Wiggins is now pro-compulsion it seems .... Nobber.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
U

ufkacbln

Guest
[QUOTE 3710326, member: 45"]All done before. Your point addressed. Whenever you're ready to catch up, you grass-sucking jelly bandit.....

:whistle:[/QUOTE]
MY point made unequivocally

If you are not going to contribute anything constructive, and simply resort to infantile names. why bother?

Your immature posts show nothing but contempt for this forum and its users
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
So back on topic

We have again shown that the compulsory use of helmets cannot be justified for any particular group without asking why we are not insisting that other groups that are equally or more at risk.

It should remain choice for all or compulsion should start with those most likely to suffer a head injury.

Exclidngthese other groups from the discussion is nonsensical
 
stoatsngroats

stoatsngroats

Guru
Location
South East
I have to say, whilst I'm not keen on personal judgements being thrown into discussions, I did laugh at the 'grass sucking jelly bandit' phrase - is this a term singularly applied to 'bent cyclists?
I think the original point was about Wiggo, and the power of his opinion on compulsion to wear safety helmets for all cyclists, and I don't think there will ever be agreement in this kind of forum.
What is more concerning is that the general population may either:
  • Be distracted (by Forum discussions which meander around waffle and banality [not just here at CC, but elsewhere] and press/media vitriol against cyclists)
  • Not understand the arguments either way
  • settle with the loudest voices, and agree, without issue
  • Wander into a generally higher level of anti-cycling abuse.
It perhaps could be good to see, by poll, what CC's collective opinion is, and that of other groups, to see if the consensus agrees or disagrees with Wiggo, and the medical fraternity.
More to the point, a concise, and well argued rebuttal regarding compulsion, and the perceived effects could be made, to show that the difference between fast, competitive cycling, and recreational cycling could be made, because I for one believe that the risks CANNOT be assimilated between these activities.
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
[QUOTE 3710541, member: 45"]Ok. You're still in the dark ages, so I'll have another go at pulling you up to where the discussion could be if you weren't continually thudguarding....[/quote]

Strangely the only person who has raised the Thudguard was you!!!!

[QUOTE 3709414, member: 45"]Is it that time for a thudguard pic?[/QUOTE]



We know that the risk issue is about specific activities, not particular groups (remember, this is where you're failing). So the "well what about the others??" thudguard poopah doesn't make sense. Partly because of that, and for other reasons, outsiders dismiss the argument. Maybe if you did allow yourself to accept the reality that it's specific activities then you might include this in your thinking (and posting) and you'd make more sense to people and regain some of that credibility.
Click to expand...

Again, you are lying... the only mention of Thudguard on this thread has been by yourself

The fact that people are uncomfortable with including other groups as it undermines their limited arguments is why they wish to dismiss this consept. It neither makes it invalid or wrong... it does however demonstrate an attempt to limit the discussion by refusing anything they don't like

Compulsion is wrong. Not in this thread of the discussion because it's not being considered for drivers or walkers, but because it brings very questionable benefit (meaning possibly none , possibility disbenefit but at least no agreeable measure) to your typical cyclist in terms of risk and benefit, and is the same with other generalised groups.
Click to expand...

But as shown above, there is no "typical cyclist", there are a wide range of cyclists with differing risks, and the level of risk will overlap with some pedestrians and other groups. Again why simply squealing a few names and refusing to discuss is an easy way to avoid the subject

Compulsion for downhill MTBers? Compulsion for long-term alcoholics? Compulsion for racing drivers? Maybe, maybe not. But it makes a lot more sense, and gains a lot more credit for the sayer, if the discussion starts to get into some of the more useful and accurate detail than just chucking in thudhuard pictures and repeating a mantra that you don't need to repeat any more. Rodney.
Click to expand...

Again,,, support your lies and show where this thread mentions Thudguards?

Oh yes it was you....

[QUOTE 3709414, member: 45"]Is it that time for a thudguard pic?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
stoatsngroats said:
I have to say, whilst I'm not keen on personal judgements being thrown into discussions, I did laugh at the 'grass sucking jelly bandit' phrase - is this a term singularly applied to 'bent cyclists?
I think the original point was about Wiggo, and the power of his opinion on compulsion to wear safety helmets for all cyclists, and I don't think there will ever be agreement in this kind of forum.
What is more concerning is that the general population may either:
  • Be distracted (by Forum discussions which meander around waffle and banality [not just here at CC, but elsewhere] and press/media vitriol against cyclists)
  • Not understand the arguments either way
  • settle with the loudest voices, and agree, without issue
  • Wander into a generally higher level of anti-cycling abuse.
It perhaps could be good to see, by poll, what CC's collective opinion is, and that of other groups, to see if the consensus agrees or disagrees with Wiggo, and the medical fraternity.
More to the point, a concise, and well argued rebuttal regarding compulsion, and the perceived effects could be made, to show that the difference between fast, competitive cycling, and recreational cycling could be made, because I for one believe that the risks CANNOT be assimilated between these activities.
Click to expand...

Three lessons for a better cycling future Malcolm Wardlaw in the BMJ

His use of walking helmets is interesting
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
The medical fraternity is poorly qualified to make comments upon helmet use.

Prime examples are the work of BHIT and the wonderful Angela Lee, along with the paramedics who (anecdotally) ask about helmets with a knee injury

There is also a wide dispute between medical professions about the efficacy and design of helmets.

The British Dental Association for instance wants greater facial protection
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
[QUOTE 3710669, member: 45"]Really?? I tried, but there's no hope.[/QUOTE]


You lied, the only mention of Thudguard in this thread was you, if you are not going to admit it then you are right... there is no hope
 
Y

yello

Guest
Mugshot said:
I don't think there much hope for this thread.
Click to expand...


I'm reminded of a scene from 'ATaste of Honey'....

Geof: (yelling) “Will you stop shouting, you two?”

Helen: “We enjoy it.”
 
Mugshot

Mugshot

Cracking a solo.
MontyVeda said:
lets just get it back on track...

Is Wiggins a nobber or is Wiggins not a nobber?

I think yes, he's a bit of a Nobber... especially when he's brown-nosing Paul Weller, another nobber.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right, it was a defeatist attitude.

Personally I think Wiggins is a monumental nobber, pretty good on the bike, but a nobber all the same. When's his range of bikes coming out?
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
[QUOTE 3710669, member: 45"]Really?? You're still stuck in your rut, but now doing an interesting thing by agreeing with with what I'm saying and arguing against it. You're arguing against your own points.


I tried, but there's no hope.[/QUOTE]
As above, you lied..... evade as much as you like, that is the reality
 
Y

yello

Guest
I kinda like Bilbo Wiggins, for all his nobberiness. Perhaps even because of it. I think of it as character.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom