Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you.

[Judith]

I think that there needs to be a publicity drive to encourage cyclists to wear
helmets - if only because psycholists are against them

It has occurred to me that a very appropriate slogan can be "Wearing a cycle
helmet will not kill you" - with the obvious implication that not wearing one
may do so - but this does not have to be said.

So........

Whenever you get a chance, please use the slogan "Wearing a cycle helmet will
not kill you"

I am sure that it will catch on - and you heard it here first!

If you succeed in getting it used on a web page - or in a newspaper - don't
forget to report back.

(A special prize to anyone who can use it as a sig in URCM - Mr Benn likes a
challenge :-)
--
Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you

[Judith]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 15:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Justin <justinl...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 19 mei, 20:10, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> I think that there needs to be a publicity drive to encourage cyclists to wear
>> helmets - if only because psycholists are against them
>>
>> It has occurred to me that a very appropriate slogan can be "Wearing a cycle
>> helmet will not kill you" - with the obvious implication that not wearing one
>> may do so - but this does not have to be said.

>Well why did you feel the need to say it?


It was a fuckwit magnet.

--
Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you.

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 23:14:25 +0100, Judith wrote:

> fuckwit

Why do people insult others?

They have nothing to do with their miserable life.

[soup]

> On 19 mei, 20:10, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>> with the obvious implication that not wearing one
>> may do so

Sorry for piggy-backing your post Justin but I have Judy killfiled
so can't see her OP (and I don't want to muck about with my system to
see it [it's not important enough])


Note the MAY Judy (or Judith or whatever your real name may be)

[Mentalguy2k8]

"soup" <cheezs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kncout$nei$1...@dont-email.me...

>
>> On 19 mei, 20:10, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> with the obvious implication that not wearing one
>>> may do so
>
> Sorry for piggy-backing your post Justin but I have Judy killfiled
> so can't see her OP

You could quite easily see it quoted in Justin's post. Unless you somehow
knew that he didn't quote *all* of it.

[Judith]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:45:51 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I have previously used the sig: Have you noticed how some wankers actually
need to tell someone when they have been put in the kill-file?
But then of course - the really serious wankers have to remind people
periodically; particularly when they have let
something slip which shows that they do actually read the "kill-filed" poster.

What a pity that soup won't see this :-)

--
Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9phkp85k1jr17bdbe...@4ax.com...

>>> Sorry for piggy-backing your post Justin but I have Judy killfiled
>>> so can't see her OP
>>
>>You could quite easily see it quoted in Justin's post. Unless you somehow
>>knew that he didn't quote *all* of it.
>
>
> I have previously used the sig: Have you noticed how some wankers
> actually
> need to tell someone when they have been put in the kill-file?
> But then of course - the really serious wankers have to remind people
> periodically; particularly when they have let
> something slip which shows that they do actually read the "kill-filed"
> poster.
>
> What a pity that soup won't see this :-)

Indeed, seems the only reason he "piggybacked" Justin's post was to update
you on your killfile-ing-ness status.

I do hope he isn't using Mason's secret Google killfile code.

[Alcoholist]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:rg4ip89uvi672g8dn...@4ax.com...

> "Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you" - with the obvious implication
> that not wearing one
> may do so - but this does not have to be said.

The only thing a cycle helmet does is prevent a cracked cranium. You can
still die of brain injury without a cracked cranium.

Your slogan doesn't make any sense, TBH.

[Judith]

Perhaps you can explain how many people have been killed on British roads
during the last ten years because they were wearing a cycle helmet.
--
Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you.

[Alcoholist]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:enspp89tm4o0p6gii...@4ax.com...

> Perhaps you can explain how many people have been killed on British roads
> during the last ten years because they were wearing a cycle helmet.

Perhaps you could give some detail on the types of injuries a helmet would
offer protection against. It obviously is no good for neck, facial or brain
injuries (all of which can be fatal).

Just asking so I know how to fall so the helmet is effective.

--
Not wearing a helmet will also not kill you

[Judith]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 19:50:11 -0300, "Alcoholist" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:enspp89tm4o0p6gii...@4ax.com...
>
>> Perhaps you can explain how many people have been killed on British roads
>> during the last ten years because they were wearing a cycle helmet.
>
>Perhaps you could give some detail on the types of injuries a helmet would
>offer protection against. It obviously is no good for neck, facial or brain
>injuries (all of which can be fatal).

protecting you head as it bangs into another object - absorbing the energy of
impact

>Just asking so I know how to fall so the helmet is effective.
>
>--
>Not wearing a helmet will also not kill you

........ but may expose you to additional injury or even death.


There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to
the risk of greater injury. The wearing of helmets may afford protection in
some circumstances and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary
prudence should wear one.
Mr Justice Griffith Williams

[Nick]

lol! *it must therefore follow* this judge hasn't quite grasped logic
has he.

[Dave - Cyclists VOHR]

*it must therefore follow* that the BMA, the NHS, RoSPA, TFL & the
Highway Code haven't quite grasped logic either.

--
Dave-Cyclists VORH
''As the severity of the injury increased the benefit of wearing a
helmet increased, which is very hard to ignore I think,'' Dr Olivier said.

Results showed that cyclists without helmets were more than 3.9 times as
likely to sustain a head injury to those with helmets. Helmets reduced
the risk of moderate head injury by 49 per cent, of serious head injury
by 62 per cent, and of severe head injury by 74 per cent".

[Judith]

Tell that to the next cyclist who doesn't get the compo he thought he was going
to get.

I don't know about "lol" - I will piss myself.

[Nick]

On 25/05/2013 20:56, Judith wrote:
>>> There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to
>>> the risk of greater injury. The wearing of helmets may afford protection in
>>> some circumstances and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary
>>> prudence should wear one.
>>> Mr Justice Griffith Williams
>>>
>>
>> lol! *it must therefore follow* this judge hasn't quite grasped logic
>> has he.
>>
>
>
> Tell that to the next cyclist who doesn't get the compo he thought he was going
> to get.
>
> I don't know about "lol" - I will piss myself.
>

You mean someone apart from you paid attention to this idiot? Let me see
if I can emulate this judge's brilliance:

There can be no doubt that a failure to have a double mastectomy may
expose the woman to a heightened risk of cancer. The double mastectomy
may afford protection in some circumstances and *it must therefore
follow* that a woman of ordinary prudence will have her tits chopped off.

I think I've got the hang of it so make room for me on the bench.