Just when you thought cyclists could not look sillier

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Will a compo cam fit?

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989

[JNugent]

On 25/10/2016 15:39, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

> Will a compo cam fit?

> http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989

It looks like a good idea.

Let's hope it becomes compulsory.

Cue the usual suspects trying to mock the fact that it won't prevent
broken legs and crush injuries when cyling under left-turning lorries...

[Jude]

From "Mr Pounder Esquire" <MrPo...@RationalThought.com>:

>Will a compo cam fit?
>
>http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989

It worked for me when I was hit by a bus outside our local zoo. I went 20ft in
the air and landed on my cushioned head. I thought, "Well that was a lucky
escape!" But unfortunately I then bounced another 20ft over a wall and into
the lion enclosure.

[JNugent]

[Applause]

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Don't be such a safety conscious pussy.

--
Working with Sophia Loren is like being bombarded by watermelons -- Alan Ladd

[kink...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:39:43 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Will a compo cam fit?
>
> http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989

Old news.
Even I have heard of this ridiculous invention.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:39:29 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire <MrPo...@rationalthought.com> wrote:

> Will a compo cam fit?
>
> http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989

Hopefully it'll get thrust into their eye sockets by the inflating bag.

[kink...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 4:16:22 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/10/2016 15:39, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>
> > Will a compo cam fit?
>
> > http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989
>
> It looks like a good idea.
>
> Let's hope it becomes compulsory.
>

Why do you hope it becomes compulsory?
You seem to have some unhealthy obsession with penalising cyclists because they are cyclists.
Do you think pedestrians should also be compelled to wear one of these slave collars?

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I wonder if they could be tampered with, make a little hole in the stupid thing.

--
Q: What's the difference between an Irish funeral and an Irish wedding?
A: One less drunk.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Nobody should ever be forced to protect themselves. It's the biggest hole in our freedom. I never wear a seatbelt for example.

--
Tell a man that there are 400 billion stars and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint and he has to touch it.

[caddys...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 6:45:51 PM UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:39:55 +0100, <kink...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:39:43 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> >> Will a compo cam fit?
> >>
> >> http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989
> >
> >
> > Old news.
> > Even I have heard of this ridiculous invention.
>
> I wonder if they could be tampered with, make a little hole in the stupid thing.
>

Making a hole in the stupid thing is the only way it will work.
Car airbags absorb the energy then dissipate it by deflating.
This device transfers the absorbed energy back to the wearer.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:52:00 +0100, <caddys...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 6:45:51 PM UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:39:55 +0100, <kink...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:39:43 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>> >> Will a compo cam fit?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989
>> >
>> >
>> > Old news.
>> > Even I have heard of this ridiculous invention.
>>
>> I wonder if they could be tampered with, make a little hole in the stupid thing.
>
> Making a hole in the stupid thing is the only way it will work.

I mean one big enough that it would deflate too fast.

> Car airbags absorb the energy then dissipate it by deflating.
> This device transfers the absorbed energy back to the wearer.

It would work without a hole, it would just act as a cushion, making the impact slower. Try this - have some sort of inflated thing with no hole, and lie on the floor with it on your chest. Have a friend drop a large rock onto it. Now try dropping the same rock directly onto you. Even without doing it, it's obvious which would hurt more.

--
Did you hear about the little Indian chief who didn't know the difference between heads and tails?
He was always bringing home scalps with holes in them.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

First time I've heard of it. But I'm not a scum cyclist and have a life.
And just in case you didn't notice, I was taking the piss out of cyclists.
Most people do this.

[kink...@gmail.com]

You are assuming the dropped rock has somewhere else to go.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

It was in this group about 6 months ago, I'm sure it was you that mentioned it.

--
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history--with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."

[James Wilkinson Sword]

It would bounce.


--
In an attempt to attract a more modern, hipper, high tech type of customer, Campbell's Alphabet Soup now comes with spell check.

[mycro...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 7:10:05 PM UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:52:00 +0100, <caddys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 6:45:51 PM UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:39:55 +0100, <kink...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:39:43 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> >> >> Will a compo cam fit?
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Old news.
> >> > Even I have heard of this ridiculous invention.
> >>
> >> I wonder if they could be tampered with, make a little hole in the stupid thing.
> >
> > Making a hole in the stupid thing is the only way it will work.
>
> I mean one big enough that it would deflate too fast.
>
> > Car airbags absorb the energy then dissipate it by deflating.
> > This device transfers the absorbed energy back to the wearer.
>
> It would work without a hole, it would just act as a cushion, making the impact slower. Try this - have some sort of inflated thing with no hole, and lie on the floor with it on your chest. Have a friend drop a large rock onto it. Now try dropping the same rock directly onto you. Even without doing it, it's obvious which would hurt more.
>

Try this.

I shoot you in the head with a Barrett M82 with the helmet.
I shoot you in the head with a Barrett M82 without the helmet.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

According to you it would be ok if the airbag had a hole.

--
Stupid laws, number 467: In America, it is illegal to put money in someone else's parking meter.

[kink...@gmail.com]

?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:11:24 +0100, Mr Pounder Esquire
> <MrPo...@rationalthought.com> wrote:
>> kink...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 3:39:43 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
>>> wrote:
>>>> Will a compo cam fit?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989
>>>
>>>
>>> Old news.
>>> Even I have heard of this ridiculous invention.
>>
>> First time I've heard of it. But I'm not a scum cyclist and have a
>> life. And just in case you didn't notice, I was taking the piss out
>> of cyclists. Most people do this.
>
> It was in this group about 6 months ago, I'm sure it was you that
> mentioned it.

I don't think it was.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Well I've heard of it, and here is the only place I can think of that it would be mentioned.

--
How do you play Iraqi bingo?
B-52...F-16...B-2

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Ok, that was caddyshack, my mistake.

--
Very funny, Scotty... Now beam down my clothes!

[kink...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 10:25:43 PM UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

> --
> Very funny, Scotty... Now beam down my clothes!

LOL

[Peter Keller]

On 26.10.2016 03:39, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
> Will a compo cam fit?
>
> http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989
>
>

SO what's new?

It really is a very great compliment to be called silly by you.
Especially by you.
And I have no fucking interest in looking good in your eyes.
After all I ride a fucking bicycle.
And we all know what you think of bicyclists.
And because it is you who think that, that is an extremely great
compliment.
We must be doing something right.

[JNugent]

On 25/10/2016 18:44, kink...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 4:16:22 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/10/2016 15:39, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>
>>> Will a compo cam fit?
>>
>>> http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989
>>
>> It looks like a good idea.
>>
>> Let's hope it becomes compulsory.
>>
> Why do you hope it becomes compulsory?

Because one of the most common ways in which cyclists die in traffic
accidents is via head injuries.

There has always been a lot of resistance to the helmet (and I do not
support compulsion with that). But this doesn't need to be worn on the
head - it operates differently and should not cause the same aesthetic
resistance as do helmets.

> You seem to have some unhealthy obsession with penalising cyclists because they are cyclists.

You are spouting *total* *rubbish*.

As you ought to know - but obviously do not - I do not support
penalising cyclists any more than I support penalising other road-users.
In particular, I have never called for compulsion with safety helmets
for cyclists. If they don't want to look uncool, I understand that and
accept it.

But every road-user is responsible - primarily - for their own safety.

The actions of others are prescribed to a certain extent (which helps),
but it is up to the individual to keep themself safe. And it is
reasonable for the law to require and encourage the use of reasonable
methods to improve safety.

> Do you think pedestrians should also be compelled to wear one of these slave collars?

Put the question in a non-loaded way.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:09:08 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 25/10/2016 18:44, kink...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 4:16:22 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2016 15:39, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
>>>
>>>> Will a compo cam fit?
>>>
>>>> http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/offbeat/video-check-out-the-world-s-first-airbag-for-cyclists-1-8198989
>>>
>>> It looks like a good idea.
>>>
>>> Let's hope it becomes compulsory.
>>>
>> Why do you hope it becomes compulsory?
>
> Because one of the most common ways in which cyclists die in traffic
> accidents is via head injuries.

What has that to do with you? The only person who can say how safe their life is, is that person themselves.

> There has always been a lot of resistance to the helmet (and I do not
> support compulsion with that). But this doesn't need to be worn on the
> head - it operates differently and should not cause the same aesthetic
> resistance as do helmets.

I don't want something sat around my neck making me too warm either. My body, my life, fuck off.

>> You seem to have some unhealthy obsession with penalising cyclists because they are cyclists.
>
> You are spouting *total* *rubbish*.
>
> As you ought to know - but obviously do not - I do not support
> penalising cyclists any more than I support penalising other road-users.
> In particular, I have never called for compulsion with safety helmets
> for cyclists. If they don't want to look uncool, I understand that and
> accept it.
>
> But every road-user is responsible - primarily - for their own safety.

And it's none of your business how safe they choose to make THEMSELVES.

> The actions of others are prescribed to a certain extent (which helps),
> but it is up to the individual to keep themself safe. And it is
> reasonable for the law to require and encourage the use of reasonable
> methods to improve safety.

Only for OTHER PEOPLE.

>> Do you think pedestrians should also be compelled to wear one of these slave collars?
>
> Put the question in a non-loaded way.

It was a simple enough question.

--
Our parents got divorced when we were kids and it was kind of cool.

We got to go to divorce court with them. It was like a game show. My mom won the house and car. We're all excited. My dad got some luggage.

[kink...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 1:09:15 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

> On 25/10/2016 18:44, kink...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Why do you hope it becomes compulsory?
>
> Because one of the most common ways in which cyclists die in traffic
> accidents is via head injuries.

Are you sure about that?
Are you equally sure these inflating helmets will solve the problem?

>
> There has always been a lot of resistance to the helmet (and I do not
> support compulsion with that). But this doesn't need to be worn on the
> head - it operates differently and should not cause the same aesthetic
> resistance as do helmets.

What makes you so sure the resistance to MHL is about aesthetics?

>
> > You seem to have some unhealthy obsession with penalising cyclists because they are cyclists.
>
> You are spouting *total* *rubbish*.
>
> As you ought to know - but obviously do not - I do not support
> penalising cyclists any more than I support penalising other road-users.
> In particular, I have never called for compulsion with safety helmets
> for cyclists. If they don't want to look uncool, I understand that and
> accept it.

I know nothing about you, fortunately.

>
> But every road-user is responsible - primarily - for their own safety.

Blaming the victim is the easy way.

>
> The actions of others are prescribed to a certain extent (which helps),
> but it is up to the individual to keep themself safe. And it is
> reasonable for the law to require and encourage the use of reasonable
> methods to improve safety.
>
> > Do you think pedestrians should also be compelled to wear one of these slave collars?
>
> Put the question in a non-loaded way.

It was not a loaded question.
You seem determined to make cyclists wear some form of stigmata.

[JNugent]

On 26/10/2016 20:20, kink...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 1:09:15 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/10/2016 18:44, kink...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Why do you hope it becomes compulsory?

>> Because one of the most common ways in which cyclists die in traffic
>> accidents is via head injuries.

> Are you sure about that?
> Are you equally sure these inflating helmets will solve the problem?

Regrettably not. But it's worth a try.

No-one knew for certain that the breathalyser would cut traffic
accidents, injuries and fatalities in 1967, but it didn't stop
Parliament giving it a go.

>> There has always been a lot of resistance to the helmet (and I do not
>> support compulsion with that). But this doesn't need to be worn on the
>> head - it operates differently and should not cause the same aesthetic
>> resistance as do helmets.

> What makes you so sure the resistance to MHL is about aesthetics?

You weren't here when a newby posted about the helmet making [cyclists]
"look like a tit", where you?

And the embarrassed silence he got in response.

>>> You seem to have some unhealthy obsession with penalising cyclists because they are cyclists.

>> You are spouting *total* *rubbish*.
>> As you ought to know - but obviously do not - I do not support
>> penalising cyclists any more than I support penalising other road-users.
>> In particular, I have never called for compulsion with safety helmets
>> for cyclists. If they don't want to look uncool, I understand that and
>> accept it.

> I know nothing about you, fortunately.

That is clear enough. It didn't stop you spouting unsupportable
nonsense, though. Did it?

>> But every road-user is responsible - primarily - for their own safety.

> Blaming the victim is the easy way.

Is that what the law does when requiring vehicle occupants - including
passengers - to use their seat-belt, then?

Perhaps you'd like to re-think that one?

Or perhaps think about it for the first time.

>> The actions of others are prescribed to a certain extent (which helps),
>> but it is up to the individual to keep themself safe. And it is
>> reasonable for the law to require and encourage the use of reasonable
>> methods to improve safety.
>
>>> Do you think pedestrians should also be compelled to wear one of these slave collars?
>
>> Put the question in a non-loaded way.
>
> It was not a loaded question.

Oh yes, it was.

> You seem determined to make cyclists wear some form of stigmata.

There you go again.

More nonsense.

[TMS320]

On 26/10/2016 13:09, JNugent wrote:

> I have never called for compulsion...

Accepted.

> with safety helmets for cyclists...

Please provide proof of the adjective.

> If they don't want to look uncool, I understand that and accept it.

You seem very struck by the idea that this is a main reason for people
not using them. There are others.

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 27 October 2016 09:07:12 UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

>
> You seem very struck by the idea that this is a main reason for people
> not using them. There are others.

A plastic hat would hamper my Sennheiser IE800s and as they cost me £600 I won't have them hampered at any cost - even to a bruised bonce.

[JNugent]

On 27/10/2016 09:08, TMS320 wrote:

> On 26/10/2016 13:09, JNugent wrote:

>> I have never called for compulsion...

> Accepted.

>> with safety helmets for cyclists...

> Please provide proof of the adjective.

Er... yes... I confirm that I used the phrase "safety helmet".

Is that proof enough? *

>> If they don't want to look uncool, I understand that and accept it.

> You seem very struck by the idea that this is a main reason for people
> not using them. There are others.

It's the *main* one (which you have not denied).

There may be others. One of them may be the general principle of liberty
and freedom of action, which as it happens, is an exact analogue for
voting to leave the EU so as to ensure that. I can sympathise with that.

It isn't often cited here, though.


[* Have you really never heard the phrase "safety helmet", in any of
quite a range of contexts, before? If the cycling safety helmet's
purpose is not to improve safety, what purpose would it have? It's
hardly a fashion accessory, is it?]

[JNugent]

Clearly.

[TMS320]

On 27/10/2016 13:29, JNugent wrote:
> On 27/10/2016 09:08, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 26/10/2016 13:09, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> I have never called for compulsion...
>
>> Accepted.
>
>>> with safety helmets for cyclists...
>
>> Please provide proof of the adjective.
>
> Er... yes... I confirm that I used the phrase "safety helmet".
>
> Is that proof enough? *

....

>>> If they don't want to look uncool, I understand that and accept
>>> it.
>
>> You seem very struck by the idea that this is a main reason for
>> people not using them. There are others.
>
> It's the *main* one (which you have not denied).

If one or two people say they don't like sprouts, it is not necessary
for sprout likers to reply. A problem only arises when the JNugents
among us decide this is proof that nobody likes sprouts.

> There may be others. One of them may be the general principle of
> liberty and freedom of action, which as it happens, is an exact
> analogue for voting to leave the EU so as to ensure that. I can
> sympathise with that.
>
> It isn't often cited here, though.

It could also be that some consider it to be a device that doesn't meet
the claims.

> [* Have you really never heard the phrase "safety helmet", in any of
> quite a range of contexts, before?

Yes. Asking why someone does something does not have to imply that that
something has previously been unheard of.

> If the cycling safety helmet's purpose is not to improve safety, what
> purpose would it have? It's hardly a fashion accessory, is it?]

If someone goes into a shop and asks for a cycle helmet is there any
confusion about the item under discussion? In different shops do people
ask for a "motorcycle safety helmet", or "caving safety helmet"?

Besides, you missed out an important word. "If the cycling helmet's
*intended* purpose..." After all, the safety issue is still unknown.