Facebook group

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...
On Aug 6, 5:21 pm, "nully" wrote:
"Brian Robertson" wrote in message

... "nully"
wrote in message
...

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message
...

Personally, I HAVE been saved from injury by a helmet and, on another
occasion, I nearly occasioned serious injury when a helmet would have
probably kept me a lot safer.

Dont drink so much? Just a thought...

I don't normally killfile people because it breaks up the
conversations,
but for you I will make an exception.

Awwww. Sorry, didn't the other posters here know about your drinking and
driving a *bus*?

That's truly shocking, and it shows that the speed camera zealots are
usually the very worst and most underskilled of the drivers out there,
and that safety is the last thing on their mind. No doubt Robertson
does other unsafe things as well, like deliberately pulling out in
front of people to slow them down, blocking overtakers and speeding up
to stop them getting past and/or slotting in in front, sitting in lane
3 of the motorway at 65mph and refusing to move over (thus encouraging
passing on the left), swerving all over the place on roundabouts, not
indicating unless he can see a benefit to himself, going slower than
he otherwise would just to irritate people behind him (thus
encouraging frustrated overtaking), and many other "up yours everyone"-
type acts. He's probably even worse on a bicycle.

Still, driving a BUS intoxicated is simply unbelievable. I think
"Glug" is a pretty restrained thing to call someone who put so many
lives at risk through pure selfishness. ("But speeding puts lives at
risk through pure selfishness," whinge the trolls predictably.
Correct, except for the small matter of the "putting lives at risk"
part, and the "pure selfishness" part as well, but the trolls have
shown time and time and time again that the facts don't matter to them
one iota.)

If you have a problem with alcohol, you're already putting enough of a
strain on society, through being unable to hold down a job, needing
costly NHS treatment due to liver damage etc, alienating your friends
and family, prematurely dying, etc. (In many ways, you'd be better
off being addicted to heroin, like Spindrift.) But it takes a special
kind of callous, sick ******* to drive a ****ing bus while you're
tanked up. If I ever get on a bus and the driver's name badge says
"Brian", I'm getting the hell off again. I wouldn't need to take such
precautions if Robertson was in jail, which is where he bloody well
should be.

The very least that Robertson can do to make amends is to hang his
head in shame and stop this ridiculous campaign against motorists, in
recognition that buses, and bus drivers, can be just as dangerous as
any road user (and if he's in any doubt of that, he just needs to look
into the mirror, if he can bear to).

Absolutely unbelievable. A *bus* FFS. But will the trolls condemn
him? No chance. With the trolls, it's not about what a person says
or does, it's about who they are, and whether they're anti-motorist
enough. Hence when I or any of the other anti-camera people say
something true, however politely, we get abuse from Crapman and co,
but when one of the pro-camera people does something really bad (say,
driving a bus while under the influence), the trolls simply pretend
that they haven't even read it. Safety isn't something that's
remotely important to them; they use it solely as an excuse to support
cameras and other anti-motorist measures. And very clearly, safety
isn't something that's remotely important to Robertson either, who
really should Glug-ger off.

Sorry, but I didn't read most of that insane rant so I will just cover a
couple of points. As I have said elsewhere, as a bus driver I am subject to
regular random breath tests, all of which I pass with almost boring
monotony. Other than buses I do not drive and have no wish to.

As for my driving habits, I have a completely clean licence and intend
keeping it that way. I wonder how many of your friends on uk.transport can
say the same?

Brian.

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:15:43 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:
"Ian Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:50:02 +0100, Brian Robertson
wrote:

and, on another occasion, I nearly occasioned serious injury
when a helmet would have probably kept me a lot safer.

Run that by me again - are you saying you were uninjured, but a
helmet would have made you even more uninjured?

I came to a bit on a towpath along a disused canal where I left it
too late to make a choice about riding past some nettles or
stopping (I was wearing shorts). At the last second I decided to
stop, lost my footing and went head first into the disused cut. It
was quite a drop, there being little water left, and I ended up
face first in the mud and God knows what else at the bottom. I
pulled myself out, somewhat sader and wiser and very shocked and
cycled home to clean myself up. It was a friend who pointed out
later on that I had a bruise on my forehead where I had hit
something in the mud.

OK, so you had a painless and trivial injury and you think that
wearing a helmet would have made it more painless and trivial. That's
not terribly far from what I suggested.

Had I knocked myself out I would have just lain there and drowned,
little doubt about it. The nearest person was someone I had passed
on foot quarter of a mile back. A helmet would almost certainly
have stopped me banging my head on that occasion IMHO.

Or alternatively, your helmet would have hit the object harder than
your head did, and might have jarred your neck. Landing awkwardly,
your helmet might have twisted or slipped and throttled you.

As previously noted - most people agree that helmets probably do a
good job of protecting against minor, embarrassing and occasionally
even painful injuries.

I was wearing a helmet but the impact was hard enough that I still
saw stars. I don't doubt for one second that, on that occasion,
wearing a helmet saved me from injury, possible very serious
injury.

But when I was thrown sideways off my bike (deliberately rammed by a
motorist) and wasn't wearing a helmet, my head didn't hit the road and
I didn't see stars. Had I been wearing a helmet, it can only have
made my head injury worse (it is impossible for it to have made it
better - you can't reduce the severity of no injury). That is fact,
while (regardless of how convinced you are) your argument is
speculation.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

So it's down to personal choice. As I ride to work this morning my personal
choice will almost certainly be to NOT wear one. However, I am still not
certain whether that is wise or not. I have seen enough zealotry about the
issue on here to not entirely trust the anti-helmet lobby.

Brian.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 05:30:43 +0100
"Brian Robertson" wrote:

So it's down to personal choice. As I ride to work this morning my
personal choice will almost certainly be to NOT wear one. However, I
am still not certain whether that is wise or not. I have seen enough
zealotry about the issue on here to not entirely trust the
anti-helmet lobby.

As has been repeatedly stated, there is not an anti-helmet lobby but an
anti-compulsory-helmet lobby. Nobody wants to ban helmets, there are
some circumstances in which they might prove useful, but until there is
real evidence that they have an overall significant positive effect on
safety it is inexcusable to try to remove personal choice by making
them compulsory.

Brian Robertson wrote:

So it's down to personal choice. As I ride to work this morning my personal
choice will almost certainly be to NOT wear one. However, I am still not
certain whether that is wise or not. I have seen enough zealotry about the
issue on here to not entirely trust the anti-helmet lobby.

Oh FFS Brian... if there was an "anti helmet lobby" they would be
telling you it is important for you *not* wear one, which is /not/ the
same as what you are being told: that it makes little effective
difference to your safety whether you do or not.

Again, /where are the "zealots" telling you that you should *not* wear one?/

How many times must it be pointed out that scepticism of the huge and
clear benefits claimed for helmets is not the same as "anti helmet"? If
you ask what you should do for a common cold and a highly vocal lobby
says you'd be daft not to go to a homeopath to get it sorted, and I
point out you can try that if you want but there's no clear track record
of homeopaths doing any better with common colds than anyone else's
methods, does that make me a zealot of "anti homeopathy"? if not, why
not? And if not, then why does me telling you effectively the same
about helmets make me an "anti helmet zealot"?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20080808084613.71733551@bluemoon...
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 05:30:43 +0100
"Brian Robertson" wrote:

So it's down to personal choice. As I ride to work this morning my
personal choice will almost certainly be to NOT wear one. However, I
am still not certain whether that is wise or not. I have seen enough
zealotry about the issue on here to not entirely trust the
anti-helmet lobby.

As has been repeatedly stated, there is not an anti-helmet lobby but an
anti-compulsory-helmet lobby. Nobody wants to ban helmets, there are
some circumstances in which they might prove useful, but until there is
real evidence that they have an overall significant positive effect on
safety it is inexcusable to try to remove personal choice by making
them compulsory.


I really don't see compulsion being an issue in reality. It would be
impossible to enforce.

Brian.

"Brian Robertson" wrote in message ...
"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20080808084613.71733551@bluemoon...
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 05:30:43 +0100
"Brian Robertson" wrote:

So it's down to personal choice. As I ride to work this morning my
personal choice will almost certainly be to NOT wear one. However, I
am still not certain whether that is wise or not. I have seen enough
zealotry about the issue on here to not entirely trust the
anti-helmet lobby.

As has been repeatedly stated, there is not an anti-helmet lobby but an
anti-compulsory-helmet lobby. Nobody wants to ban helmets, there are
some circumstances in which they might prove useful, but until there is
real evidence that they have an overall significant positive effect on
safety it is inexcusable to try to remove personal choice by making
them compulsory.


I really don't see compulsion being an issue in reality. It would be
impossible to enforce.

Brian.


Maybe impossible to enforce, but it would leave cyclists other than children (possibly) the choice of being forced to do something that has no proven benefit (under most cycling conditions/circumstances) or to take a chance not to wear one and risk a fine. That's besides the likelihood that many may rather not bother cycling if a helmet must be worn.

--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:50:02 +0100, "Brian Robertson"
said in :

I really can't make my mind up about helmets, but the attitude of those
that
oppose them on here is incredible!

Name the people that oppose helmets. I can list a dozen who oppose
compulsion and advocate free informed choice, but I don't know
anyone who is anti-helmet.


http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....a18123ba?hl=en

On Aug 8, 7:11*pm, "Adam Lea" wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in messagenews:hkij94ds6dp1k64s32eqilu8u7buaub7o1@4ax .com...

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:50:02 +0100, "Brian Robertson"
said in :

I really can't make my mind up about helmets, but the attitude of those
that
oppose them on here is incredible!

Name the people that oppose helmets. *I can list a dozen who oppose
compulsion and advocate free informed choice, but I don't know
anyone who is anti-helmet.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....e19daa18123ba?...

Well as soon as we see Tony actively campaigning against them we'll
consider him an anti-helment zelot.

In ,
Adam Lea tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:50:02 +0100, "Brian Robertson"
said in :

I really can't make my mind up about helmets, but the attitude of
those that
oppose them on here is incredible!

Name the people that oppose helmets. I can list a dozen who oppose
compulsion and advocate free informed choice, but I don't know
anyone who is anti-helmet.


http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....a18123ba?hl=en

Arbut I happen to know that Not Responding is a Tory local councill, er,
hang on...

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
The sixth student said, "I ride my bicycle because I want people
to look up to me and say 'Wow! He looks really good up there!'
The teacher replied: 'Go away, Fabrizio!'"

Brian Robertson wrote:

I really don't see compulsion being an issue in reality. It would be
impossible to enforce.

That's obviously why it's not an issue in Oz and NZ and various parts of
Canada... Oh, hang on!

If I am breaking the law and not wearing one when I have an accident,
will that put me up **** creek without a paddle to any degree? I would
suggest that yes, it will.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/