Cheers, evening TT series points champion - to give it its proper name, rookie year - most improved based on times therefore lots of points, not out and out fastest (yet).Don't understand. You appear to have won it by only racing two races. And your first TT resulted in a PB.
Well done though. A trophy is a trophy and a medal a medal. (I chase shiny medals too, only 2 so far though)
Still confused by the "and a set a PB at his first open 10 mile TT" though, how could it not be a PB?
You would have to be pretty damned confident, as the courts are not famous for being predictable/reliable when the evidence is anything less than obviously solid.
Well, medical testing is usually far stronger and contains more real-world testing than the sort of testing that has gone around cycle helmets. I think my statistics lessons said that traditional analysis of medical trials often required 99% confidence levels (basically less than 1 in 100 chance of a false success) and sometimes higher, whereas I think I read some helmet trials failed to find significant benefit at 95%.
I suspect it's the latter: Chris Boardman said "I manufacture the things. In an incident with a car they will have almost no effect."
No. You're an arse if you ignore those you love. Love is all about compromise and negotiation.
I think it means all my TT's up to that point were "club" TT's, where by I got down to 24.29 on the 10, then in my first ever "open" TT (which was after the club TT' season had finished) I bettered it to get a 24.19 albeit on a different course. Some of our club riders have been up to Hull for a 10 just to get a PB for a 10 as its a really fast course apparently. Sorry to go off topic a bit.
The bit in bold seems to be being ignored by some participants in the discussion. I don't see anyone saying to ignore it - negotiate and given that helmets don't really stack up, it'll probably be a big reduction in helmet use from 100%.
I agree, it's poorly considered, but the very fact that they're considering any kind of move towards optional helmet use is what surprised me. Australia in recent decades seems to set the international standard for nanny states.
Quite right; I knew that was really what you meant.
Just a sly dig on my part at the idiocy of the original passing of the mandatory helmet legislation, the only(?) beneficial aspect of which is that we now have pretty much irrefutable evidence of helmets not reducing injury rates in a whole population study.
