onewheeldave

it was in reply to- as you'll may observe, being pelted with hard rocks and/or falling on concrete, also do not involve metal boxes. It's called 'context'- it would be worth your while when looking for posts to criticize, having a quick look at any posts they may be referring to, especially when they're directly quoted in the post in question

????? You're not remotely troubling by the fact that your 'argument' applies equally to going out for a walk? Do you wear a helmet when walking around outside? Why not- Someone could start pelting you with hard rocks? You could fall & hit your head on the concrete? Do you wear a helmet in the bath/shower? Way more people slip and bang their heads in the bath/shower than on bikes.

My main point is that the knee-jerk claim that any cyclist without a helmet is reckless/stupid is utter rubbish. Given there's no evidence showing that helmets are usefull, some evidence showing that they encourage car drivers to drive closer and overwhelming evidence to show that where compulsory helmet laws are enacted, injuries rise (probably due to the lowered number of cyclists on the roads post helmet law introduction): only a fool would continue to criticize cyclists for not wearing them. ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 13:35 ---------- It's a good bit of lateral thinking. However, I think it's unlikely as cranial gunshot wounds have never figured highly in the cycling injury stats.

Like I said There just isn't any actual evidence. I'm not claiming there's evidence that helmets don't help, just that there's no evidence they do. Yes, as your smiley indicates, you are confused I've not claimed that it's not the case that "even a very small impact could have a catastrophic effect on the brain". Just pointed out there's no evidence that a helmet prevents such small impacts.

No evidence that helmets help much with impacts. One small study indicating that cyclists wearing a helmet get approached closer by cars. Plenty of evidence and stats showing that in every country where compulsory helmet laws are brought in, minor and serious injuries rise (probably due to the effect of there being less cyclists on the roads and thus the roads being less safe for cyclists, due to lower numbers of cyclists post said compulsory helmet laws). So the only lack of intelligence around cyclists not wearing helmets, is from irrate and judgemental motorists knee-jerk comments implying that it's somehow stupid or irresponsible to venture out without one.

What was wrong with the other side of the road?

Here's a link to the facebook page of the event, with plentiful photos of the hundreds of riders who turned up- https://www.facebook.com/events/354892881367183/

A perfect example of laziness Personally, if I wanted to come up with a perfect example of laziness, I'd be wary of using a cyclist, due to the fact that they put so much physical effort in getting from A to B. Science would seem to concur, as multiple studies and loads of evidence indicate that cycling is very, very good for health and fitness- hardly the outcome of laziness, is it? Yet here you are presenting as not just 'lazy', but, a perfect example of laziness, when a cyclist continues to exercise, at a time when they could otherwise stop for a rest. Why? Because, if they'd stopped and rested, they would have to start pedalling again

Given that 'lazy' is defined as 'a disinclination to activity or exertion despite having the ability to do so' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laziness neither can it be applied to a cyclist going through a red, as cycling involves 'activity or exertion'. Face facts dude, you're trying to redefine the English language if you're going to persist in using 'lazy' to apply to cyclists going through reds. For someone who's so preoccupied with everyone following the 'rules', you're conveniently slack with the rules of English.

I'm not a chav, and, when the suns out hot and bright I wander round with no top on, as- 1. it feels amazing and makes me happy 2. it's an excellent way of getting vitamin D 3. I'm not embarrased or ashamed of my body I can't think of a single reason why I'd want a top on when it's hot and sunny.

Have you got issues with reading? If so, be upfront about it- it's nothing to be ashamed of. I'm totally open about being autistic, which, many consider to be a disability (I don't). If you don't have reading issues, then clearly you're in the habit of glancing at peoples posts and making the mistake of churning out opinions when you've not actually read them. As we can see from your post here- which seems to be criticising a point of view I've not come remotely close to expressing- what I actually said was- As I'm autistic, I tend to write in a literal and accurate way. If, in future, you bear that in mind, and, of course, read what I actually write, then you may be able to avoid mistakes like the one you made above, and thus waste less of my time

No, as I was, in my part of the discussion, making it very clear I was referring to the example of going through a red to get clear of large packs of impatient motorists. I'm not surprised that you look at cyclists going through reds and conclude to yourself that they're all 'lazy'. I'm equally sure that, even if they had a chance to explain to you the real reasons they're going through reds, you'd dismiss them as liars or deluded, and continue to view them as 'lazy'. It does seem a little inconsistent, as, ordinarily, cyclists aren't at all lazy- after all, they climb on a bike and physically power it with their own effort, in contrast, to, say, getting in a car and getting fat. But, that portion of cyclists who go through reds sometimes, are suddenly 'lazy' Are they 'lazy' when they don't go through reds? If they're so lazy, how come they don't stop at the reds- surely that'd be a chance for them to have a bit of a rest?

The reason you're under the impression it's contrary to our other discussions is probably that, in those dicsussions, I was referring mainly to the safety reasons, and, as is typical in NTs, you assumed I was talking about cyclists going through reds in general. It was a 'guess-timation'. Could be lower, could be higher. There's so many other reasons why cyclists go through reds, and, I suspect they outnumber the safety reasons. Without some actual scientific studies, it's impossible to say for sure.

I never said that though. Yes, sometimes cyclists go through reds for safety reasons, I don't believe that's the main reason though i.e. I don't believe that in all the instances where cyclists go through reds, that much more than, say, 5% (total guess-timation), were because they felt it was for safety reasons. ---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 11:35 ---------- So, in 3 years of cycling you've only had one instance where you where almost killed? And this is cause for implying that the roads aren't that dangerous for cyclists?

Worth pointing out that being unable to work also doesn't mean a person is not useful to society.

That I can't comment on something I've not seen?

Onewheeldave will make no such claim- not having seen the specific incident I can not claim it was for safety reasons.

Yes. But I'd make sure you get an incident number and follow it up, as the 'police' can be notoriously slack on following up such incidents (they seem to be considered low priority) ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:20 ---------- Not it's not OK. Personally I have no issue with cyclists on the pavements if they're not bombing around in a dangerous matter. I'll cycle on the pavement if, in my judgement, it's safer than what's happening on the roads at the time. I do so responsibly and don't put pedestrians at risk, as I know what it's like to be walking on a pavement when some idiot on a bike zooms past just missing me. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 18:22 ---------- Good point. Not hard for me, as I realise a persons spelling ability does not affect their ability to reason in the slightest.

It is much used. It's also very valid- based on studies and actual stats. It's a straightforward fact that more cyclists on the road = safer road conditions for cyclists. I'm not aware of any evidence that that effect is diminished if a portion of those cyclists are inexperienced. Even if there was, it would cease at the point those inexperienced cyclists, having been on the roads a while, became experienced. Can't it? Why not? You got a shred of evidence that it can't? Cos "increasing the number of cyclists on the road with ill-prepared novices" means more cyclists on the roads, and, according to the evidence, more cyclists on the roads = safer roads for cyclists. If you believe inexperience offsets that effect, then you'll be needing to provide some evidence of that. Any barrier to cycling, whether it's compulsory helmets, compulsory tests, or, a compulsory "fiver" equates directly to less cyclists on the road, and, hence, less safe road conditions.

Very commendable, IMO. And totally necessary, given the corrupt state of the benefits system and it's procedures which are specifically designed to deny the most vulnerable what they are legally entitled to. Now that the whole benefits system is being systematically dismantled, it's all the more important that the most vulnerable are armed and empowered with the knowledge of how to bypass the obstacles placed in their way. Are you part of an organisation? I believe it's time for people who have been victims of the benefits systems ineptness and deliberate harassment, to get together and pool their experience and knowledge. ---------- Post added 23-04-2015 at 13:33 ---------- I think that applies to most of us- we'd all like to depend on ourselves, if that's possible. For some it's not- they have to expose themselves to the ordeal that is the benefits system. I can assure you that the majority of those unfortunate enough to have to go through that, would much rather have had the luck to be born like you- capable of depending on themselves. Here's a list of victims of the PIP process, the majority of them committed suicide when denied the benefits they needed to survive on- http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/

Can you imagine if the car never existed and someone invented it today and took it on Dragons Den.... Hi Dragons I have invented a new form of transport, that will revolutionise the way we travel and use the roads. It is a metal box with 4 wheels. It will destroy the environment with pollution and ruin public health as everyone who buys one will quickly become so addicted to it that they will cease to walk- obesity will become the norm and a whole host of chronic health conditions caused, in part, by lack of exercise, will reach epidemic proportions and bring the NHS to it's knees. Due to the large amounts of profit in manufacturing these metal boxes, marketing companies will line up to push it onto the gullible and easily manipulated public and it will be advertised relentlessly in all media. As a result cars will take over the public landscape with roads threading through every bit of public space. From rising in the morning till going to bed at night, the sight, noise and smell of cars will be ubiquitous in everybodys life. Indeed, many will live next to roads with activity that never ceases, and have to sleep with the noise of thousands of vehicles trundling through the night. Thousands annually will be maimed, killed and crushed beneath the wheels of this metal box, including many children. As cars spread and grow like a tumour into our land, so will they infect the minds of the population, so that after only a few decades, this vision of utter insanity will be so pervasive that cars are seen as normal, good and essential. As the addiction continues to grow, the numbers of cars will grossly exceed the capacity of roads to carry them. this, combined with the fact that society and the economy will shape themselves around cars, so that people will work in places so distant that cars will be necessary for them to get there, will lead to gridlocked, static jams of cars each morning and evening. Financing their metal boxes will cost a significant portion of their annual salary. Additionally with insurance companies and councils seeing these gullible victims as easy cash cows, they will take advantage of them with ever increasing insurance premiums and taxes/parking fines. As the poor drivers sit in their metal boxes each day in the, by now, totally normal gridlocked jam, they will feel growing resentment towards the fit, healthy and free cyclists zipping by. Deep inside on some subconscious level, the prisoners of these metal boxes will know that they have been royally screwed over, but, unable to admit the truth, will instead, blame cyclists for their misfortune. When they see a cyclist in front of them, they will blame their inability to pass, not on the other hundred moving cars in clear sight taking up the entire opposite lane, and, not on the rows of hundreds of parked cars down both sides of the road, but, will place the blame solely on the solitary cyclist directly in front of them. What do you think Dragons? Will it be a winner?

You don't need to be a nutritionist or GP to do research and form an opinion on nutrition matters. And your typical nutritionist of GP would not think much of the 'clean 9' program'- they'd be innately distrustfull of the high price for something which they believe could be achieved through good diet alone. I think it's a safe bet cyclones not used the product I also think it's quite bizarre that you seem to claim people can't form an opinion on the product if they've not used it. I've never drunk petrol, but I'm confident that doing so would be a really bad idea. ---------- Post added 22-04-2015 at 10:05 ---------- He asked what your connection with the company was- that's a very fair question in the context of this thread- there are some intelligent people on this board and I can tell you that refusing to affirm/deny a connection to the company will not look good to them; it certainly doesn't to me. And if you really believe that majority approval equates to truth in any way, then I pity you.

One is not turning up for DWP appointments. Seems fair enough- however, many have been sanctioned for not appearing at appointments they didn't know about. That's clearly not fair. The DWP sends it's post 2nd class, and, even at the best of times, it frequently arrives the day before an appointment- if the post is late, or it gets lost, the claimant will not know about the appointment: they will be sanctioned regardless. Pentcentage of claimants sanctioned between 2008 and 2012 was 19%. That's DWP figures abtained via a FOI request i.e. almost 1 fifth of all claimants got sanctioned. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223287/foi_4383_2012.pdf Do you believe that 1/5th of all claimants are malingerers/lazy/stupid (I know some on here probably do, you appear to possess a degree of intelligence though), or, is there something deeply wrong with the DWP system?

Distasteful? Of all that happens routinely in politics, it's amazing that you pick up on that as being distastefull Putting aside the lies, manipulation and, frequently, outright crookedness of politicians, there's also the fact that every leaflet they churn out near election times often refers to the fact that, 'in this area, x cannot win, and, a vote for x only makes it more likely that y will get in....'. It seems to me that this scheme is simply a way to bypass that 'distasteful (but accepted' tactic. ---------- Post added 20-04-2015 at 18:29 ---------- You're sorted then, aren't you. Vote buying is ilegal, so, all you have to do is contact the authorities, explain to them that this website is organising vote buying, and, it'll be closed down at the earliest convenience of the law. Good luck

http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/ So- you got any theories as to why all those people committed suicide? They had lives and families- strange how they'd commit suicide if the process was so simple and the DWP so helpfull. Here's a sheffield forum thread about experiences trying to claim PIP- perhaps you should pop in and inform them how easy it really is- http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1335642 here's a link to a FOI (freedom of information) request asking what percentage of jobseekers where sanctioned in the 5 year period 2007-2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223287/foi_4383_2012.pdf It's 19% i.e. 1 in 5 of all claimants. Are 1 in 5 really that stupid/lazy/inept that they couldn't follow the jobcenters 'simple' procedures