More pedestrians complaining just because they think the pavement isfor pedestrians

On Nov 27, 4:07*am, Simon Mason wrote:
An old urc poster comments thus.

by BurttheBike


He last posted in urc on 2 AUG 09.
Sadly missed.

--
Simon Mason

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:53:17 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Nov 27, 4:07*am, Simon Mason wrote:
An old urc poster comments thus.

by BurttheBike


He last posted in urc on 2 AUG 09.
Sadly missed.


Sadly missed? Was he hit by an HGV do you know?

All I can remember about him was that he was a ****wit.

He once said: "For your readers and reporters interested in fact not fantasy,
the website www.cyclehelmets.org may be of interest."

Obviously barking.

When you say last posted on 2 August 2009 - was there any reason you
disregarded all the posts he made in 2010?

I am pretty sure that it was he who once asked for comments on his MSc thesis:
I had never seen anything so childish in my life.

On Nov 28, 11:53*am, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 27, 4:07*am, Simon Mason wrote:

An old urc poster comments thus.

by BurttheBike

He last posted in urc on 2 AUG 09.
Sadly missed.



He is on Cycle Chat now though - I just posted a reply to him.
Nice chap :-)

-
Simon Mason

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:40:53 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Nov 28, 11:53*am, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 27, 4:07*am, Simon Mason wrote:

An old urc poster comments thus.

by BurttheBike

He last posted in urc on 2 AUG 09.
Sadly missed.



He is on Cycle Chat now though - I just posted a reply to him.
Nice chap :-)


He was a ****wit - here is part of his thesis.

" it has been shown that, for distance traveled, cycling is safer than walking"
- oh really - did he produce the source reference for that comment? No.

"In countries where cycling is seen as a perfectly normal thing to do, e.g.
Denmark and Holland, very few people wear a cycle helmet, but the death and
injury rate of cyclists is much lower than countries where most cyclists wear a
helmet, but there are fewer cyclists."

Well that proves it - no mention of cycling/road infrastructure, training, etc
which could influence things. It is obviously down to people not wearing
helmets.


FFS - If he got an MSc for that ****e - they ought to give them out with
Smarties

On Nov 27, 12:02*pm, Simon Mason wrote:
by Rhoda_Clapp
Friday, November 25 2011, 11:55PM

“BitetheBerk - I presume you can provide real links to back your claim
of a rise in risk for helmet-wearers?

You mention police accepting evidence from single issue pressure
groups, but don't mention the pressure groups you represent other than
the anti-helmets lobby.

It is easy to show that strangulation has caused one or two deaths,
but far harder to prove that helmets have saved several lives. I would
love to see your figures for increased deaths where helmet laws have
been introduced.

Maybe you need to distinguish between 'risk' and 'death', but I'm sure
you will provide all the facts.”

ENDS
She hasn't read the Swedish research on strangled kids obviously.

--
Simon Mason

Here it is.

A doctor in Sweden lamented, with regard to strangulations in that
country and its child helmet law, "We know we have killed, but we
can't show we have saved anyone". [2]

http://cyclehelmets.org/1227.html

--
Simon Mason

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:51:11 +0000, Judith wrote:




He was a ****wit -

It is a ****ingly great honour to be ****witted by the anthropophagee
judith.





--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Nov 30, 1:51*pm, Judith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:40:53 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Nov 28, 11:53*am, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 27, 4:07*am, Simon Mason wrote:

An old urc poster comments thus.

by BurttheBike

He last posted in urc on 2 AUG 09.
Sadly missed.

He is on Cycle Chat now though - I just posted a reply to him.
Nice chap :-)

He was a ****wit - here is part of his thesis.

" it has been shown that, for distance traveled, cycling is safer than walking"
- oh really - did he produce the source reference for that comment? *No..

"In countries where cycling is seen as a perfectly normal thing to do, e.g.
Denmark and Holland, very few people wear a cycle helmet, but the death and
injury rate of cyclists is much lower than countries where most cyclists wear a
helmet, but there are fewer cyclists."

Well that proves it - no mention of cycling/road infrastructure, training, etc
which could influence things. *It is obviously down to people not wearing
helmets.

FFS - If he got an MSc for that ****e - they ought to give them out with
Smarties

So let me see. Wearing a helmet is supposed to act as a simple
substitute for a lack of cycling/road infrastructure, training, etc'.
The same could be said for all the other obligations imposed on
vulnerable cyclists in order to try to protect them against killer
drivers, such as wearing hi-viz vests, etc.

So what about doing something about the defective cycling
infrastructure and training would-be killer drivers instead?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Dec 1, 7:19*am, Doug wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:51*pm, Judith wrote:







On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:40:53 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Nov 28, 11:53*am, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 27, 4:07*am, Simon Mason wrote:

An old urc poster comments thus.

by BurttheBike

He last posted in urc on 2 AUG 09.
Sadly missed.

He is on Cycle Chat now though - I just posted a reply to him.
Nice chap :-)

He was a ****wit - here is part of his thesis.

" it has been shown that, for distance traveled, cycling is safer than walking"
- oh really - did he produce the source reference for that comment? *No.

"In countries where cycling is seen as a perfectly normal thing to do, e.g.
Denmark and Holland, very few people wear a cycle helmet, but the death and
injury rate of cyclists is much lower than countries where most cyclists wear a
helmet, but there are fewer cyclists."

Well that proves it - no mention of cycling/road infrastructure, training, etc
which could influence things. *It is obviously down to people not wearing
helmets.

FFS - If he got an MSc for that ****e - they ought to give them out with
Smarties

So let me see. Wearing a helmet is supposed to act as a simple
substitute for a lack of cycling/road infrastructure, training, etc'.
The same could be said for all the other obligations imposed on
vulnerable cyclists in order to try to protect them against killer
drivers, such as wearing hi-viz vests, etc.

So what about doing something about the defective cycling
infrastructure and training would-be killer drivers instead?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
*http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

It'd help the killer drivers if they knew exactly what you were
wearing today, while on the bike.

On 01/12/2011 07:19, Doug wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:51 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:40:53 -0800 (PST), Simon
wrote:

On Nov 28, 11:53 am, Simon wrote:
On Nov 27, 4:07 am, Simon wrote:

An old urc poster comments thus.

by BurttheBike

He last posted in urc on 2 AUG 09.
Sadly missed.

He is on Cycle Chat now though - I just posted a reply to him.
Nice chap :-)

He was a ****wit - here is part of his thesis.

" it has been shown that, for distance traveled, cycling is safer than walking"
- oh really - did he produce the source reference for that comment? No.

"In countries where cycling is seen as a perfectly normal thing to do, e.g.
Denmark and Holland, very few people wear a cycle helmet, but the death and
injury rate of cyclists is much lower than countries where most cyclists wear a
helmet, but there are fewer cyclists."

Well that proves it - no mention of cycling/road infrastructure, training, etc
which could influence things. It is obviously down to people not wearing
helmets.

FFS - If he got an MSc for that ****e - they ought to give them out with
Smarties

So let me see. Wearing a helmet is supposed to act as a simple
substitute for a lack of cycling/road infrastructure, training, etc'.
The same could be said for all the other obligations imposed on
vulnerable cyclists in order to try to protect them against killer
drivers, such as wearing hi-viz vests, etc.

So what about doing something about the defective cycling
infrastructure and training would-be killer drivers instead?

It isn't the infrastructure that's defective, its the mode of transport.
A push bike isn't a viable form of transport on modern roads.

And if you are thick enough to believe it is, wear a helmet like any
sensible person would.



--
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 - Lancaster
University

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:39:11 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:



It isn't the infrastructure that's defective, its the mode of transport.
A push bike isn't a viable form of transport on modern roads.

Yes it is for many things.

And if you are thick enough to believe it is, wear a helmet like any
sensible person would.

A helmet does not reduce the chance of accidents. And I am very pleased
to be called not sensible by the vorephilic dave.



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.