Why wouldn't you wear a helmet

[ufkacbln]

RTFT. It's doog's link.

It wasn't posted as a quote

 

[glenn forger]

Click on the quote and it will take you to the source, you stuttering twatweasel.

 

[glenn forger]

Oh yeah, I copied and pasted the quote, I didn't link to it. My mistake. That's the first mistake I've ever made in my life.

 

[Tin Pot]

"Stuttering twatweasel" is a keeper.

 

[MontyVeda]

"Stuttering twatweasel" is a keeper.

it was unfair, but funny

 

[totallyfixed]

I just tried "stuttering twatweasel" out on dr_pink. I think "withering" best describes the look I received. Up north "wazzock" always went down better. Perhaps we can adopt a "stw" in the same vein as a tmn, only when truly deserved of course.
I am on my second glass of wine and prone to spouting drivel at this stage.

 

[ufkacbln]

Easy there, do some checking on these threads, cunobelin is broadly in agreement with you.

This is simply another infantile tantrum be Glenn as he has shown to be lying

Glenn's immaturity is well demonstrated here and elsewhere.

He hates to be shown to be wrong and the name calling is his juvenile way to avoid

Click on the quote and it will take you to the source, you stuttering twatweasel.

Oh no it won't......

Nope, try again,

Approximately three-quarters of all head/brain injury sustained by cyclists are the consequence of crashes not involving motorized traffic (n=2,229). For young children (0-5 years old) as many as nine out of ten head/brain injuries are the consequence of bicycle crashes not involving motor vehicles. These are mostly cyclist-only crashes, i.e. crashes without another road user being involved, or crashes into an object.

More to the point, can you back up your claims or not?

Now you have recognised that can you please either remove the post or apologise for the distasteful and unacceptable reference to my speaking impairment?

 

[ufkacbln]

Personally I thought it was poor spelling and referred to my latest addition.......

 

[ufkacbln]

You wanted to see a compressed helmet.. so whats you view on it ?

I disagree that they project an image of cycling as a dangerous activity...yet another myth portrayed by a few on here. Does anyone look at a brick layer for instance and think...'that must be a dangerous activity' because he's wearing a hard hat...hardly. Most people use a bit of common sense and tend not to let it get to them.

The condition of the helmet prior to the accident would need to be established before any claim could be made

Helmets through general wear and tear, being dropped or in a previous impact will suffer from unseen defects and weaknesses. They also deteriorate over time, none of the helmet replacement policies extends further than two years

Are any of the cracks in the helmet caused by these defects and in fact demonstrate a helmet that was compromised in its function?

Would the helmet have offered greater protection had it not been previously damaged?

 

[ufkacbln]

Perhaps you'd be man enough to apologise to Glenn having got the wrong end of the stick?

I am not the one mocking disabilities?

No-one got the wrong end of the stick.... Glenn posted that statement as his own.

Perhaps the better way would be to flag his offensive post and the sad need to reducio ad infanti

Or do you find his conduct acceptable?

 

[ufkacbln]

So the answer's no.... quelle surprise.

Was that no to whether you feel mocking disabilities is acceptable or not?

 

[ufkacbln]

Time to lock?

I would appreciate Glenn's apology and User's opinion first.....

 

[theclaud]

What's this thread about, again?

 

[ufkacbln]

Unfortunately, there is a snowball's chance, so better to leave it.

I realise that, just establishing standards

 

[theclaud]

Anyway, helmets are ridiculous.