They were not put there for them at all unless it's assigned as a dual-use
pathway.
news:6aa85550-e8f8-4cb4...@googlegroups.com...
> I would also like to see cyslists act with more decorum on pathways, they
> were not put there just for them.
pathway.
LebesgueMeasure
Aug 2, 2012, 5:47:04 AM8/2/12
to
"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:a7urvg...@mid.individual.net...
whether to wear a cycle helmet. A totalitarian socialist nutcase would
prefer to use the state to enforce it.
news:a7urvg...@mid.individual.net...
> On 02/08/2012 09:22, The Todal wrote:
>
>> Eh oop.
>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>> compulsory.
>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>
> What a sensible and reasonable chap he seems.
>
A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
>
>> Eh oop.
>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>> compulsory.
>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>
> What a sensible and reasonable chap he seems.
>
whether to wear a cycle helmet. A totalitarian socialist nutcase would
prefer to use the state to enforce it.
richardm...@googlemail.com
Aug 2, 2012, 5:51:34 AM8/2/12
to
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 10:47:04 AM UTC+1, LebesgueMeasure wrote:
> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:a7urvg...@mid.individual.net... > On 02/08/2012 09:22, The Todal wrote: > >> Eh oop. >> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of >> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets >> compulsory. >> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph.... > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898 > > What a sensible and reasonable chap he seems. > A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide whether to wear a cycle helmet. A totalitarian socialist nutcase would prefer to use the state to enforce it.
Like seatbelts.
> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:a7urvg...@mid.individual.net... > On 02/08/2012 09:22, The Todal wrote: > >> Eh oop. >> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of >> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets >> compulsory. >> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph.... > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898 > > What a sensible and reasonable chap he seems. > A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide whether to wear a cycle helmet. A totalitarian socialist nutcase would prefer to use the state to enforce it.
JNugent
Aug 2, 2012, 6:03:51 AM8/2/12
to
Or, if you really believe that someone who supports road safety measures for
cyclists is a "totalitarian socialist nutcase", only God knows what you think
of some other aspects of road traffic law, much of which doesn't even pretend
to be about safety.
Partac
Aug 2, 2012, 6:08:19 AM8/2/12
to
"Ian Smith" wrote in message
news:slrnk1kfm...@acheron.astounding.org.uk...
papal-like infallible knowledge .
AlanG
Aug 2, 2012, 6:31:25 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:03:51 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
It is the compulsory aspect.
The rise of the nanny state.
The increase in the numbers and types of activities you are stopped
from doing unless you have a certificate and the right sort of
clothes/equipment.
I remember many years ago when this sort of thing was increasing we
had a couple of local men both doing something dangerous. One was
going to go over high force in a canoe and the other was proposing to
be the first man to walk to the south pole alone.
The canoeist was arrested under the public order act for his own
safety (according to press reports) meanwhile Swann got a big send off
at Teesside airport. I wondered at the time why the police didn't
arrest him for his own safety
wrote:
The rise of the nanny state.
The increase in the numbers and types of activities you are stopped
from doing unless you have a certificate and the right sort of
clothes/equipment.
I remember many years ago when this sort of thing was increasing we
had a couple of local men both doing something dangerous. One was
going to go over high force in a canoe and the other was proposing to
be the first man to walk to the south pole alone.
The canoeist was arrested under the public order act for his own
safety (according to press reports) meanwhile Swann got a big send off
at Teesside airport. I wondered at the time why the police didn't
arrest him for his own safety
RobertL
Aug 2, 2012, 6:49:26 AM8/2/12
to
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 10:51:34 AM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:
> On Thursday, August 2, 2012 10:47:04 AM UTC+1, LebesgueMeasure wrote: > "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:a7urvg...@mid.individual.net... > On 02/08/2012 09:22, The Todal wrote: > >> Eh oop. >> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of >> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets >> compulsory. >> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph.... > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898 > > What a sensible and reasonable chap he seems. > A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide whether to wear a cycle helmet. A totalitarian socialist nutcase would prefer to use the state to enforce it.
>Like seatbelts.
or motorcycle crash helmets
> On Thursday, August 2, 2012 10:47:04 AM UTC+1, LebesgueMeasure wrote: > "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:a7urvg...@mid.individual.net... > On 02/08/2012 09:22, The Todal wrote: > >> Eh oop. >> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of >> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets >> compulsory. >> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph.... > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898 > > What a sensible and reasonable chap he seems. > A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide whether to wear a cycle helmet. A totalitarian socialist nutcase would prefer to use the state to enforce it.
>Like seatbelts.
thirty-six
Aug 2, 2012, 6:52:07 AM8/2/12
to
excitement of winning the gold medal.
Jon Ribbens
Aug 2, 2012, 7:07:30 AM8/2/12
to
Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
Andy Leighton
Aug 2, 2012, 7:14:03 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:44:38 -0700 (PDT), chris...@yahoo.com <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 9:31?am, "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > Eh oop.
>>
>> > Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>> > Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>> > compulsory.
>>
>> > Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>
>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>
>> It's about time a high-profile cyclist spoke out about cyclists sharing some
>> of the responsibility for their own safety.
>
> Good for Wiggins.
This is the same Bradley Wiggins who was helmetless on a celebratory
> On Aug 2, 9:31?am, "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > Eh oop.
>>
>> > Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>> > Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>> > compulsory.
>>
>> > Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>
>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>
>> It's about time a high-profile cyclist spoke out about cyclists sharing some
>> of the responsibility for their own safety.
>
> Good for Wiggins.
cycle after the TDF, with his young son, also helmetless, followed by
others on bikes also helmetless. Just a week or so ago.
See
http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/gallery/201207238735/bradley-wiggins-wins-tour-de-france/1/#11
Pictures 8 and 11.
Pure hypocrisy? Money talking? Muddled thinking?
Pick your reason.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
docin...@googlemail.com
Aug 2, 2012, 7:20:15 AM8/2/12
to
Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
That's hardly what he's saying, is it? Seatbelts don't prevent every injury or death either, but they're still a good idea.
Jon Ribbens
Aug 2, 2012, 7:32:25 AM8/2/12
to
On 2012-08-02, docin...@googlemail.com <docin...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
>
> That's hardly what he's saying, is it?
It's what the article headline is implying.
> > Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
>
> That's hardly what he's saying, is it?
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 7:35:34 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:47:04 +0100, "LebesgueMeasure" <lebe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:a7urvg...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 02/08/2012 09:22, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Eh oop.
>>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>>> compulsory.
>>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>
>> What a sensible and reasonable chap he seems.
>>
>A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
>whether to wear a cycle helmet.
and do you think the same for seat belts?
wrote:
>"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:a7urvg...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 02/08/2012 09:22, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Eh oop.
>>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>>> compulsory.
>>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>
>> What a sensible and reasonable chap he seems.
>>
>A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
>whether to wear a cycle helmet.
John Benn
Aug 2, 2012, 7:39:30 AM8/2/12
to
"thirty-six" <thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1ff18006-f611-48d9...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> I'll give Bradley the benefit, he was delusional following the
> excitement of winning the gold medal.
It'll be interesting to see how quickly he is transformed from being a hero
to a villain by the militant cyclist community just because he stated the
bloody obvious.
news:1ff18006-f611-48d9...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> I'll give Bradley the benefit, he was delusional following the
> excitement of winning the gold medal.
to a villain by the militant cyclist community just because he stated the
bloody obvious.
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 7:40:44 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 06:14:03 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:44:38 -0700 (PDT), chris...@yahoo.com <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 9:31?am, "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> > Eh oop.
>>>
>>> > Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>>> > Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>>> > compulsory.
>>>
>>> > Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>>
>>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>>
>>> It's about time a high-profile cyclist spoke out about cyclists sharing some
>>> of the responsibility for their own safety.
>>
>> Good for Wiggins.
>
>This is the same Bradley Wiggins who was helmetless on a celebratory
>cycle after the TDF, with his young son, also helmetless, followed by
>others on bikes also helmetless. Just a week or so ago.
>
>See
>http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/gallery/201207238735/bradley-wiggins-wins-tour-de-france/1/#11
>
>Pictures 8 and 11.
>
>Pure hypocrisy? Money talking? Muddled thinking?
>Pick your reason.
Diddums - just get over it - this is going to go on, and on, and on
>On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:44:38 -0700 (PDT), chris...@yahoo.com <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 9:31?am, "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> > Eh oop.
>>>
>>> > Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>>> > Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>>> > compulsory.
>>>
>>> > Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>>
>>> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>>
>>> It's about time a high-profile cyclist spoke out about cyclists sharing some
>>> of the responsibility for their own safety.
>>
>> Good for Wiggins.
>
>This is the same Bradley Wiggins who was helmetless on a celebratory
>cycle after the TDF, with his young son, also helmetless, followed by
>others on bikes also helmetless. Just a week or so ago.
>
>See
>http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/gallery/201207238735/bradley-wiggins-wins-tour-de-france/1/#11
>
>Pictures 8 and 11.
>
>Pure hypocrisy? Money talking? Muddled thinking?
>Pick your reason.
As someone in the moderated group has said - wait until a cycle helmet
manufacturer gets in on the act and they sponsor him ; all that publicity for
cycle helmets.
I bet they will call it a "Wigg" or a "Wiggo"
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 7:44:28 AM8/2/12
to
Could you perhaps point it out?
docin...@googlemail.com
Aug 2, 2012, 7:44:48 AM8/2/12
to
John Benn
Aug 2, 2012, 7:50:04 AM8/2/12
to
"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ntpk18pi739r8e30k...@4ax.com...
I'd also be interested to see where Bradley claimed that a helmet would
protect you from being crushed by a bus. Jon?
news:ntpk18pi739r8e30k...@4ax.com...
protect you from being crushed by a bus. Jon?
thirty-six
Aug 2, 2012, 7:53:25 AM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 12:39 pm, "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
only to a commie.
===========================
The Department for Transport said it had announced £15 million of
funding to improve safety at junctions in London and establish a road
safety forum. Each year £11 million is spent on 'Bikeability' training
to help young cyclists improve their safety on the roads.
It firmly dismissed Wiggins' call for legislation to make cycle
helmets compulsory, however.
A spokesman said: "We encourage cyclists – especially children – to
wear helmets to protect them if they have a crash. However, we believe
this should remain a matter of individual choice rather than imposing
additional rules which would be difficult to enforce."
====================================
of course once armed police are common they can enforce any law they
like with ultimate force.
> "thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
===========================
The Department for Transport said it had announced £15 million of
funding to improve safety at junctions in London and establish a road
safety forum. Each year £11 million is spent on 'Bikeability' training
to help young cyclists improve their safety on the roads.
It firmly dismissed Wiggins' call for legislation to make cycle
helmets compulsory, however.
A spokesman said: "We encourage cyclists – especially children – to
wear helmets to protect them if they have a crash. However, we believe
this should remain a matter of individual choice rather than imposing
additional rules which would be difficult to enforce."
====================================
of course once armed police are common they can enforce any law they
like with ultimate force.
Jon Ribbens
Aug 2, 2012, 7:57:52 AM8/2/12
to
a helmet would protect you from being crushed by a bus. John?
Jon Ribbens
Aug 2, 2012, 7:58:26 AM8/2/12
to
Jon Ribbens
Aug 2, 2012, 7:58:57 AM8/2/12
to
On 2012-08-02, docin...@googlemail.com <docin...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well I think most of us know not to believe that the headlines of an
> articles will actually relate to the main text!
Indeed.
> Well I think most of us know not to believe that the headlines of an
> articles will actually relate to the main text!
John Benn
Aug 2, 2012, 7:59:56 AM8/2/12
to
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnk1kqq0.a...@snowy.squish.net...
I'll re-phrase the question for the retarded:
I'd also be interested to see where Bradley claimed that a helmet would
protect one from being crushed by a bus.
Are you going to answer. Jon?
news:slrnk1kqq0.a...@snowy.squish.net...
I'd also be interested to see where Bradley claimed that a helmet would
Are you going to answer. Jon?
Bertie Wooster
Aug 2, 2012, 8:00:55 AM8/2/12
to
Bertie Wooster
Aug 2, 2012, 8:01:53 AM8/2/12
to
John Benn
Aug 2, 2012, 8:03:11 AM8/2/12
to
"Bertie Wooster" <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:40rk18t683bbogqhf...@4ax.com...
Not this hero. He has single-handedly improved the image of cyclists in the
UK by talking sense. We need more prominent people like him to speak out.
news:40rk18t683bbogqhf...@4ax.com...
UK by talking sense. We need more prominent people like him to speak out.
Jon Ribbens
Aug 2, 2012, 8:03:23 AM8/2/12
to
On 2012-08-02, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnk1kqq0.a...@snowy.squish.net...
>> On 2012-08-02, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:ntpk18pi739r8e30k...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:07:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>"Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry - I could not see that suggestion anywhere in the article.
>>>>
>>>> Could you perhaps point it out?
>>>
>>> I'd also be interested to see where Bradley claimed that a helmet would
>>> protect you from being crushed by a bus. Jon?
>>
>> I would be interested to see where I claimed that Bradley claimed that
>> a helmet would protect you from being crushed by a bus. John?
>
> I'll re-phrase the question for the retarded:
>
> I'd also be interested to see where Bradley claimed that a helmet would
> protect one from being crushed by a bus.
I'll re-phrase the answer for the retarded:
> "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnk1kqq0.a...@snowy.squish.net...
>> On 2012-08-02, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:ntpk18pi739r8e30k...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:07:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>"Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry - I could not see that suggestion anywhere in the article.
>>>>
>>>> Could you perhaps point it out?
>>>
>>> I'd also be interested to see where Bradley claimed that a helmet would
>>> protect you from being crushed by a bus. Jon?
>>
>> I would be interested to see where I claimed that Bradley claimed that
>> a helmet would protect you from being crushed by a bus. John?
>
> I'll re-phrase the question for the retarded:
>
> I'd also be interested to see where Bradley claimed that a helmet would
> protect one from being crushed by a bus.
I would be interested to see where I claimed that Bradley claimed that
> Are you going to answer. Jon?
like? John?
Bertie Wooster
Aug 2, 2012, 8:11:37 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:03:11 +0100, "John Benn"
need a few tips 'cos mine seem to get rejected.
<MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Bertie Wooster" <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:40rk18t683bbogqhf...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:39:30 +0100, "John Benn"
>> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"thirty-six" <thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:1ff18006-f611-48d9...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> I'll give Bradley the benefit, he was delusional following the
>>>> excitement of winning the gold medal.
>>>
>>>It'll be interesting to see how quickly he is transformed from being a
>>>hero
>>>to a villain by the militant cyclist community just because he stated the
>>>bloody obvious.
>>
>> A hero can hold mistaken beliefs.
>
>Not this hero. He has single-handedly improved the image of cyclists in the
>UK by talking sense. We need more prominent people like him to speak out.
Yeah! I've seen your post to urcm. How do you get them approved? I
>"Bertie Wooster" <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:40rk18t683bbogqhf...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:39:30 +0100, "John Benn"
>> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"thirty-six" <thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:1ff18006-f611-48d9...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> I'll give Bradley the benefit, he was delusional following the
>>>> excitement of winning the gold medal.
>>>
>>>It'll be interesting to see how quickly he is transformed from being a
>>>hero
>>>to a villain by the militant cyclist community just because he stated the
>>>bloody obvious.
>>
>> A hero can hold mistaken beliefs.
>
>Not this hero. He has single-handedly improved the image of cyclists in the
>UK by talking sense. We need more prominent people like him to speak out.
need a few tips 'cos mine seem to get rejected.
John Benn
Aug 2, 2012, 8:18:54 AM8/2/12
to
"Bertie Wooster" <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:5irk1891ccf35erd7...@4ax.com...
They're such a bunch of delicate little flowers in that group.
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 8:29:20 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:57:52 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
would save you from being crushed by a bus.
thanks for clearing it up.
<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>On 2012-08-02, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ntpk18pi739r8e30k...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:07:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>"Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry - I could not see that suggestion anywhere in the article.
>>>
>>> Could you perhaps point it out?
>>
>> I'd also be interested to see where Bradley claimed that a helmet would
>> protect you from being crushed by a bus. Jon?
>
>I would be interested to see where I claimed that Bradley claimed that
>a helmet would protect you from being crushed by a bus. John?
Oh - you were just talking shite were you, and no-one had claimed that a helmet
>On 2012-08-02, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ntpk18pi739r8e30k...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:07:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>"Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry - I could not see that suggestion anywhere in the article.
>>>
>>> Could you perhaps point it out?
>>
>> I'd also be interested to see where Bradley claimed that a helmet would
>> protect you from being crushed by a bus. Jon?
>
>I would be interested to see where I claimed that Bradley claimed that
>a helmet would protect you from being crushed by a bus. John?
would save you from being crushed by a bus.
thanks for clearing it up.
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 8:32:24 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:03:23 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
Perhaps you actually had a reason for saying it?
Or were you just trying to appear to be a prat?
Oh I see - when you said:
"Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus."
it was just a random throw away line was it.
"Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus."
Perhaps you actually had a reason for saying it?
Or were you just trying to appear to be a prat?
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 8:34:33 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
things we can't - which sentence exactly did you think was promoting the fact
that a helmet would protect you from a bus.
<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>On 2012-08-02, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:07:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>><jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>"Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>>
>>>Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
>>
>> Sorry - I could not see that suggestion anywhere in the article.
>>
>> Could you perhaps point it out?
>
>Yes, I could, and indeed did.
Sorry - you are obviously much much brighter than others here and can see
>On 2012-08-02, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:07:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>><jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>"Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>>
>>>Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
>>
>> Sorry - I could not see that suggestion anywhere in the article.
>>
>> Could you perhaps point it out?
>
>Yes, I could, and indeed did.
things we can't - which sentence exactly did you think was promoting the fact
that a helmet would protect you from a bus.
Cynic
Aug 2, 2012, 8:45:43 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:03:51 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
>Or, if you really believe that someone who supports road safety measures for
>cyclists is a "totalitarian socialist nutcase", only God knows what you think
>of some other aspects of road traffic law, much of which doesn't even pretend
>to be about safety.
It is one thing to support and promote something. It is quite another
thing to make something legally mandatory with criminal sanctions if
you fail to do it. It is the latter that might be appropriately
described as the act of a "totalitarian socialist nutcase."
I think it is quite sensible to brush your teeth every day and I
support that idea. I would however be *very* much against making it
mandatory, with a £60 fine being handed out to anyone who has not
brushed their teeth in the past 24 hours.
I think that wearing a helmet whilst cycling is sensible in certain
circumstances, but that the risk of head injury is not particularly
great in other circumstances, and that the inconvenience and/or
expense of having a helmet might well outweigh the small increase in
safety it affords.
Therefore the decision should, IMO, remain with the cyclist (or if a
child their parents) to assess the risk and choose whether or not to
wear a helmet.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>Or, if you really believe that someone who supports road safety measures for
>cyclists is a "totalitarian socialist nutcase", only God knows what you think
>of some other aspects of road traffic law, much of which doesn't even pretend
>to be about safety.
It is one thing to support and promote something. It is quite another
thing to make something legally mandatory with criminal sanctions if
you fail to do it. It is the latter that might be appropriately
described as the act of a "totalitarian socialist nutcase."
I think it is quite sensible to brush your teeth every day and I
support that idea. I would however be *very* much against making it
mandatory, with a £60 fine being handed out to anyone who has not
brushed their teeth in the past 24 hours.
I think that wearing a helmet whilst cycling is sensible in certain
circumstances, but that the risk of head injury is not particularly
great in other circumstances, and that the inconvenience and/or
expense of having a helmet might well outweigh the small increase in
safety it affords.
Therefore the decision should, IMO, remain with the cyclist (or if a
child their parents) to assess the risk and choose whether or not to
wear a helmet.
--
Cynic
Jon Ribbens
Aug 2, 2012, 8:50:45 AM8/2/12
to
On 2012-08-02, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:57:52 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
><jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>I would be interested to see where I claimed that Bradley claimed that
>>a helmet would protect you from being crushed by a bus. John?
>
> Oh - you were just talking shite were you,
No. Happy to clear that up for you.
><jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>I would be interested to see where I claimed that Bradley claimed that
>>a helmet would protect you from being crushed by a bus. John?
>
> Oh - you were just talking shite were you,
tim.....
Aug 2, 2012, 9:23:00 AM8/2/12
to
"Judith" wrote in message
news:grsk181uv7341olcj...@4ax.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As someone who hasn't taken part in this long pantomime
It is clear to me that the connection with the bus is because news headlines
said:
"Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
So just how will wearing a helmet stop you from being killed by a bus?
tim
news:grsk181uv7341olcj...@4ax.com...
As someone who hasn't taken part in this long pantomime
It is clear to me that the connection with the bus is because news headlines
said:
"Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
tim
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 9:44:57 AM8/2/12
to
they have decided there will only be one thread on this subject.
You and Tom Crispin ought to try again in the suggested thread.
WTF they only want one thread on the subject - no-one knows.
tim.....
Aug 2, 2012, 9:47:41 AM8/2/12
to
"Judith" wrote in message
news:mv0l18djg8sfodc2a...@4ax.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess that's in uc - where I am not
tim
news:mv0l18djg8sfodc2a...@4ax.com...
I guess that's in uc - where I am not
tim
Jon Ribbens
Aug 2, 2012, 9:50:19 AM8/2/12
to
On 2012-08-02, tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judith" wrote in message
> news:grsk181uv7341olcj...@4ax.com...
>
> "Judith" wrote in message
> news:grsk181uv7341olcj...@4ax.com...
>
> Sorry - you are obviously much much brighter than others here and can see
> things we can't - which sentence exactly did you think was promoting the
> fact
> that a helmet would protect you from a bus.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> things we can't - which sentence exactly did you think was promoting the
> fact
> that a helmet would protect you from a bus.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As someone who hasn't taken part in this long pantomime
>
> It is clear to me that the connection with the bus is because news headlines
> said:
>
> "Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
Indeed. I thought it was pretty obvious really.
>
> It is clear to me that the connection with the bus is because news headlines
> said:
>
> "Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
Roger Merriman
Aug 2, 2012, 10:01:53 AM8/2/12
to
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> Eh oop.
>
> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
> compulsory.
>
> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
exept that he didn't or rather he says helmets and no ipods etc, help
> Eh oop.
>
> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
> compulsory.
>
> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
with legal protection.
Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 10:01:21 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:23:00 +0100, "tim....." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
Of course it won't - and no-one has said as much - other than Ribbens. Anyone
who wants to effectively attribute comments to people when they haven't made
them has obviously lost the plot and has nothing to contribute.
Still it is excellent news that Wiggins is pro cycle helmets.
His comments which will get very well reported will ensure that many, many more
people will realise just how dangerous cycling can be - and will start to wear
helmets themselves.
wrote:
who wants to effectively attribute comments to people when they haven't made
them has obviously lost the plot and has nothing to contribute.
Still it is excellent news that Wiggins is pro cycle helmets.
His comments which will get very well reported will ensure that many, many more
people will realise just how dangerous cycling can be - and will start to wear
helmets themselves.
Jon Ribbens
Aug 2, 2012, 10:03:31 AM8/2/12
to
On 2012-08-02, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:23:00 +0100, "tim....." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>As someone who hasn't taken part in this long pantomime
>>
>>It is clear to me that the connection with the bus is because news headlines
>>said:
>>
>>"Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>
>>So just how will wearing a helmet stop you from being killed by a bus?
>
> Of course it won't - and no-one has said as much - other than
> Ribbens. Anyone who wants to effectively attribute comments to
> people when they haven't made them has obviously lost the plot and
> has nothing to contribute.
Since I have done no such thing, any suggestion that I have is a lie.
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:23:00 +0100, "tim....." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>As someone who hasn't taken part in this long pantomime
>>
>>It is clear to me that the connection with the bus is because news headlines
>>said:
>>
>>"Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>
>>So just how will wearing a helmet stop you from being killed by a bus?
>
> Of course it won't - and no-one has said as much - other than
> Ribbens. Anyone who wants to effectively attribute comments to
> people when they haven't made them has obviously lost the plot and
> has nothing to contribute.
docin...@googlemail.com
Aug 2, 2012, 10:04:30 AM8/2/12
to
On Thursday, 2 August 2012 14:23:00 UTC+1, tim..... wrote:
> "Judith" wrote in message
>
> news:grsk181uv7341olcj...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>
> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 2012-08-02, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:07:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
> "Judith" wrote in message
>
> news:grsk181uv7341olcj...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>
> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 2012-08-02, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:07:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
"Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
So just how will wearing a helmet stop you from being killed by a bus?
tim
The same way a helmet protects a cyclist in any accident - namely by providing some protection for the head. Seems fairly obvious.
So just how will wearing a helmet stop you from being killed by a bus?
tim
Cynic
Aug 2, 2012, 10:12:37 AM8/2/12
to
>>A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
>>whether to wear a cycle helmet.
>
>and do you think the same for seat belts?
Well *I* certainly do - ditto for motorcycle helmets. Failure to wear
>>whether to wear a cycle helmet.
>
>and do you think the same for seat belts?
either is unlikely to put anyone *else* at risk, so IMO it is entirely
for the driver or passenger to assess the risk and act as they think
best.
--
Cynic
Michael Swift
Aug 2, 2012, 10:18:52 AM8/2/12
to
In article <501a7401...@127.0.0.1>, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk>
writes
know with 90% of cyclists, then any compensation should be reduced as
they would be partly responsible.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
writes
>Therefore the decision should, IMO, remain with the cyclist (or if a child their
>parents) to assess the risk and choose whether or not to wear a helmet.
And if they do get knocked off and suffer brain damage, how would you
>parents) to assess the risk and choose whether or not to wear a helmet.
know with 90% of cyclists, then any compensation should be reduced as
they would be partly responsible.
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
docin...@googlemail.com
Aug 2, 2012, 10:18:22 AM8/2/12
to cyni...@yahoo.co.uk
On Thursday, 2 August 2012 15:12:37 UTC+1, Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:35:34 +0100, Judith A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:35:34 +0100, Judith A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
whether to wear a cycle helmet.>
and do you think the same for seat belts?
Well *I* certainly do - ditto for motorcycle helmets. Failure to wear either is unlikely to put anyone *else* at risk, so IMO it is entirely for the driver or passenger to assess the risk and act as they think best.
It's paternalistic for sure, but in a country with an NHS it is arguable that these measures are justified. Hearing the stories from plastic surgeons about the effect of the first seat belt legislation, I think it's a good law. The infringement on personal liberty is minimal in my opinion.
and do you think the same for seat belts?
Well *I* certainly do - ditto for motorcycle helmets. Failure to wear either is unlikely to put anyone *else* at risk, so IMO it is entirely for the driver or passenger to assess the risk and act as they think best.
Colin Reed
Aug 2, 2012, 10:36:37 AM8/2/12
to
On 02/08/12 09:22, The Todal wrote:
> Eh oop.
>
> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
> compulsory.
>
> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
Really? I just thought he offered some comments during a press
> Eh oop.
>
> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
> compulsory.
>
> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
interview - including the caveat "I'm probably the last person you
should be asking about this." Hardly what I'd call "demanding laws".
Are you sure you're not misrepresenting him? (or possibly
misrepresenting the BBC misrepresenting him)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9445920/Bradley-Wiggins-calls-for-safer-cycling.html
The Todal
Aug 2, 2012, 10:53:38 AM8/2/12
to
report. To the tabloids, most suggestions are "demands". As the Mail
says, he "calls for massive road safety overhaul". Most newspapers have
gone with Bradley "calls for" compulsory helmets.
The reports on this have changed throughout the day, it seems. ITV has
accused Wiggins of wading into the debate, with connotations of being
out of his depth.
http://www.itv.com/news/2012-08-02/bradley-wiggins-wades-into-debate-on-compulsory-bike-helmets/
My point was that he probably didn't realise at the time how much fury
his words would provoke amongst those who hate having their freedom of
choice curtailed. He probably thought that when the press ask him for an
opinion on a tragic accident he should give an honest heartfelt response
rather than a response which takes into account the full spectrum of
opinion throughout the cycling community. He seems to have backtracked to:
"Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as
reports suggest. I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists
more protection legally I involved In an accident. I wasn't on me soap
box CALLING, was asked what I thought #myopiniondoesntcountformuch."
Michael Swift
Aug 2, 2012, 10:43:48 AM8/2/12
to
In article <46f4f06c-065b-4259...@googlegroups.com>,
docin...@googlemail.com writes
a car crash if I had been wearing a seat belt. The passenger side was
completely ripped away, by not wearing a seat belt I was thrown clear, I
still wear one every time I get in a car though.
docin...@googlemail.com writes
>It's paternalistic for sure, but in a country with an NHS it is arguable that
>these measures are justified. Hearing the stories from plastic surgeons
>about the effect of the first seat belt legislation, I think it's a good law. The
>infringement on personal liberty is minimal in my opinion.
I'm probably one of the minority of people who would have been killed in
>these measures are justified. Hearing the stories from plastic surgeons
>about the effect of the first seat belt legislation, I think it's a good law. The
>infringement on personal liberty is minimal in my opinion.
a car crash if I had been wearing a seat belt. The passenger side was
completely ripped away, by not wearing a seat belt I was thrown clear, I
still wear one every time I get in a car though.
Cynic
Aug 2, 2012, 11:09:02 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT), docin...@googlemail.com
wrote:
>and do you think the same for seat belts?
>Well *I* certainly do - ditto for motorcycle helmets. Failure to wear eith=
>er is unlikely to put anyone *else* at risk, so IMO it is entirely for the =
>at these measures are justified. Hearing the stories from plastic surgeons =
>about the effect of the first seat belt legislation, I think it's a good la=
argument to use over seat belts, it could be used to prohibit *any*
slightly risky behaviour. And the mandatory social contract whereby
we pay increased taxation in return for a universal "free" health
service did *not* come with the understanding that it would enable the
government to control our behaviour so as to attempt to limit the
amount of use the service gets.
Besides which it is questionable as to whether it is a viable argument
at all for several reasons. One factor is whether a seatbelt or
helment will *on average* increase or decrease medical costs. The
medical costs for a person who has been maimed in an accident will
obviously be much more than a person who was killed, and so decreasing
the average severity of injury in an accident may simply slide the
window up rather than affecting overal costs - what we gain at the low
end with people being less severely injured we lose at the top end
with people surviving and needing significant medical treatment rather
than an undertaker. Another factor is that something that makes a
person *feel* safer will generally result in that person behaving more
dangerously until his perception of risk rises to the previous level.
--
Cynic
--
Cynic
wrote:
>and do you think the same for seat belts?
>er is unlikely to put anyone *else* at risk, so IMO it is entirely for the =
>driver or passenger to assess the risk and act as they think best.
>It's paternalistic for sure, but in a country with an NHS it is arguable th=
>at these measures are justified. Hearing the stories from plastic surgeons =
>about the effect of the first seat belt legislation, I think it's a good la=
>w. The infringement on personal liberty is minimal in my opinion.
The NHS argument hold no water for me whatsoever. If it is a viable
argument to use over seat belts, it could be used to prohibit *any*
slightly risky behaviour. And the mandatory social contract whereby
we pay increased taxation in return for a universal "free" health
service did *not* come with the understanding that it would enable the
government to control our behaviour so as to attempt to limit the
amount of use the service gets.
Besides which it is questionable as to whether it is a viable argument
at all for several reasons. One factor is whether a seatbelt or
helment will *on average* increase or decrease medical costs. The
medical costs for a person who has been maimed in an accident will
obviously be much more than a person who was killed, and so decreasing
the average severity of injury in an accident may simply slide the
window up rather than affecting overal costs - what we gain at the low
end with people being less severely injured we lose at the top end
with people surviving and needing significant medical treatment rather
than an undertaker. Another factor is that something that makes a
person *feel* safer will generally result in that person behaving more
dangerously until his perception of risk rises to the previous level.
--
Cynic
--
Cynic
Cynic
Aug 2, 2012, 11:14:02 AM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:43:48 +0100, Michael Swift
<mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>>It's paternalistic for sure, but in a country with an NHS it is arguable that
>>these measures are justified. Hearing the stories from plastic surgeons
>>about the effect of the first seat belt legislation, I think it's a good law. The
>>infringement on personal liberty is minimal in my opinion.
>I'm probably one of the minority of people who would have been killed in
>a car crash if I had been wearing a seat belt. The passenger side was
>completely ripped away, by not wearing a seat belt I was thrown clear, I
>still wear one every time I get in a car though.
But you make the point of the PP!
<mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>>It's paternalistic for sure, but in a country with an NHS it is arguable that
>>these measures are justified. Hearing the stories from plastic surgeons
>>about the effect of the first seat belt legislation, I think it's a good law. The
>>infringement on personal liberty is minimal in my opinion.
>I'm probably one of the minority of people who would have been killed in
>a car crash if I had been wearing a seat belt. The passenger side was
>completely ripped away, by not wearing a seat belt I was thrown clear, I
>still wear one every time I get in a car though.
Had you been wearing a seat belt and been killed, you would
undoubtedly have cost the NHS less money.
--
Cynic
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 11:22:22 AM8/2/12
to
thirty-six
Aug 2, 2012, 11:16:12 AM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 1:01 pm, Bertie Wooster <b...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:39:30 +0100, "John Benn"
>
> <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:39:30 +0100, "John Benn"
>
> >"thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:1ff18006-f611-48d9...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> I'll give Bradley the benefit, he was delusional following the
> >> excitement of winning the gold medal.
>
> >It'll be interesting to see how quickly he is transformed from being a hero
> >to a villain by the militant cyclist community just because he stated the
> >bloody obvious.
>
> A hero can hold mistaken beliefs.
only for a short time.
>
> >> I'll give Bradley the benefit, he was delusional following the
> >> excitement of winning the gold medal.
>
> >It'll be interesting to see how quickly he is transformed from being a hero
> >to a villain by the militant cyclist community just because he stated the
> >bloody obvious.
>
> A hero can hold mistaken beliefs.
Bertie Wooster
Aug 2, 2012, 12:05:37 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:44:57 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
Wiggins has now denied that he said what he said. I have started a new
thread to reflect that, as the old thread title is misleading (in
light of what Wiggins is now saying).
wrote:
thread to reflect that, as the old thread title is misleading (in
light of what Wiggins is now saying).
Jon Ribbens
Aug 2, 2012, 12:06:36 PM8/2/12
to
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 12:08:56 PM8/2/12
to
"helmets - making them the law to wear"
tim.....
Aug 2, 2012, 12:14:25 PM8/2/12
to
"Judith" wrote in message
news:fp1l18lf3ae8bcb7a...@4ax.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But there is a very strong implication that Wiggins meant it
tim
news:fp1l18lf3ae8bcb7a...@4ax.com...
But there is a very strong implication that Wiggins meant it
tim
docin...@googlemail.com
Aug 2, 2012, 12:22:28 PM8/2/12
to cyni...@yahoo.co.uk
On Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:09:02 UTC+1, Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT), docin...@googlemail.com
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT), docin...@googlemail.com
The NHS argument hold no water for me whatsoever. If it is a viable argument to use over seat belts, it could be used to prohibit *any* slightly risky behaviour.
Well no, that's a slippery slope fallacy. My argument wasn't just the fact that it reduced the workload of the NHS, it's the fact that it is only a minor infringement of personal liberty as well.
JNugent
Aug 2, 2012, 12:33:06 PM8/2/12
to
On 02/08/2012 12:14, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:44:38 -0700 (PDT), chris...@yahoo.com <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 9:31?am, "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
>>> of the responsibility for their own safety.
>>
>> Good for Wiggins.
>
> This is the same Bradley Wiggins who was helmetless on a celebratory
> cycle after the TDF, with his young son, also helmetless, followed by
> others on bikes also helmetless. Just a week or so ago.
That was not officially on a public road. The Champs Elysees was closed to
general traffic at the time (as the background makes clear).
Still, it's probably better to ignore the truth, in pursuit of a "better"
story, eh?
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:44:38 -0700 (PDT), chris...@yahoo.com <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 9:31?am, "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> Eh oop.
>>>
>>>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>>>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>>>> compulsory.
>>>
>>>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>>
>>> It's about time a high-profile cyclist spoke out about cyclists sharing some
>>>> Eh oop.
>>>
>>>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>>>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>>>> compulsory.
>>>
>>>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>>
>>> of the responsibility for their own safety.
>>
>> Good for Wiggins.
>
> This is the same Bradley Wiggins who was helmetless on a celebratory
> cycle after the TDF, with his young son, also helmetless, followed by
> others on bikes also helmetless. Just a week or so ago.
That was not officially on a public road. The Champs Elysees was closed to
general traffic at the time (as the background makes clear).
Still, it's probably better to ignore the truth, in pursuit of a "better"
story, eh?
JNugent
Aug 2, 2012, 12:36:15 PM8/2/12
to
On 02/08/2012 13:11, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:03:11 +0100, "John Benn"
> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bertie Wooster" <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:40rk18t683bbogqhf...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:39:30 +0100, "John Benn"
>>> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "thirty-six" <thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:1ff18006-f611-48d9...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> I'll give Bradley the benefit, he was delusional following the
>>>>> excitement of winning the gold medal.
>>>>
>>>> It'll be interesting to see how quickly he is transformed from being a
>>>> hero
>>>> to a villain by the militant cyclist community just because he stated the
>>>> bloody obvious.
>>>
>>> A hero can hold mistaken beliefs.
>>
>> Not this hero. He has single-handedly improved the image of cyclists in the
>> UK by talking sense. We need more prominent people like him to speak out.
>
> Yeah! I've seen your post to urcm. How do you get them approved? I
> need a few tips 'cos mine seem to get rejected.
You surprise me.
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:03:11 +0100, "John Benn"
> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bertie Wooster" <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:40rk18t683bbogqhf...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:39:30 +0100, "John Benn"
>>> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "thirty-six" <thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:1ff18006-f611-48d9...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>> I'll give Bradley the benefit, he was delusional following the
>>>>> excitement of winning the gold medal.
>>>>
>>>> It'll be interesting to see how quickly he is transformed from being a
>>>> hero
>>>> to a villain by the militant cyclist community just because he stated the
>>>> bloody obvious.
>>>
>>> A hero can hold mistaken beliefs.
>>
>> Not this hero. He has single-handedly improved the image of cyclists in the
>> UK by talking sense. We need more prominent people like him to speak out.
>
> Yeah! I've seen your post to urcm. How do you get them approved? I
> need a few tips 'cos mine seem to get rejected.
I have had a lot of posts accepted in ukrcm, though one was once rejected
(Mea Culpa, I'd forgotten which NG I was posting in and thought it was this
one!).
I'd have thought you'd have no problem having posts accepted.
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 12:36:33 PM8/2/12
to
Thanks for clearing the misunderstanding up.
Just as a matter of interest : what point were you trying to make when you said
it?
Jon Ribbens
Aug 2, 2012, 12:38:16 PM8/2/12
to
On 2012-08-02, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Ah fine - so it was no-one other than you, yourself
>
> Thanks for clearing the misunderstanding up.
>
> Just as a matter of interest : what point were you trying to make
> when you said it?
My point, as I have already said, was obvious. If you don't understand
> Ah fine - so it was no-one other than you, yourself
>
> Thanks for clearing the misunderstanding up.
>
> Just as a matter of interest : what point were you trying to make
> when you said it?
it, then I can live with that.
JNugent
Aug 2, 2012, 12:39:17 PM8/2/12
to
On 02/08/2012 14:23, tim..... wrote:
> "Judith" wrote in message news:grsk181uv7341olcj...@4ax.com...
>
> "Judith" wrote in message news:grsk181uv7341olcj...@4ax.com...
>
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-08-02, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-08-02, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:07:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
>>>
>>> Sorry - I could not see that suggestion anywhere in the article.
>>>
>>> Could you perhaps point it out?
>>
>> Yes, I could, and indeed did.
>
>
>
> Sorry - you are obviously much much brighter than others here and can see
> things we can't - which sentence exactly did you think was promoting the fact
> that a helmet would protect you from a bus.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> As someone who hasn't taken part in this long pantomime
>
> It is clear to me that the connection with the bus is because news headlines
> said:
>
> "Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>
> So just how will wearing a helmet stop you from being killed by a bus?
So what?
>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
>>>
>>> Sorry - I could not see that suggestion anywhere in the article.
>>>
>>> Could you perhaps point it out?
>>
>> Yes, I could, and indeed did.
>
>
>
> Sorry - you are obviously much much brighter than others here and can see
> things we can't - which sentence exactly did you think was promoting the fact
> that a helmet would protect you from a bus.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> As someone who hasn't taken part in this long pantomime
>
> It is clear to me that the connection with the bus is because news headlines
> said:
>
> "Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>
> So just how will wearing a helmet stop you from being killed by a bus?
It wouldn't matter what Bradley Wiggins said about anything (including his
preferences for dinner last night), it would still have been *after* that
traffic accident.
Of what importance is the fact that the utterance occurred later than the
collision?
JNugent
Aug 2, 2012, 12:41:49 PM8/2/12
to
We all heard the interview on R4 today, surely?
(And probably, also a discussion on compulsion at lunchtime).
JNugent
Aug 2, 2012, 12:43:28 PM8/2/12
to
can probably hear it again on the BBC iPlayer.
> I have started a new
> thread to reflect that, as the old thread title is misleading (in
> light of what Wiggins is now saying).
JNugent
Aug 2, 2012, 12:44:19 PM8/2/12
to
JNugent
Aug 2, 2012, 12:45:37 PM8/2/12
to
Perhaps you mean you drew a strong inference to that effect.
You know your own business best.
Cassandra
Aug 2, 2012, 1:16:59 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:31:47 +0100, "John Benn"
<MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
Yes, thats right - motorists who can't drive properly
<MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
>> Eh oop.
>>
>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>> compulsory.
>>
>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>
>>
>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>> compulsory.
>>
>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>
>It's about time a high-profile cyclist spoke out about cyclists sharing some
>of the responsibility for their own safety.
>
Sharing with whom precisely ?
>of the responsibility for their own safety.
>
Yes, thats right - motorists who can't drive properly
Cassandra
Aug 2, 2012, 1:22:03 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:22:53 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:
>Eh oop.
>
>Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>compulsory.
>
>Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
Is this the same Bradley Wiggins who is sponsored by a leading cycle
helmet manufacturer ?
wrote:
>Eh oop.
>
>Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>compulsory.
>
>Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
helmet manufacturer ?
tim.....
Aug 2, 2012, 1:32:23 PM8/2/12
to
"Cassandra" wrote in message news:501ab538...@news.virginmedia.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
wrt this argument, that's a nonsense point.
AIUI:
A cycle helmet is no use to you in an incident involving a car (whoever is
at fault).
It's sole purpose is to protect you if you fall off, of your own accord, and
hit your head on the road.
I fail to see any reason at all why cyclists shouldn't be allowed to make
this decision for themselves.
tim
wrt this argument, that's a nonsense point.
AIUI:
A cycle helmet is no use to you in an incident involving a car (whoever is
at fault).
It's sole purpose is to protect you if you fall off, of your own accord, and
hit your head on the road.
I fail to see any reason at all why cyclists shouldn't be allowed to make
this decision for themselves.
tim
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Aug 2, 2012, 1:40:20 PM8/2/12
to
On 02/08/2012 11:31, AlanG wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:03:51 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On 02/08/2012 10:47, LebesgueMeasure wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>> news:a7urvg...@mid.individual.net...
>>> prefer to use the state to enforce it.
>>
>> You are hanging far too much on minor issues of road safety.
>>
>> Or, if you really believe that someone who supports road safety measures for
>> cyclists is a "totalitarian socialist nutcase", only God knows what you think
>> of some other aspects of road traffic law, much of which doesn't even pretend
>> to be about safety.
>
> It is the compulsory aspect.
> The rise of the nanny state.
You mean like compulsory seat belts in cars & crash helmets for
motorcyclists?
--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:03:51 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On 02/08/2012 10:47, LebesgueMeasure wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>> news:a7urvg...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 02/08/2012 09:22, The Todal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Eh oop.
>>>>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>>>>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>>>>> compulsory.
>>>>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>>>
>>>> What a sensible and reasonable chap he seems.
>>>>
>>>>> Eh oop.
>>>>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>>>>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>>>>> compulsory.
>>>>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
>>> whether to wear a cycle helmet. A totalitarian socialist nutcase would
>>> A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
>>> prefer to use the state to enforce it.
>>
>> You are hanging far too much on minor issues of road safety.
>>
>> Or, if you really believe that someone who supports road safety measures for
>> cyclists is a "totalitarian socialist nutcase", only God knows what you think
>> of some other aspects of road traffic law, much of which doesn't even pretend
>> to be about safety.
>
> It is the compulsory aspect.
> The rise of the nanny state.
You mean like compulsory seat belts in cars & crash helmets for
motorcyclists?
--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 1:42:11 PM8/2/12
to
inexplicable:
==========================================================
"Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
=========================================================
Many thanks for taking part.
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 1:43:19 PM8/2/12
to
davi...@blueyonder.co.uk
Aug 2, 2012, 1:41:58 PM8/2/12
to
On 02/08/2012 13:45, Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:03:51 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> Or, if you really believe that someone who supports road safety measures for
>> cyclists is a "totalitarian socialist nutcase", only God knows what you think
>> of some other aspects of road traffic law, much of which doesn't even pretend
>> to be about safety.
>
> It is one thing to support and promote something. It is quite another
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:03:51 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> Or, if you really believe that someone who supports road safety measures for
>> cyclists is a "totalitarian socialist nutcase", only God knows what you think
>> of some other aspects of road traffic law, much of which doesn't even pretend
>> to be about safety.
>
> thing to make something legally mandatory with criminal sanctions if
> you fail to do it. It is the latter that might be appropriately
> described as the act of a "totalitarian socialist nutcase."
>
> I think it is quite sensible to brush your teeth every day and I
> support that idea. I would however be *very* much against making it
> mandatory, with a �60 fine being handed out to anyone who has not
> brushed their teeth in the past 24 hours.
>
> I think that wearing a helmet whilst cycling is sensible in certain
> circumstances, but that the risk of head injury is not particularly
> great in other circumstances, and that the inconvenience and/or
> expense of having a helmet might well outweigh the small increase in
> safety it affords.
What a shame RoSPA, the BMA & the NHS differ in their opinion.
--
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Bicycles Are For Children�Like Masturbation, and something you should
grow out of. There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown
men who want to ride a bike."
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Aug 2, 2012, 1:43:13 PM8/2/12
to
On 02/08/2012 15:12, Cynic wrote:
> for the driver or passenger to assess the risk and act as they think
> best.
>
So what about the poor bastards who have to mop up the damage afterwards?
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:35:34 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>> A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
>>> whether to wear a cycle helmet.
>>
> wrote:
>
>>> A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
>>> whether to wear a cycle helmet.
>>
>> and do you think the same for seat belts?
>
> Well *I* certainly do - ditto for motorcycle helmets. Failure to wear
> either is unlikely to put anyone *else* at risk, so IMO it is entirely
>
> Well *I* certainly do - ditto for motorcycle helmets. Failure to wear
> for the driver or passenger to assess the risk and act as they think
> best.
>
So what about the poor bastards who have to mop up the damage afterwards?
Roger Merriman
Aug 2, 2012, 1:48:07 PM8/2/12
to
This said he also posted this.
"Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as
reports suggest."
"I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection
legally I (sic) involved In an accident."
In the video at that point he seems a little muddled, he may be telling
the truth about his intention.
equally he might not.
But he clearly is not standing helmets to be legally required.
Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Aug 2, 2012, 1:48:19 PM8/2/12
to
On 02/08/2012 14:23, tim..... wrote:
> "Judith" wrote in message
> news:grsk181uv7341olcj...@4ax.com...
>
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-08-02, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:07:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
>>>
>>> Sorry - I could not see that suggestion anywhere in the article.
>>>
>>> Could you perhaps point it out?
>>
>> Yes, I could, and indeed did.
>
>
>
> Sorry - you are obviously much much brighter than others here and can see
> things we can't - which sentence exactly did you think was promoting the
> fact
> that a helmet would protect you from a bus.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> As someone who hasn't taken part in this long pantomime
>
> It is clear to me that the connection with the bus is because news
> headlines said:
>
> "Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>
> So just how will wearing a helmet stop you from being killed by a bus?
>
> tim
> "Judith" wrote in message
> news:grsk181uv7341olcj...@4ax.com...
>
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-08-02, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:07:30 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
>>> <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, 'cos a hat will totally save you from being crushed by a bus.
>>>
>>> Sorry - I could not see that suggestion anywhere in the article.
>>>
>>> Could you perhaps point it out?
>>
>> Yes, I could, and indeed did.
>
>
>
> Sorry - you are obviously much much brighter than others here and can see
> things we can't - which sentence exactly did you think was promoting the
> fact
> that a helmet would protect you from a bus.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> As someone who hasn't taken part in this long pantomime
>
> It is clear to me that the connection with the bus is because news
> headlines said:
>
> "Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>
> So just how will wearing a helmet stop you from being killed by a bus?
>
>
>
>
>
According to psycholist logic, your unhelmeted head would automatically
stop a few cm away from the bus anyway.
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Aug 2, 2012, 1:54:18 PM8/2/12
to
On 02/08/2012 09:22, The Todal wrote:
> Eh oop.
>
> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
> compulsory.
>
> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
What a wriggling twat.
> Eh oop.
>
> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
> compulsory.
>
> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
"Wiggins, speaking after winning his Olympic gold medal in Wednesday's
time trial, said making it illegal to cycle without a helmet would make
the roads safer "because ultimately, if you get knocked off and you
ain't got a helmet on, then how can you kind of argue".
Then when he realises the psycholist mafia will put out a hit, he
wriggles like fuck & says;
"Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as
We know someone else with the initials BW who wriggles like fuck don't we?
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Aug 2, 2012, 1:56:46 PM8/2/12
to
On 02/08/2012 12:40, Judith wrote:
>>>>
>>>> news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>> http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/gallery/201207238735/bradley-wiggins-wins-tour-de-france/1/#11
>>
>> Pictures 8 and 11.
>>
>> Pure hypocrisy? Money talking? Muddled thinking?
>> Pick your reason.
>
> Diddums - just get over it - this is going to go on, and on, and on
>
>
> As someone in the moderated group has said - wait until a cycle helmet
> manufacturer gets in on the act and they sponsor him ; all that publicity for
> cycle helmets.
>
> I bet they will call it a "Wigg" or a "Wiggo"
>
>
Will it have cute little sideburns attached?
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 06:14:03 -0500, Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:44:38 -0700 (PDT), chris...@yahoo.com <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 9:31?am, "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:44:38 -0700 (PDT), chris...@yahoo.com <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 9:31?am, "John Benn" <MrBenn_use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> Eh oop.
>>>>
>>>>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>>>>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>>>>> compulsory.
>>>>
>>>>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>>>>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>>>>> compulsory.
>>>>
>>>>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>>>
>>>> It's about time a high-profile cyclist spoke out about cyclists sharing some
>>>> of the responsibility for their own safety.
>>>
>>>> of the responsibility for their own safety.
>>>
>>> Good for Wiggins.
>>
>> This is the same Bradley Wiggins who was helmetless on a celebratory
>> cycle after the TDF, with his young son, also helmetless, followed by
>> others on bikes also helmetless. Just a week or so ago.
>>
>> See
>>
>> This is the same Bradley Wiggins who was helmetless on a celebratory
>> cycle after the TDF, with his young son, also helmetless, followed by
>> others on bikes also helmetless. Just a week or so ago.
>>
>> http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/gallery/201207238735/bradley-wiggins-wins-tour-de-france/1/#11
>>
>> Pictures 8 and 11.
>>
>> Pure hypocrisy? Money talking? Muddled thinking?
>> Pick your reason.
>
> Diddums - just get over it - this is going to go on, and on, and on
>
>
> As someone in the moderated group has said - wait until a cycle helmet
> manufacturer gets in on the act and they sponsor him ; all that publicity for
> cycle helmets.
>
> I bet they will call it a "Wigg" or a "Wiggo"
>
>
Will it have cute little sideburns attached?
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Aug 2, 2012, 1:58:22 PM8/2/12
to
No. Didn't think so.
Cynic
Aug 2, 2012, 2:56:48 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:41:58 +0100, davi...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>> I think that wearing a helmet whilst cycling is sensible in certain
>> circumstances, but that the risk of head injury is not particularly
>> great in other circumstances, and that the inconvenience and/or
>> expense of having a helmet might well outweigh the small increase in
>> safety it affords.
>What a shame RoSPA, the BMA & the NHS differ in their opinion.
Opinions I can take. Rules not so much.
>> I think that wearing a helmet whilst cycling is sensible in certain
>> circumstances, but that the risk of head injury is not particularly
>> great in other circumstances, and that the inconvenience and/or
>> expense of having a helmet might well outweigh the small increase in
>> safety it affords.
>What a shame RoSPA, the BMA & the NHS differ in their opinion.
Some cycle trips have about as much risk of the rider having an
accident and banging their head as running or even walking over the
same route.
I suppose now you will be recommending that pedestrians wear helmets
as well.
--
Cynic
Cassandra
Aug 2, 2012, 2:57:13 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:58:22 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
<davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 02/08/2012 18:16, Cassandra wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:31:47 +0100, "John Benn"
>> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>>> news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Eh oop.
>>>>
>>>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>>>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>>>> compulsory.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>>
>>> It's about time a high-profile cyclist spoke out about cyclists sharing some
>>> of the responsibility for their own safety.
>>>
>> Sharing with whom precisely ?
>>
>> Yes, thats right - motorists who can't drive properly
>>
>Evidence to support that bollox?
>
A certain group on motorists - lets call them "people who post on
<davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 02/08/2012 18:16, Cassandra wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:31:47 +0100, "John Benn"
>> <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
>>> news:a7urmt...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Eh oop.
>>>>
>>>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>>>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>>>> compulsory.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>>>
>>> It's about time a high-profile cyclist spoke out about cyclists sharing some
>>> of the responsibility for their own safety.
>>>
>> Sharing with whom precisely ?
>>
>> Yes, thats right - motorists who can't drive properly
>>
>Evidence to support that bollox?
>
uk.rec.cycling" - appear to have serious problems sharing the road
with two feet wide objects travelling at 10mph. Rather than admit
their lack of basic overtaking and observational skills, they have
developed sitting on their arses and trolling as a coping
strategy.Unfortunately they aren't very good at it.
Cassandra
Aug 2, 2012, 3:00:49 PM8/2/12
to
>On 02/08/2012 13:45, Cynic wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:03:51 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Or, if you really believe that someone who supports road safety measures for
>>> cyclists is a "totalitarian socialist nutcase", only God knows what you think
>>> of some other aspects of road traffic law, much of which doesn't even pretend
>>> to be about safety.
>>
>> It is one thing to support and promote something. It is quite another
>> thing to make something legally mandatory with criminal sanctions if
>> you fail to do it. It is the latter that might be appropriately
>> described as the act of a "totalitarian socialist nutcase."
>>
>> I think it is quite sensible to brush your teeth every day and I
>> support that idea. I would however be *very* much against making it
>> mandatory, with a £60 fine being handed out to anyone who has not
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:03:51 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Or, if you really believe that someone who supports road safety measures for
>>> cyclists is a "totalitarian socialist nutcase", only God knows what you think
>>> of some other aspects of road traffic law, much of which doesn't even pretend
>>> to be about safety.
>>
>> It is one thing to support and promote something. It is quite another
>> thing to make something legally mandatory with criminal sanctions if
>> you fail to do it. It is the latter that might be appropriately
>> described as the act of a "totalitarian socialist nutcase."
>>
>> I think it is quite sensible to brush your teeth every day and I
>> support that idea. I would however be *very* much against making it
>> brushed their teeth in the past 24 hours.
>>
>> I think that wearing a helmet whilst cycling is sensible in certain
>> circumstances, but that the risk of head injury is not particularly
>> great in other circumstances, and that the inconvenience and/or
>> expense of having a helmet might well outweigh the small increase in
>> safety it affords.
>
>
>What a shame RoSPA, the BMA & the NHS differ in their opinion.
>
What about cardiologists ?
>>
>> I think that wearing a helmet whilst cycling is sensible in certain
>> circumstances, but that the risk of head injury is not particularly
>> great in other circumstances, and that the inconvenience and/or
>> expense of having a helmet might well outweigh the small increase in
>> safety it affords.
>
>
>What a shame RoSPA, the BMA & the NHS differ in their opinion.
>
Cassandra
Aug 2, 2012, 3:03:13 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:43:13 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
<davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 02/08/2012 15:12, Cynic wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:35:34 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
>>>> whether to wear a cycle helmet.
>>>
>>> and do you think the same for seat belts?
>>
>> Well *I* certainly do - ditto for motorcycle helmets. Failure to wear
>> either is unlikely to put anyone *else* at risk, so IMO it is entirely
>> for the driver or passenger to assess the risk and act as they think
>> best.
>>
>So what about the poor bastards who have to mop up the damage afterwards?
>
If they have problems looking at dead bodies they are in the wrong job
<davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 02/08/2012 15:12, Cynic wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:35:34 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
>>>> whether to wear a cycle helmet.
>>>
>>> and do you think the same for seat belts?
>>
>> Well *I* certainly do - ditto for motorcycle helmets. Failure to wear
>> either is unlikely to put anyone *else* at risk, so IMO it is entirely
>> for the driver or passenger to assess the risk and act as they think
>> best.
>>
>So what about the poor bastards who have to mop up the damage afterwards?
>
JNugent
Aug 2, 2012, 3:04:09 PM8/2/12
to
Periander
Aug 2, 2012, 3:10:22 PM8/2/12
to
On 2-Aug-2012, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> *I* heard that.
So did I, on the morning's news befoer I went to work. The swine also said
that cyclists shouldn't listen to Ipods and the like at the same time. It
was in response to a leading question from some woman interviewer expecting
him to have a rant about the cysclist killed last night by an OIympic bus.
No prevarication, no qualification or anything ... I was that impressed I
even spoke about it to office collegues once I'd got to work.
--
All the best,
Periander
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx
Cynic
Aug 2, 2012, 3:12:44 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:22:28 -0700 (PDT), docin...@googlemail.com
wrote:
>On Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:09:02 UTC+1, Cynic wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT), docin...@googlemail.com
>The NHS argument hold no water for me whatsoever. If it is a viable argument
>to use over seat belts, it could be used to prohibit *any* slightly risky behaviour.
>Well no, that's a slippery slope fallacy.
No, because I did not suggest that it *would* likely be used to
prohibit other things (which is the "slippery slope" argument), only
that if the argument is sound for bicycles it would be equally sound
for all the other things as well. Therefore it is essentially
questioning the validity of the argument by showing that it is not
considered valid in other spheres.
Not that a "slippery slope" argument is necessarily a fallacy at all,
it can often be extremely real and pertinent - but it is not the one I
made.
> My argument wasn't just the fact that it reduced the
>workload of the NHS, it's the fact that it is only a
>minor infringement of personal liberty as well.
That again depends on circumstance. I agree that in *most* cases it
is a minor thing, but there can be occassions when it becomes a major
inconvenience to *have* to comply.
I have had a seat belt malfunction in a car (it would not stay
fastened). Getting the car towed to a garage or using alternative
transport to get a replacement fastener would have cost significant
time and money. Whilst the probability of a seatbelt saving me from
injury over my entire driving history is significant, the probability
of suffering an injury due to not wearing a functional seatbelt for
just a few journies until I got it fixed was sufficiently low that it
was IMO a perfectly acceptable risk to take.
The same is true of the occasional bike trip.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>On Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:09:02 UTC+1, Cynic wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT), docin...@googlemail.com
>The NHS argument hold no water for me whatsoever. If it is a viable argument
>to use over seat belts, it could be used to prohibit *any* slightly risky behaviour.
>Well no, that's a slippery slope fallacy.
No, because I did not suggest that it *would* likely be used to
prohibit other things (which is the "slippery slope" argument), only
that if the argument is sound for bicycles it would be equally sound
for all the other things as well. Therefore it is essentially
questioning the validity of the argument by showing that it is not
considered valid in other spheres.
Not that a "slippery slope" argument is necessarily a fallacy at all,
it can often be extremely real and pertinent - but it is not the one I
made.
> My argument wasn't just the fact that it reduced the
>workload of the NHS, it's the fact that it is only a
>minor infringement of personal liberty as well.
That again depends on circumstance. I agree that in *most* cases it
is a minor thing, but there can be occassions when it becomes a major
inconvenience to *have* to comply.
I have had a seat belt malfunction in a car (it would not stay
fastened). Getting the car towed to a garage or using alternative
transport to get a replacement fastener would have cost significant
time and money. Whilst the probability of a seatbelt saving me from
injury over my entire driving history is significant, the probability
of suffering an injury due to not wearing a functional seatbelt for
just a few journies until I got it fixed was sufficiently low that it
was IMO a perfectly acceptable risk to take.
The same is true of the occasional bike trip.
--
Cynic
Cynic
Aug 2, 2012, 3:16:59 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:43:13 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
<davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
>>>> whether to wear a cycle helmet.
>>> and do you think the same for seat belts?
>> Well *I* certainly do - ditto for motorcycle helmets. Failure to wear
>> either is unlikely to put anyone *else* at risk, so IMO it is entirely
>> for the driver or passenger to assess the risk and act as they think
>> best.
>So what about the poor bastards who have to mop up the damage afterwards?
Helmets certainly don't decrease the amount of mopping up
>>>> A sensible and reasonable person would allow it to the individual to decide
>>>> whether to wear a cycle helmet.
>>> and do you think the same for seat belts?
>> Well *I* certainly do - ditto for motorcycle helmets. Failure to wear
>> either is unlikely to put anyone *else* at risk, so IMO it is entirely
>> for the driver or passenger to assess the risk and act as they think
>> best.
>So what about the poor bastards who have to mop up the damage afterwards?
significantly, and it is part of the job of emergency personel to do
so. TBH it is probably easier (and safer) to deal with a dead body
than a badly injured live one.
--
Cynic
thirty-six
Aug 2, 2012, 3:21:28 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 7:56 pm, cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
The recommendations come from persons wanting us surrounded by
phalluses.
phalluses.
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 3:24:34 PM8/2/12
to
He has now realised that he has upset so many of his followers (those that are
fuckwits) that he now has to claim that he doesn't support that view.
thirty-six
Aug 2, 2012, 3:23:29 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 8:04 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 02/08/2012 20:00, Cassandra wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:41:58 +0100, davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> On 02/08/2012 13:45, Cynic wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:03:51 +0100, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm>
> On 02/08/2012 20:00, Cassandra wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:41:58 +0100, davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> On 02/08/2012 13:45, Cynic wrote:
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Or, if you really believe that someone who supports road safety measures for
> >>>> cyclists is a "totalitarian socialist nutcase", only God knows what you think
> >>>> of some other aspects of road traffic law, much of which doesn't even pretend
> >>>> to be about safety.
>
> >>> It is one thing to support and promote something. It is quite another
> >>> thing to make something legally mandatory with criminal sanctions if
> >>> you fail to do it. It is the latter that might be appropriately
> >>> described as the act of a "totalitarian socialist nutcase."
>
> >>> I think it is quite sensible to brush your teeth every day and I
> >>> support that idea. I would however be *very* much against making it
> >>> mandatory, with a 60 fine being handed out to anyone who has not
> >>> brushed their teeth in the past 24 hours.
>
> >>> I think that wearing a helmet whilst cycling is sensible in certain
> >>> circumstances, but that the risk of head injury is not particularly
> >>> great in other circumstances, and that the inconvenience and/or
> >>> expense of having a helmet might well outweigh the small increase in
> >>> safety it affords.
>
> >> What a shame RoSPA, the BMA & the NHS differ in their opinion.
>
> > What about cardiologists ?
>
> Are there none of them in the BMA or the NHS?
WTF do you want to know about the Bloody Medicalisation Authority and
>
> >>>> Or, if you really believe that someone who supports road safety measures for
> >>>> cyclists is a "totalitarian socialist nutcase", only God knows what you think
> >>>> of some other aspects of road traffic law, much of which doesn't even pretend
> >>>> to be about safety.
>
> >>> It is one thing to support and promote something. It is quite another
> >>> thing to make something legally mandatory with criminal sanctions if
> >>> you fail to do it. It is the latter that might be appropriately
> >>> described as the act of a "totalitarian socialist nutcase."
>
> >>> I think it is quite sensible to brush your teeth every day and I
> >>> support that idea. I would however be *very* much against making it
> >>> mandatory, with a 60 fine being handed out to anyone who has not
> >>> brushed their teeth in the past 24 hours.
>
> >>> I think that wearing a helmet whilst cycling is sensible in certain
> >>> circumstances, but that the risk of head injury is not particularly
> >>> great in other circumstances, and that the inconvenience and/or
> >>> expense of having a helmet might well outweigh the small increase in
> >>> safety it affords.
>
> >> What a shame RoSPA, the BMA & the NHS differ in their opinion.
>
> > What about cardiologists ?
>
> Are there none of them in the BMA or the NHS?
the National Harm service?
Judith
Aug 2, 2012, 3:25:42 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:54:18 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
<davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 02/08/2012 09:22, The Todal wrote:
>> Eh oop.
>>
>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>> compulsory.
>>
>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>
>
>What a wriggling twat.
>
>"Wiggins, speaking after winning his Olympic gold medal in Wednesday's
>time trial, said making it illegal to cycle without a helmet would make
>the roads safer "because ultimately, if you get knocked off and you
>ain't got a helmet on, then how can you kind of argue".
>
>Then when he realises the psycholist mafia will put out a hit, he
>wriggles like fuck & says;
>
>"Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as
>reports suggest,"
>
>We know someone else with the initials BW who wriggles like fuck don't we?
Well spotted - the other one has been wriggling like fuck today.
<davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On 02/08/2012 09:22, The Todal wrote:
>> Eh oop.
>>
>> Britain's most famous and successful cyclist now incurs the wrath of
>> Britain's cycling community by demanding laws to make cycle helmets
>> compulsory.
>>
>> Presumably he can expect poisonous tweets during his day of triumph....
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19090898
>
>
>What a wriggling twat.
>
>"Wiggins, speaking after winning his Olympic gold medal in Wednesday's
>time trial, said making it illegal to cycle without a helmet would make
>the roads safer "because ultimately, if you get knocked off and you
>ain't got a helmet on, then how can you kind of argue".
>
>Then when he realises the psycholist mafia will put out a hit, he
>wriggles like fuck & says;
>
>"Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as
>reports suggest,"
>
>We know someone else with the initials BW who wriggles like fuck don't we?
Cynic
Aug 2, 2012, 3:27:21 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:39:17 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
>> It is clear to me that the connection with the bus is because news headlines
>> said:
>>
>> "Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>
>> So just how will wearing a helmet stop you from being killed by a bus?
>
>So what?
>
>It wouldn't matter what Bradley Wiggins said about anything (including his
>preferences for dinner last night), it would still have been *after* that
>traffic accident.
>
>Of what importance is the fact that the utterance occurred later than the
>collision?
When the two things are written in a single sentence, there is a quite
obvious implied causality. i.e. the bus death prompted Wiggins to
recommend helmet laws. That in turn very strongly implies that had
the cyclist in question been wearing a helmet, there would have been a
more favourable outcome.
If I were to write, "Scientists urge people to drink more milk after
bird flu outbreak," I think the natural implication would be that
drinking milk somehow mitigates against bird flu.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>> It is clear to me that the connection with the bus is because news headlines
>> said:
>>
>> "Bradley Wiggins urges cyclist helmet laws after bus death"
>>
>> So just how will wearing a helmet stop you from being killed by a bus?
>
>
>It wouldn't matter what Bradley Wiggins said about anything (including his
>preferences for dinner last night), it would still have been *after* that
>traffic accident.
>
>Of what importance is the fact that the utterance occurred later than the
>collision?
When the two things are written in a single sentence, there is a quite
obvious implied causality. i.e. the bus death prompted Wiggins to
recommend helmet laws. That in turn very strongly implies that had
the cyclist in question been wearing a helmet, there would have been a
more favourable outcome.
If I were to write, "Scientists urge people to drink more milk after
bird flu outbreak," I think the natural implication would be that
drinking milk somehow mitigates against bird flu.
--
Cynic
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages