Wear a helmet? What would he know?

[Mrcheerful]

Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious injury because
they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell. So why do some cyclists
still refuse to wear them?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-Cracknell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html

[Cassandra]

Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
saving hundreds of lifes every year ?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Because seat belts, air bags etc work perfectly well.

You haven't thought this particular red herring through have you?

Motorists already have effective safety equipment built into the vehicle
- cyclists have none whatsoever.


--
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."

[nik.morgan]

because they are not required to under current rules, Is there evidence
that five point harnesses save hundreds of lives over and above those saved
by the ones normally required?

Great move with the goalposts btw.
--
ennemm

[nik.morgan]

Dave - Cyclists VOR <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 09:46, Cassandra wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious injury because
>>> they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell. So why do some cyclists
>>> still refuse to wear them?
>>>
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-Cracknell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html
>>>
>> Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
>> saving hundreds of lifes every year ?
>>
> Because seat belts, air bags etc work perfectly well.
>
> You haven't thought this particular red herring through have you?
>
> Motorists already have effective safety equipment built into the vehicle
> - cyclists have none whatsoever.
>

They don't need them, everyone knows cyclists have special powers and
possess indestructible heads.

--
ennemm

[Mrcheerful]

relevance to a cycling group?

[Judith]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:46:30 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra)
wrote:

Ho, ho, ho - how we laughed.

[Judith]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

"But if he hadn�t been wearing a helmet, it would have been a lot worse for
Shane"


I see in the comments after the report that Geffen of the CTC directs people to
the BHRF.

Is that a reputable body I ask?

[JNugent]

On 11/11/2012 09:46, Cassandra wrote:

I have been unable to locate the five-point safety harness in my car.

Even the Boeing 777 I travelled in last week didn't have one.

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:17:20 -0600, nik.morgan <ig....@me.com> wrote:
> Cassandra <cassandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
> > <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious
> >> injury because they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell.
> >> So why do some cyclists still refuse to wear them?
> >>
> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-Cracknell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html
> >>
> > Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
> > saving hundreds of lifes every year ?
>
> because they are not required to under current rules,

which differs from teh case of helmets for cyclists how, exactly?

> Is there evidence that five point harnesses save hundreds of lives
> over and above those saved by the ones normally required?

I doubt it, just as there is no good evidence that wearing helmets
saves lives - certainly, as the rate of helmet wearing has increased
teh rate of head injury has not changed detectably.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[John Benn]

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
news:slrnk9vat...@acheron.astounding.org.uk...

I doubt it, just as there is no good evidence that wearing helmets
saves lives

================================

Why do RoSPA recommend wearing helmets when cycling? They wouldn't be
making that recommendation without good evidence of the effectiveness of
cycle helmets.

[Cassandra]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:12:58 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
<davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 11/11/2012 09:46, Cassandra wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious injury because
>>> they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell. So why do some cyclists
>>> still refuse to wear them?
>>>
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-Cracknell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html
>>>
>> Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
>> saving hundreds of lifes every year ?
>>
>Because seat belts, air bags etc work perfectly well.
>
>You haven't thought this particular red herring through have you?
>
>Motorists already have effective safety equipment built into the vehicle

A standard vehicle would fail scutineering at virtually evey
motorsport event for failing to meet the required safety standards

[John Benn]

"Cassandra" wrote in message news:509fc703...@news.virginmedia.com...

============================================

Who drives their cars at "motorsport events" for goodness sake? I never
have and consequently I don't need anything more than the standard safety
features that my already car has.

What does this have to do with cycling? This is a cycling newsgroup.

[Cassandra]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:45:55 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

Bicycles don't have helmets either.

[Cassandra]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:17:20 -0600, nik.morgan <ig....@me.com> wrote:

>Cassandra <cassandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious injury because
>>> they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell. So why do some cyclists
>>> still refuse to wear them?
>>>
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-Cracknell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html
>>>
>> Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
>> saving hundreds of lifes every year ?
>
>because they are not required to under current rules

So motorists need to be forced to use basic third party safety
devices?
Why are they so reckless when it comes to their own safety ?

> Is there evidence
>that five point harnesses save hundreds of lives over and above those saved
>by the ones normally required?
>

The FIA seem to think so. Virtually every F1 driver would be dead if
their cars had the same safety standards as a basic hatchback.

[Judith]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:44:30 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>

wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:17:20 -0600, nik.morgan <ig....@me.com> wrote:
>> Cassandra <cassandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
>> > <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious
>> >> injury because they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell.
>> >> So why do some cyclists still refuse to wear them?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-Cracknell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html
>> >>
>> > Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
>> > saving hundreds of lifes every year ?
>>
>> because they are not required to under current rules,
>
>which differs from teh case of helmets for cyclists how, exactly?
>
>> Is there evidence that five point harnesses save hundreds of lives
>> over and above those saved by the ones normally required?
>
>I doubt it, just as there is no good evidence that wearing helmets
>saves lives - certainly, as the rate of helmet wearing has increased
>teh rate of head injury has not changed detectably.

Remind us - why do professionals like Wiggins and his trainer wear them?

[Partac]

"Cassandra" wrote in message news:509fc983...@news.virginmedia.com...

And so would every hatchback driver if they drove at the same speeds as a F1
car.

[JNugent]

On 11/11/2012 15:58, Cassandra wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:17:20 -0600, nik.morgan <ig....@me.com> wrote:
>
>> Cassandra <cassandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious injury because
>>>> they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell. So why do some cyclists
>>>> still refuse to wear them?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-Cracknell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html
>>>>
>>> Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
>>> saving hundreds of lifes every year ?
>>
>> because they are not required to under current rules
>
> So motorists need to be forced to use basic third party safety
> devices?

Yes. It wasn't until the wearing of seatbelts in front seats became a legal
requirement in 1983 that we moved anywhere near the level of compliance we
see nowadays. And it was some years later that wearing belts in the back
seats became a requirement of the law.

> Why are they so reckless when it comes to their own safety ?

When there was less compliance (before legal compulsion), it was for much the
same reason that so many cyclists decline to use safety equipment: not
wanting to look unkewl (or "like a tit", as one cyclist once put it, in this NG).

>> Is there evidence
>> that five point harnesses save hundreds of lives over and above those saved
>> by the ones normally required?
>
> The FIA seem to think so. Virtually every F1 driver would be dead if
> their cars had the same safety standards as a basic hatchback.

But they'd all be OK if their cars only had the same performance as a basic
hatchback.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

But a standard vehicle passes the 'scutineering' for use on 'evey'
public road.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Source www.imadeitup.com

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

How many basic hatchbacks can do 0-60 in 1.7 seconds and 230 mph?

[Tony Dragon]

On 11/11/2012 17:48, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 15:44, Cassandra wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:12:58 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
>> <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/11/2012 09:46, Cassandra wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious
>>>>> injury because
>>>>> they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell. So why do some
>>>>> cyclists
>>>>> still refuse to wear them?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-Cracknell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
>>>> saving hundreds of lifes every year ?
>>>>
>>> Because seat belts, air bags etc work perfectly well.
>>>
>>> You haven't thought this particular red herring through have you?
>>>
>>> Motorists already have effective safety equipment built into the vehicle
>>
>> A standard vehicle would fail scutineering at virtually evey
>> motorsport event for failing to meet the required safety standards
>>
>
> But a standard vehicle passes the 'scutineering' for use on 'evey'
> public road.
>

Would the 'standard bicycle & rider' pass the scrutineers at a cycling
racing event?

[mcp]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious injury because
>they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell. So why do some cyclists
>still refuse to wear them?
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-Cracknell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html

He forgot to mention he is paid large sums of money by a cycle helmet
manufacturer to promote their products.
http://www.alpina-helmets.co.uk/athletes.html

[DavidR]

"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

> Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious injury
> because they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell.

"Brad ended up with battered ribs and a bust hand, but what it could have
been if he didn't have a helmet on is anybody's guess".

Perhaps the helmet saved him from getting a broken ankle.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Only to get him to wear their brand. If he chose not to wear one at all,
no helmet manufacturer would pay him.

[Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world]

In article <509f72da...@news.virginmedia.com>,

Why do pedestrians do not even think about wearing helmets?
--
TA

[Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world]

In article <ag9l02...@mid.individual.net>,

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
>
> I have been unable to locate the five-point safety harness in my car.
>
> Even the Boeing 777 I travelled in last week didn't have one.

Good point.
--
TA

[Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world]

In article <k7qgel$qbp$1...@dont-email.me>, "DavidR" <dr6...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious injury
> > because they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell.
>
> "Brad ended up with battered ribs and a bust hand, but what it could have
> been if he didn't have a helmet on is anybody's guess".
>

Here is the answer:

http://www.cyclestore.co.uk/rangeViewer.asp?categoryID=1202
http://www.cyclestore.co.uk/rangeViewer.asp?categoryID=1200

HTH
--
TA

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 12:45:55 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

And how many bicycles have you seen with fitted helmets? FWIW, I have
seen more cars with 5-point harnesses than I have seen bicycles with
fitted helmets.

> Even the Boeing 777 I travelled in last week didn't have one.

I been in more planes with 5-point harnesses than I've seen bicycles
with fitted helmets, too.

regards, Ian SMith

[Mrcheerful]

they should, especially in London, several have been mown down by cyclists
and suffered fatal head injuries.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 18/11/2012 09:16, Mrcheerful wrote:
> Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world wrote:
>> In article <509f72da...@news.virginmedia.com>,
>> cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious
>>>> injury because they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell. So
>>>> why do some cyclists still refuse to wear them?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-Crac
>>>> knell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html
>>>>
>>> Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
>>> saving hundreds of lifes every year ?
>>
>> Why do pedestrians do not even think about wearing helmets?

Because they are not using vehicles.

>
> they should, especially in London, several have been mown down by cyclists
> and suffered fatal head injuries.
>
>

[nik.morgan]

Dave - Cyclists VOR <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> On 18/11/2012 09:16, Mrcheerful wrote:
>> Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world wrote:
>>> In article <509f72da...@news.virginmedia.com>,
>>> cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious
>>>>> injury because they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell. So
>>>>> why do some cyclists still refuse to wear them?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-Crac
>>>>> knell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html
>>>>>
>>>> Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
>>>> saving hundreds of lifes every year ?
>>>
>>> Why do pedestrians do not even think about wearing helmets?
>
>
> Because they are not using vehicles.
>>
>> they should, especially in London, several have been mown down by cyclists
>> and suffered fatal head injuries.
>>
>>
>

They probably do, every time they see a cyclist without one, they probably
think how can that prat have such little regard for his own safety.

--
ennemm

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

That's what these helmet deniers don't appreciate Nik. We are doing it
for their own good.

[Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world]

In article <zp2qs.814971$ti6.7...@fx20.am4>,

Dave - Cyclists VOR <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> On 18/11/2012 09:16, Mrcheerful wrote:
> > Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world wrote:
> >> In article <509f72da...@news.virginmedia.com>,
> >> cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
> >>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious
> >>>> injury because they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell. So
> >>>> why do some cyclists still refuse to wear them?
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-
> >>>> Crac
> >>>> knell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html
> >>>>
> >>> Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
> >>> saving hundreds of lifes every year ?
> >>
> >> Why do pedestrians do not even think about wearing helmets?
>
>
> Because they are not using vehicles.

But they ARE vehicles.
And this does not even matter. Try to consider Newton's Third Law of
Motion.
--
TA

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

A pedestrian isn't a vehicle, you fool.

[Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world]

In article <986qs.230772$g62.2...@fx06.am4>,

Dave - Cyclists VOR <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> On 18/11/2012 13:00, Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world wrote:
> > In article <zp2qs.814971$ti6.7...@fx20.am4>,
> > Dave - Cyclists VOR <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 18/11/2012 09:16, Mrcheerful wrote:
> >> > Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world wrote:
> >> >> In article <509f72da...@news.virginmedia.com>,
> >> >> cassandr...@hotmail.com (Cassandra) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:01:21 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
> >> >>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Bradley Wiggins and Shane Sutton were saved from more serious
> >> >>>> injury because they were wearing helmets, says James Cracknell. So
> >> >>>> why do some cyclists still refuse to wear them?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jamescracknell/9665604/James-
> >> >>>> Crac
> >> >>>> knell-Dont-wear-a-cycle-helmet-How-selfish..html
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
> >> >>> saving hundreds of lifes every year ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do pedestrians do not even think about wearing helmets?
> >>
> >>
> >> Because they are not using vehicles.
> > But they ARE vehicles.
> > And this does not even matter. Try to consider Newton's Third Law of
> > Motion.
>
> A pedestrian isn't a vehicle, you fool.

Don't be so narrow-minded.
--
TA

[John Benn]

wrote in message news:Titus_Atomicus-092...@news.atman.pl...

===================================

A vehicle is a something mechanised to carry people or goods in (or on in
the case of a bicycle or motorcycle).

How does a pedestrian fit into that definition?

[Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world]

In article <k8au39$t59$1...@dont-email.me>,

OK
Let's forget defintions.
So how about rollerskaters?
--
TA

[John Benn]

wrote in message news:Titus_Atomicus-251...@news.atman.pl...

================================

Seems to fit the dictionary definition!

[Partac]

wrote in message news:Titus_Atomicus-251...@news.atman.pl...

This is a cycling newsgroup. I am sure there is a more suitable NG if you
want to discuss rollerskating.

[Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world]

In article <agsh6h...@mid.individual.net>,

Oh, really?
--
TA

[Mrcheerful]

yes, really:
rec.sport.skating.roller

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 18/11/2012 15:32, Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world wrote:

>> >
>> > A pedestrian isn't a vehicle, you fool.
>>
>> Don't be so narrow-minded.
>> ===================================
>>
>> A vehicle is a something mechanised to carry people or goods in (or on
>> in the case of a bicycle or motorcycle).
>>
>> How does a pedestrian fit into that definition?
>
> OK Let's forget defintions.
> So how about rollerskaters?

Granted there are some similarities between cyclists & roller skaters.

Neither are regulated, trained, tested, licensed or taxed.

Both show a similar level of immaturity.

Neither a push bike or roller skates are a viable form of transport on
modern roads.

However, at least roller skaters realise this & don't whinge all the time.

Can you imagine?;
---------------------------------------------------------------

A CITY centre roller skate route has been branded a waste of money,
which forces eight-wheel enthusiasts to do battle with dangerous traffic.

The near two-mile Quality Skate Corridor project linking George IV
Bridge to Edinburgh University’s King’s Buildings was launched this week
by city council chiefs who spent £650,000 on the green scheme.

But skaters have been quick to pour scorn on the danger route, saying it
is discontinuous, littered with parked vehicles and has stretches where
skaters are forced to jink out into the path of moving traffic.

On Twitter, one skater, gilmertonJoe said: “Just skated this new route.
Diabolical – my life flashed before my eyes!”

The initiative has been 
condemned by Lothian Greens MSP Alison
Johnstone, who labelled the “part-time” route “disappointing” for skaters.

Ms Johnstone said: “While there are some real improvements that I
welcome, many roller skaters are extremely disappointed that vehicles
are permitted to park on top of the skate lane at all sorts of different
times and there is a lot of misunderstanding about the new parking hours.

------------------------------------------------------------

Laughable.

[JNugent]

On 18/11/2012 13:00, Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world wrote:

<http://tinyurl.com/buap3jb>

[JNugent]

On 18/11/2012 08:58, Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Cassandra wrote:

>>> Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
>>> saving hundreds of lifes every year ?

>> I have been unable to locate the five-point safety harness in my
>> car.
>
> And how many bicycles have you seen with fitted helmets? FWIW, I have
> seen more cars with 5-point harnesses than I have seen bicycles with
> fitted helmets.

Let me tell you a secret... safety harnesses, seat-belts, air-bags and the
like have to be fitted to the vehicle in or on which they are used.

Helmets don't and fitting them to the vehicle would not be a wise safety move.

Thus, fitting helmets to bicycles is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

>> Even the Boeing 777 I travelled in last week didn't have one.
>
> I been in more planes with 5-point harnesses than I've seen bicycles
> with fitted helmets, too.

I should hope so.

[Titus_A...@somewhere.in.the.world]

In article <OL8qs.419494$9H4....@fx17.am4>,
"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


> yes, really:
> rec.sport.skating.roller

Is there any special group for pedestrians?
--
TA

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 18/11/2012 19:06, JNugent wrote:
> On 18/11/2012 08:58, Ian Smith wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> Cassandra wrote:
>
>>>> Why do motorists refuse to wear 5 point safety harnesses despite
>>>> saving hundreds of lifes every year ?
>
>>> I have been unable to locate the five-point safety harness in my
>>> car.
>>
>> And how many bicycles have you seen with fitted helmets? FWIW, I have
>> seen more cars with 5-point harnesses than I have seen bicycles with
>> fitted helmets.
>
> Let me tell you a secret... safety harnesses, seat-belts, air-bags and
> the like have to be fitted to the vehicle in or on which they are used.
>
> Helmets don't and fitting them to the vehicle would not be a wise safety
> move.
>
> Thus, fitting helmets to bicycles is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

I suspect that Ian Smith & Cassandra are joint owners of a large fishing
trawler.

[Mrcheerful]

Phil W Lee wrote:
> "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> considered Sun, 18 Nov 2012

> The internet is a vehicle for carrying communications.
> A car is a vehicle for carrying people.
> A shopper is a vehicle for carrying shopping.
>
> Seems rational enough.

and the bit about mechanised?

[Judith]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 03:23:26 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>The internet is a vehicle for carrying communications.
>A car is a vehicle for carrying people.
>A shopper is a vehicle for carrying shopping.
>

A cup is for carrying coffee. Could I have a top up please?


--
X-no-archive : No
If the bastards won't do anything about the taxi driver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. He'll never drive a taxi
again.
Message-ID: <2s2mk6treuao9eofe...@4ax.com>
Phil W Lee 3 February 2011