Psycholists don't need helmets

I have come to the logical conclusion that psycholists don't need
helmets, because their brains are not worth protecting if they think
that cycling is dead safe and/or that helmets don't minimise head
injuries in the event of an accident.

Derek C

"Derek C" wrote in message
...
I have come to the logical conclusion that psycholists don't need
helmets, because their brains are not worth protecting if they think
that cycling is dead safe and/or that helmets don't minimise head
injuries in the event of an accident.

Derek C


The Dutch certainly agree with you!

http://www.treehugger.com/motherbike-holland.jpg

http://cycling.skedaddle.co.uk/conte...ys/63_main.jpg

http://www.cyclingnorthwales.co.uk/images/photo24_2.jpg


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On Oct 19, 12:20*pm, "Simon Mason"
wrote:
"Derek C" wrote in message

...

I have come to the logical conclusion that psycholists don't need
helmets, because their brains are not worth protecting if they think
that cycling is dead safe and/or that helmets don't minimise head
injuries in the event of an accident.

Derek C

The Dutch certainly agree with you!

http://www.treehugger.com/motherbike-holland.jpg

http://cycling.skedaddle.co.uk/conte...ys/63_main.jpg

http://www.cyclingnorthwales.co.uk/images/photo24_2.jpg

--
Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

So the Dutch are all arrogant, untrained, ill-disciplined, dangerous
and law breaking cyclists then? So much for good International
Relations with them!

Derek C

"Derek C" wrote in message
...
On Oct 19, 12:20 pm, "Simon Mason"
wrote:
"Derek C" wrote in message

...

I have come to the logical conclusion that psycholists don't need
helmets, because their brains are not worth protecting if they think
that cycling is dead safe and/or that helmets don't minimise head
injuries in the event of an accident.

Derek C

The Dutch certainly agree with you!

http://www.treehugger.com/motherbike-holland.jpg

http://cycling.skedaddle.co.uk/conte...ys/63_main.jpg

http://www.cyclingnorthwales.co.uk/images/photo24_2.jpg

--

the Dutch are all arrogant, untrained, ill-disciplined, dangerous
and law breaking cyclists then? So much for good International
Relations with them!

The photos show normal people going about their business. I've always found
the Dutch to be very tolerant and friendly people who could teach us a thing
or to about how to respect cyclists on the roads and not see them as some
hated outgroup as many people on here do.

As one of their pop groups once sang:

Met een beetje tolerantie
ben je altijd op vakantie.
Je hoeft nooit meer iets te vinden.
We zijn af van het gezeik.
Alle mensen zijn je vrienden,
want iedereen, die heeft gelijk.



--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On 19/10/2010 12:44, Simon Mason wrote:

"Derek C" wrote in message
...
On Oct 19, 12:20 pm, "Simon Mason"
wrote:
"Derek C" wrote in message

...

I have come to the logical conclusion that psycholists don't need
helmets, because their brains are not worth protecting if they think
that cycling is dead safe and/or that helmets don't minimise head
injuries in the event of an accident.

Derek C

The Dutch certainly agree with you!

http://www.treehugger.com/motherbike-holland.jpg

http://cycling.skedaddle.co.uk/conte...ys/63_main.jpg

http://www.cyclingnorthwales.co.uk/images/photo24_2.jpg

--

the Dutch are all arrogant, untrained, ill-disciplined, dangerous
and law breaking cyclists then? So much for good International
Relations with them!

The photos show normal people going about their business. I've always
found the Dutch to be very tolerant and friendly people who could teach
us a thing or to about how to respect cyclists on the roads and not see
them as some hated outgroup as many people on here do.

As one of their pop groups once sang:

Met een beetje tolerantie
ben je altijd op vakantie.
Je hoeft nooit meer iets te vinden.
We zijn af van het gezeik.
Alle mensen zijn je vrienden,
want iedereen, die heeft gelijk.



Is that what demented cyclists sing to keep their spirits up?

Bod

On Oct 19, 12:44*pm, "Simon Mason"
wrote:
"Derek C" wrote in message

...
On Oct 19, 12:20 pm, "Simon Mason"
wrote:





"Derek C" wrote in message

...

I have come to the logical conclusion that psycholists don't need
helmets, because their brains are not worth protecting if they think
that cycling is dead safe and/or that helmets don't minimise head
injuries in the event of an accident.

Derek C

The Dutch certainly agree with you!

http://www.treehugger.com/motherbike-holland.jpg

http://cycling.skedaddle.co.uk/conte...ys/63_main.jpg

http://www.cyclingnorthwales.co.uk/images/photo24_2.jpg

--
the Dutch are all arrogant, untrained, ill-disciplined, dangerous
and law breaking cyclists then? *So much for good International
Relations with them!

The photos show normal people going about their business. I've always found
the Dutch to be very tolerant and friendly people who could teach us a thing
or to about how to respect cyclists on the roads and not see them as some
hated outgroup as many people on here do.

As one of their pop groups once sang:

Met een beetje tolerantie
ben je altijd op vakantie.
Je hoeft nooit meer iets te vinden.
We zijn af van het gezeik.
Alle mensen zijn je vrienden,
want iedereen, die heeft gelijk.

--
Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So they are nothing like UK psycholists then!

Derek C

Derek C wrote:
I have come to the logical conclusion that psycholists don't need
helmets, because their brains are not worth protecting if they think
that cycling is dead safe and/or that helmets don't minimise head
injuries in the event of an accident.

"minimise" you say? Surely "reduce" is the upper limit
that can be claimed?

BugBear

On Oct 19, 1:04*pm, bugbear wrote:
Derek C wrote:
I have come to the logical conclusion that psycholists don't need
helmets, because their brains are not worth protecting if they think
that cycling is dead safe and/or that helmets don't minimise head
injuries in the event of an accident.

"minimise" you say? Surely "reduce" is the upper limit
that can be claimed?

* *BugBear

In some accidents helmets may prevent head injury altogether.

On 19/10/2010 13:09, Derek C wrote:
On Oct 19, 1:04 pm, wrote:
Derek C wrote:
I have come to the logical conclusion that psycholists don't need
helmets, because their brains are not worth protecting if they think
that cycling is dead safe and/or that helmets don't minimise head
injuries in the event of an accident.

"minimise" you say? Surely "reduce" is the upper limit
that can be claimed?

BugBear

In some accidents helmets may prevent head injury altogether.



Only for people who can't keep their balance.

Bod

On Oct 19, 1:29*pm, bod wrote:
On 19/10/2010 13:09, Derek C wrote: On Oct 19, 1:04 pm, *wrote:
Derek C wrote:
I have come to the logical conclusion that psycholists don't need
helmets, because their brains are not worth protecting if they think
that cycling is dead safe and/or that helmets don't minimise head
injuries in the event of an accident.

"minimise" you say? Surely "reduce" is the upper limit
that can be claimed?

* * BugBear

In some accidents helmets may prevent head injury altogether.

*
*

Only for people who can't keep their balance.

Bod

I can testify that it is very difficult to keep your balance on a
bicycle when side-swiped by a truck.

Derek C