Time for fishing helmets

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 10:13:32 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 8:24:00 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 18:36, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 12:38:51 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the
crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those
opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the
latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more
widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were
never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and
another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those
of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole
logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage
to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from
collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field
indeed being the only means of protection.

And who knows? It could be right, I expect.

I have no idea what you are trying to say but the phrase:
'Hook, line, sinker, rod, keep net, waders, sandwiches, thermos and
copy of Angling Times' comes to mind.

You seem to inhabit a peculiar world of your own.

And it's so much better than Nugentworld.

You certainly are not recalling the ukrc cycling helmet
"discussions" with any degree of accuracy.

Certainly I am. If a cyclist is killed whilst wearing a helmet it
proves the helmet saved his life.

Prick.

You seem rather obsessed with that word.
I suggest you do some research into the origin before you use it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

On 11/06/2019 02:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 21:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 20:15, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the
crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those
opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the
latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more
widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were
never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces"
and another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving
those of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to
the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet
would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres
away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a
force-field indeed being the only means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might
as well be a force field.

So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?

What professionals?

That's more like it: deny, deny, deny.

It is impossible for me to deny something you haven't told me.

You are well aware of the official advice that cyclists should wear
safety helmets when cycling. You are well aware that doctors'
organisations recommend the same thing, and for the same reasons.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

It doesn't tell me what professionals are involved.

https://helmets.org/bmareport.htm

It says:
"The BMA has strongly supported the advice..."

But don't worry too much. Many people (including myself) support your
right not to "look like a tit".

I am perfectly comfortable, thank you.

On 11/06/2019 02:27, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 21:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 20:14, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:29, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/06/2019 00:40, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been
seen. Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have
prevented the crash.

Did the bigger boat have the nautical equivalent of
fixed-wheel and no brakes?

Perhaps the skipper believed that shouting "Get out of the
way; I'm not stopping" was sufficient?

I have learnt from this group that those that shout get
vilified so it is much better to keep silent.

"the 75-year-old told investigators he couldn’t see where he
was driving because he was sitting down and the dash of his
boat was blocking his view."

An interesting parallel (thank you for confirming it):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I0Zs1G1ri4

There is none so blind as he who will not see, of course.

It happens to be a common habit amongst drivers. (Many times a
day.)

Drivers ride bikes into the backs of parked cars because they aren't
looking where their bike is headed?

Really?

It's remarkably similar to cyclists operating boats.

I didn't know that. You can learn something everyday.

One day we might learn what drugs you are taking.

On 11/06/2019 11:25, TMS320 wrote:

On 11/06/2019 02:27, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 21:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 20:14, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:29, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/06/2019 00:40, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been
seen. Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have
prevented the crash.

Did the bigger boat have the nautical equivalent of
fixed-wheel and no brakes?

Perhaps the skipper believed that shouting "Get out of the
way; I'm not stopping" was sufficient?

I have learnt from this group that those that shout get
vilified so it is much better to keep silent.

"the 75-year-old told investigators he couldn’t see where he
was driving because he was sitting down and the dash of his
boat was blocking his view."

An interesting parallel (thank you for confirming it):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I0Zs1G1ri4

There is none so blind as he who will not see, of course.

It happens to be a common habit amongst drivers. (Many times a
day.)

Drivers ride bikes into the backs of parked cars because they aren't
Â*looking where their bike is headed?

Really?

It's remarkably similar to cyclists operating boats.

Who said anything about cyclists operating boats?

Other than you, I mean (when trying to soothe your raw nerve).

All I pointed out was that the behaviour of whoever was in charge of
that boat was not something we have never seen in another context, or two.

I didn't know that. You can learn something everyday.

One day we might learn what drugs you are taking.

Maybe. Given my age, you can probably guess a couple of them. One of
them is a daily soluble aspirin, which should give you a clue.

On 11/06/2019 10:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 02:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 21:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 20:15, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented
the crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those
opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets
(the latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be
more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were
never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces"
and another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving
those of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to
the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet
would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres
away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a
force-field indeed being the only means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might
as well be a force field.

So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?

What professionals?

That's more like it: deny, deny, deny.

It is impossible for me to deny something you haven't told me.

You are well aware of the official advice that cyclists should wear
safety helmets when cycling. You are well aware that doctors'
organisations recommend the same thing, and for the same reasons.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82


It doesn't tell me what professionals are involved.

https://helmets.org/bmareport.htm

It says:
"The BMA has strongly supported the advice..."

But don't worry too much. Many people (including myself) support your
right not to "look like a tit".

I am perfectly comfortable, thank you.

Given the paranoid reaction of your good self (and of certain others)
when the question of compulsion occasionally arises, I'm inclined to
treat your "perfectly" as a substitution for "usually".

On 11/06/2019 13:16, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 10:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 02:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 21:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 20:15, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented
the crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those
opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets
(the latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be
more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were
never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces"
and another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving
those of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to
the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet
would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres
away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with
a force-field indeed being the only means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it
might as well be a force field.

So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?

What professionals?

That's more like it: deny, deny, deny.

It is impossible for me to deny something you haven't told me.

You are well aware of the official advice that cyclists should wear
safety helmets when cycling. You are well aware that doctors'
organisations recommend the same thing, and for the same reasons.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82


It doesn't tell me what professionals are involved.

https://helmets.org/bmareport.htm

It says:
"The BMA has strongly supported the advice..."

But don't worry too much. Many people (including myself) support your
right not to "look like a tit".

I am perfectly comfortable, thank you.

Given the paranoid reaction of your good self (and of certain others)
when the question of compulsion occasionally arises, I'm inclined to
treat your "perfectly" as a substitution for "usually".

Don't change the subject. You haven't answered my question.

Here it is again. What professionals?

On 11/06/2019 13:14, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 11:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 02:27, JNugent wrote:


I didn't know that. You can learn something everyday.

One day we might learn what drugs you are taking.

Maybe. Given my age, you can probably guess a couple of them. One of
them is a daily soluble aspirin, which should give you a clue.

Clearly not all the side effects are listed.

On 11/06/2019 13:46, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 13:16, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 10:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 02:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 21:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 20:15, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been
seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented
the crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those
opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets
(the latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be
more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were
never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces"
and another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving
those of us who are not immediately familiar with such items
to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without a
helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of
centimetres away from collision with the asphalt or street
furniture, with a force-field indeed being the only means of
protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it
might as well be a force field.

So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?

What professionals?

That's more like it: deny, deny, deny.

It is impossible for me to deny something you haven't told me.

You are well aware of the official advice that cyclists should wear
safety helmets when cycling. You are well aware that doctors'
organisations recommend the same thing, and for the same reasons.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82


It doesn't tell me what professionals are involved.

https://helmets.org/bmareport.htm

It says:
"The BMA has strongly supported the advice..."

But don't worry too much. Many people (including myself) support
your right not to "look like a tit".

I am perfectly comfortable, thank you.

Given the paranoid reaction of your good self (and of certain others)
when the question of compulsion occasionally arises, I'm inclined to
treat your "perfectly" as a substitution for "usually".

Don't change the subject.

I haven't done so. I addresssed your post on the current subject. You
said you were perfectly comfortable on the subject of cycling safety
helmets. That is not the impression you have given me over time.

You haven't answered my question.

Here it is again. What professionals?

Those who evaluate and make recommendations on road safety (including
the writing of the Highway Code, usually strongly supported by many
posters here, but apparently unreliable on the question of cycling
safety helmets), and the medical profession.

It was all there, above, already.

Don't rely upon an over-interpretion of the word "professional". It can
mean a member of a learned profession. It can also mean someone who does
a particular thing (eg, writing the Highway Code) for a living. There's
no wriggle available to you there.

On 11/06/2019 13:55, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 13:14, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 11:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 02:27, JNugent wrote:


I didn't know that. You can learn something everyday.

One day we might learn what drugs you are taking.

Maybe. Given my age, you can probably guess a couple of them. One of
them is a daily soluble aspirin, which should give you a clue.

Clearly not all the side effects are listed.

So you are still without a clue.

Perhaps some things never change.

On 11/06/2019 14:32, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 13:46, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 13:16, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2019 10:57, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/06/2019 02:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 21:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 20:15, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been
seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented
the crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those
opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets
(the latter on the basis that they did not want such use to
be more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of
head injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet
(as counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this
were never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational
forces" and another to the thickness of the helmet
structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately
familiar with such items to the sole logical conclusion that
the cyclist without a helmet would manage to keep his head
the crucial couple of centimetres away from collision with
the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field indeed
being the only means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it
might as well be a force field.

So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?

What professionals?

That's more like it: deny, deny, deny.

It is impossible for me to deny something you haven't told me.

You are well aware of the official advice that cyclists should wear
safety helmets when cycling. You are well aware that doctors'
organisations recommend the same thing, and for the same reasons.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82


It doesn't tell me what professionals are involved.

https://helmets.org/bmareport.htm

It says:
"The BMA has strongly supported the advice..."

But don't worry too much. Many people (including myself) support
your right not to "look like a tit".

I am perfectly comfortable, thank you.

Given the paranoid reaction of your good self (and of certain others)
when the question of compulsion occasionally arises, I'm inclined to
treat your "perfectly" as a substitution for "usually".

Don't change the subject.

I haven't done so. I addresssed your post on the current subject. You
said you were perfectly comfortable on the subject of cycling safety
helmets.

Oh? From a two word question you're trying to perform your telepathy act
again.

That is not the impression you have given me over time.

Unchanged.

You haven't answered my question.

Here it is again. What professionals?

Those who evaluate and make recommendations on road safety (including
the writing of the Highway Code, usually strongly supported by many
posters here, but apparently unreliable on the question of cycling
safety helmets), and the medical profession.

It is not inconsistent to agree with some sections of the HC but not others.

It was all there, above, already.

Unlike you I can't read invisible text.

Don't rely upon an over-interpretion of the word "professional".
It can
mean a member of a learned profession. It can also mean someone who does
a particular thing (eg, writing the Highway Code) for a living. There's
no wriggle available to you there.

The man that comes round in a van to fix your boiler is a
"professional". Perhaps with your loose interpretion you took his advice
about aspirin?