metro article on helmets

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

benb

Evidence based cyclist
Location
Epsom

Great - you must be proud.

While you're here, please would you explain to me why a cyclist who suffers a head injury when not wearing a helmet is a fool, but a pedestrian who suffers a head injury when not wearing a helmet is not a fool?

Your refusal to answer makes it look as though you are a trolling coward. I'm sure you don't want people to think that about you, so why not answer the question?
 
I want more doggie drivel.......

After all TyT is becoming more and more like a puppy (likkle noo -doggie?) that nips in, cr@ps in the corner and then runs and hides.
 
..... and additionally Mr Jim Rondeau also forgot to mention the motives behind his letter the the press, he is in charge of the department promoting helmets , as Provincial Healthy Living Minister.

It amuses me that once again the evidence is s strong that the pro-helmet lobby has again had to mislead and lie to the public to attempt to make their point
 

benb

Evidence based cyclist
Location
Epsom
1792819 said:
That is a bit of a harsh judgement. I'm sure that TYT is only expressing genuinely held beliefs. Odd methods granted.

I'm not sure how else to explain his refusal to answer questions?
 


troll.jpg
 

Little yellow Brompton

A dark destroyer of biscuits!
Location
Bridgend
Is that supposed to be an intelligent response?

TyT


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
An intelligent response would be answering , not dodging ,questions...
 
Is that supposed to be an intelligent response?

TyT


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Simple choice.

You have stated that you are " annoyed" at having to pay for helmet-less cyclists to be treated on the NHS, as you believe they are preventable. Yet for almost three months have squirmed, avoided, written absurd essays rather than answer whether you object to paying for other preventable injuries.

As you seem to have a habit of avoiding questions raised by the posts you make, one can only conclude that the posts are intended to inflame, and then you refuse to respond.... then we have the absurd doggie saga, and the misquoted posts that simply do not stand up to the claims yo make of them................... by definition the actions of a troll.

Definition : In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

You could of course prove me wrong by answering the question raised by your own posting.

The expected refusal will I suspect prove me to be bang on with my assumptions
 
Not really, three months to answer is sufficient proof really, it was just being polite to offer a final chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom