Oh dear

James Daley has lost the plot...

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/co...cle1999258.ece

Warning: Contains h*lm*ts

LN

lardyninja wrote:
James Daley has lost the plot...

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/co...cle1999258.ece

Warning: Contains h*lm*ts

LN

So he thinks that the anti-drink-drive campaigns have been successful?

David

lardyninja wrote:
James Daley has lost the plot...

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/co...cle1999258.ece


Wears helmet, rides like a f***wit.

Wonderful example for cycling.

I suppose the usual suspects will put him right..

...d

lardyninja said the following on 21/11/2006 13:06:

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/co...cle1999258.ece

This is in the motoring column? Dunno who James Daley is, but he
obviously isn't a cyclist. Whilst a helmet may protect against minor
bumps and scrapes, surely the solution is to solve the problem at source
i.e, the "dangerous inner-city roads.", as Mr Daley puts it. He forgot
to mention that detail!

The Dutch have it right - basically, if you hit a cyclist it's your fault.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

The Indie seems to have two or three different writers in this slot.
One of them sounds like he knows what he's talking about, the other two
sound like complete idiots.

I've given up on them, and can't be @rsed to argue with them any more.

Trouble is, the only other paper I'd buy is the Grauniad (although for
a ong time I wouldn't even touch it thanks to the Sarah Tisdall
affair), and my other half brings that home every day.

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:55:05 +0000
Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet wrote:


The Dutch have it right - basically, if you hit a cyclist it's your
fault.

Please don't spread that kind of FUD. It's not fault, it's
responsibility. That is to say, the responsibility of being
in charge of a deadly weapon.


--
not me guv

Nick Kew said the following on 21/11/2006 16:05:

Please don't spread that kind of FUD. It's not fault, it's
responsibility. That is to say, the responsibility of being
in charge of a deadly weapon.

I wasn't really concerned about over-complicating my simple statement.
This group seems far too keen on semantics over content.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

I have been cycling in London for 40 years (as of this summer) I have
never ever worn a cycle helmet. I don't like them. But Mr Daley -
whoever he is - makes what will seem to a lot of people a reasonable
case.

He demolishes the notion which I often rely on in arguments that
studies show compulsory helmet laws make cycling less polular. Is he
right in what he says about the introduction of the law in Australia?
Does anybody here know the facts of this and where those facts might be
published?

This is a genuine question not an attempt to rehash the old
rationalisations of either side.
Thanks
Dave

On 2006-11-21 13:06:30 +0000, "lardyninja" said:

James Daley has lost the plot...

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/co...cle1999258.ece

Warning: Contains h*lm*ts

LN

lardyninja wrote:
James Daley has lost the plot...

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/co...cle1999258.ece

Have you read his diatribe against bromtons

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/co...cle1941356.ece

Martin

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:39:06 +0000, Dim Dave wrote:


He demolishes the notion which I often rely on in arguments that studies
show compulsory helmet laws make cycling less polular. Is he right in
what he says about the introduction of the law in Australia? Does anybody
here know the facts of this and where those facts might be published?

Try reading all the way through this: http://www.cyclehelmets.org
You will find pointers to and critiques of research showing both that
helmets are good, and that they are bad. Then make up your own mind.


Mike