On 03/04/2022 10:18, Peter Keller wrote:

>>>>> Forcing bicyclist to wear helmets actually increases the chances of
>>>>> fairy bicyclists causing injury or death to others.
>
> In NZ there are so few pedestrians KSI'd by fairy-bicyclists that such
> such data are difficult to find, and even if they were found it would be
> difficult to draw conclusions from them.

If 40% of bicyclists became fairy bicyclists, they would now be making
their journeys by car. The risk they presented to pedestrians would
inherently move up.

On 03/04/2022 00:07, JNugent wrote:
> On 02/04/2022 06:54 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 01/04/2022 09:57, JNugent wrote:

>>
>>> How often do you fall over and hit hour head when walking?
>>
>> As many times as I have hit my head in falls while riding a
>> bicycle.
>
> You seem to have missed the point.

It is a factual answer to your question.

> I do not argue that helmets for cyclists should be compulsory.

Yes, I knew this.

> But that does not mean that I don't believe that their use isn't a
> worthwhile precaution against head injury. Not perfect (nothing is),
> but worthwhile.

You have missed the point. If you think they are a worthwhile precaution
against head injury, why do you not wear one when walking?

On 07/04/2022 01:14 pm, TMS320 wrote:
> On 03/04/2022 00:07, JNugent wrote:
>> On 02/04/2022 06:54 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2022 09:57, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> How often do you fall over and hit hour head when walking?
>>>
>>> As many times as I have hit my head in falls while riding a bicycle.
>>
>> You seem to have missed the point.
>
> It is a factual answer to your question.
>
>> I do not argue that helmets for cyclists should be compulsory.
>
> Yes, I knew this.
>
>> But that does not mean that I don't believe that their use isn't a
>> worthwhile precaution against head injury. Not perfect (nothing is),
>> but worthwhile.
>
> You have missed the point. If you think they are a worthwhile precaution
> against head injury, why do you not wear one when walking?

Don't act daft.

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:14:53 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

> You have missed the point. If you think they are a worthwhile precaution
> against head injury, why do you not wear one when walking?

Don't forget when you are in a car which is the highest risk - see:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPvbJi1X0AADeRe?format=jpg&name=medium

On 07/04/2022 15:48, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Don't forget when you are in a car which is the highest risk

In terms of what, exactly?

Your statement is meaningless as it stands.

--
Spike

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:48:03 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:14:53 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
>
> > You have missed the point. If you think they are a worthwhile precaution
> > against head injury, why do you not wear one when walking?
> Don't forget when you are in a car which is the highest risk - see:
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPvbJi1X0AADeRe?format=jpg&name=medium

Two men killed yesterday - just like that. A helmet may have saved them.

M62 crash: two men killed and teenage girl in hospital.

Two men lost their lives and a teenage girl is in a serious condition in hospital following a collision on the M62, police have confirmed.

A vehicle fire broke out after a car and a lorry were involved in the accident near Goole. Both drivers died following the collision on the M62 eastbound carriageway at around 9.50am yesterday.

Police remained at the scene into the evening. This morning, officers said a 54-year-old man, who was driving the car, and a 53-year-old man, who was driving a HGV, were pronounced dead at the scene.

Read more: Everything we know about M62 crash as girl dragged from flaming wreckage

A 15-year-old girl was also taken to hospital, where she is undergoing treatment for her injuries. She remained in a serious condition this morning, police said.

The crash resulted in a full closure of the motorway as traffic was diverted yesterday. Emergency services, including ambulances and fire crews, were called to the scene, while collision investigators remained on site until around 6pm, after which the carriageway was reopened.

A witness praised two heroic men who rushed to rescue the girl from the lorry as flames spread between the vehicles. Police are now appealing to anyone who witnessed the crash or who may have captured dashcam footage to get in touch.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/m62-crash-two-men-killed-6918207

On 07/04/2022 05:02 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:48:03 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

Talking to yourself again!

>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:14:53 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>> You have missed the point. If you think they are a worthwhile precaution
>>> against head injury, why do you not wear one when walking?
>> Don't forget when you are in a car which is the highest risk - see:
>
>> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPvbJi1X0AADeRe?format=jpg&name=medium
>
> Two men killed yesterday - just like that. A helmet may have saved them.
> M62 crash: two men killed and teenage girl in hospital.
> Two men lost their lives and a teenage girl is in a serious condition in hospital following a collision on the M62, police have confirmed.
> A vehicle fire broke out after a car and a lorry were involved in the accident near Goole. Both drivers died following the collision on the M62 eastbound carriageway at around 9.50am yesterday.
> Police remained at the scene into the evening. This morning, officers said a 54-year-old man, who was driving the car, and a 53-year-old man, who was driving a HGV, were pronounced dead at the scene.
> Read more: Everything we know about M62 crash as girl dragged from flaming wreckage
> A 15-year-old girl was also taken to hospital, where she is undergoing treatment for her injuries. She remained in a serious condition this morning, police said.
> The crash resulted in a full closure of the motorway as traffic was diverted yesterday. Emergency services, including ambulances and fire crews, were called to the scene, while collision investigators remained on site until around 6pm, after which the carriageway was reopened.
> A witness praised two heroic men who rushed to rescue the girl from the lorry as flames spread between the vehicles. Police are now appealing to anyone who witnessed the crash or who may have captured dashcam footage to get in touch.
>
> https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/m62-crash-two-men-killed-6918207

Have you recovered from the orgasm yet?

.. 3 hrs ago

Would like to know how it happened, just seems so odd for a crash like this to happen at a relatively quiet time in the morning when most rush hour traffic is off the road, I commute around the area and missed it by about an hour, and saw a bit of the wreckage as I left home, was quite haunting to see the only saving grace is that the young girl was rescued and I hope she makes a recovery, RIP to the poor guys, seems to always be terrible crashes around the stretches of motorway near Ouse bridge.
>
> https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/m62-crash-two-men-killed-6918207

On 07/04/2022 14:46, JNugent wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 01:14 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 03/04/2022 00:07, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2022 06:54 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 01/04/2022 09:57, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> How often do you fall over and hit hour head when walking?
>>>>
>>>> As many times as I have hit my head in falls while riding a
>>>> bicycle.
>>>
>>> You seem to have missed the point.
>>
>> It is a factual answer to your question.
>>
>>> I do not argue that helmets for cyclists should be compulsory.
>>
>> Yes, I knew this.
>>
>>> But that does not mean that I don't believe that their use isn't
>>> a worthwhile precaution against head injury. Not perfect (nothing
>>> is), but worthwhile.
>>
>> You have missed the point. If you think they are a worthwhile
>> precaution against head injury, why do you not wear one when
>> walking?
>
> Don't act daft.

Yes, wearing one when walking would make one look a tit.

On 07/04/2022 16:57, Spike wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 15:48, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Don't forget when you are in a car which is the highest risk
>
> In terms of what, exactly?

He uses the word "risk" when he should have used the word "numbers".

> Your statement is meaningless as it stands.

But it is meaningful in the sense that vehicle occupants obviously take
up a greater number of hospital beds.

On 07/04/2022 23:57, TMS320 wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 16:57, Spike wrote:
>> On 07/04/2022 15:48, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Don't forget when you are in a car which is the highest risk

>> In terms of what, exactly?

> He uses the word "risk" when he should have used the word "numbers".

>> Your statement is meaningless as it stands.

> But it is meaningful in the sense that vehicle occupants obviously take
> up a greater number of hospital beds.

That still doesn't define 'highest risk'.

--
Spike

On 08/04/2022 09:17, Spike wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 23:57, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 07/04/2022 16:57, Spike wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2022 15:48, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> Don't forget when you are in a car which is the highest risk
>
>>> In terms of what, exactly?
>
>> He uses the word "risk" when he should have used the word "numbers".
>
>>> Your statement is meaningless as it stands.
>
>> But it is meaningful in the sense that vehicle occupants obviously take
>> up a greater number of hospital beds.
>
> That still doesn't define 'highest risk'.

Indeed. I thought my first sentence covered that.

On 08/04/2022 08:44, TMS320 wrote:
> On 08/04/2022 09:17, Spike wrote:
>> On 07/04/2022 23:57, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2022 16:57, Spike wrote:
>>>> On 07/04/2022 15:48, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>> Don't forget when you are in a car which is the highest risk

>>>> In terms of what, exactly?

>>> He uses the word "risk" when he should have used the word "numbers".

>>>> Your statement is meaningless as it stands.

>>> But it is meaningful in the sense that vehicle occupants obviously take
>>> up a greater number of hospital beds.

>> That still doesn't define 'highest risk'.

> Indeed. I thought my first sentence covered that.

So basically, swldx...@gmail.com didn't know what he was talking about...

--
Spike

> Yes, wearing one when walking would make one look a tit.

Not really - in the chemical industry, we had to wear a helmet every time we went outside buildings.
It was normal work wear.

On 08/04/2022 10:11 am, Spike wrote:

> On 08/04/2022 08:44, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 08/04/2022 09:17, Spike wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2022 23:57, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 07/04/2022 16:57, Spike wrote:
>>>>> On 07/04/2022 15:48, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>> Don't forget when you are in a car which is the highest risk
>
>>>>> In terms of what, exactly?
>
>>>> He uses the word "risk" when he should have used the word "numbers".
>
>>>>> Your statement is meaningless as it stands.
>
>>>> But it is meaningful in the sense that vehicle occupants obviously take
>>>> up a greater number of hospital beds.
>
>>> That still doesn't define 'highest risk'.
>
>> Indeed. I thought my first sentence covered that.
>
> So basically, swldx...@gmail.com didn't know what he was talking about...

You haven't been here all that long, have you?

On 08/04/2022 12:39, JNugent wrote:
> On 08/04/2022 10:11 am, Spike wrote:
>> On 08/04/2022 08:44, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2022 09:17, Spike wrote:
>>>> On 07/04/2022 23:57, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> On 07/04/2022 16:57, Spike wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/04/2022 15:48, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>>>> Don't forget when you are in a car which is the highest risk

>>>>>> In terms of what, exactly?

>>>>> He uses the word "risk" when he should have used the word "numbers".

>>>>>> Your statement is meaningless as it stands.

>>>>> But it is meaningful in the sense that vehicle occupants obviously take
>>>>> up a greater number of hospital beds.

>>>> That still doesn't define 'highest risk'.

>>> Indeed. I thought my first sentence covered that.

>> So basically, swldx...@gmail.com didn't know what he was talking about...

> You haven't been here all that long, have you?

LOL

--
Spike

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:09:45 AM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Yes, wearing one when walking would make one look a tit.
> Not really - in the chemical industry, we had to wear a helmet every time we went outside buildings.
> It was normal work wear.

Although when people went to the canteen at dinner time, no plastic hats were required as there was no storage place there.
Rules were bent.