The human body didn’t evolve to handle impacts into solid objects at speeds of over 5 or 6 mph

Have we only recently learned to run? Our ancestors didn’t fall off things?

A fairly balanced centre left view of the Red Robbo years:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/01/derek-robinson-obituary

Have we only recently learned to run? Our ancestors didn’t fall off things?

At 6 mph you are running, I think evolution accepted that if you fall off a cliff or out of a tree you might die. Our ancestors a hundred thousand years ago didn’t really need bodies that could take 20mph impacts to pass their genes on. So it is probably advisable to wear head protection to reduce the risk of serious injuries to your brain. IMHO

Madame and I ride horses just like our ancestors. Madame has fallen off at about 25mph a few times but only broken anything once when past child bearing age.

Madame and I ride horses just like our ancestors

Riding is a pretty recent thing in the grand scheme of things though.
Serious injuries (eg those which would mean the person is unable to look after themselves for several months or possibly years/lifetime) is an area studied in prehistorical archaeology. Since it probably means the groups have got to a certain size/sophistication in order to support them.

I don’t think humans evolved two or three hundred thousand years ago to have a symbiotic relationship with horses.

I believe that the relationship between humans and horses is post-hunter gather, a point by which time modern humans had already full evolved to the level they are now.

But I might be wrong. Try not wearing a helmet and see what happens if you hit a tree headfirst at 20mph, your skull might be thick enough to deal with it.

Indeed dissonance. But there’s evidence that even in very early civilisations people were cared for and survived. Atapuerca is the site with the oldest fossil remains in Europe and there’s a patella to prove someone survied a serious knee injury about a million years ago. An interesting place to visit by the way with an excellent museum in Burgos nearby.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068316300641

Ernie, we’re just talking about our “ancestor’s” with no absolute time frame. You are the one imposing a time frame and then judging our comments by. You are changing the discussion and then accusing us of being wrong. It’s what you do and it’s unpleasant and provocative. I think for most of the rational normal non-picky population an activity that goes back to the Bronze age is good enough for “our ancestors”.

Ernie, we’re just talking about our “ancestor’s” with no absolute time frame.

I wasn’t when I brought up the original point about our evolution. My ancestors were French and Italian, as you will know from another thread, they were fully evolved human beings, I believe.

It’s what you do and it’s unpleasant and provocative.

Sorry that you think me changing the discussion is unpleasant and provocative. I didn’t mean to upset you.

The vertical fall off a bike is basically the same as when you trip, walking or running doesn’t really matter, the horizontal speed makes you slide or roll and may prevent you from cushioning the impact with arms etc but it’s the vertical fall that creates the impact that kills you (when you fall out of a tree or a Russian hotel window).

Yes I know it’s possible to ride at 25mph headfirst straight into a solid object if you really try. It’s a very rare form of impact.

Sheesh, came to see updates on Mick Lynch and it has taken quite the turn, even for STW.But I will join in; early humans actually used running to catch animals. They would choose a distinctive animal and keep it moving until it collapsed.

Yeah, came to see what the latest news of ML was only to have wondered in to a completely different thread!

They would choose a distinctive animal and keep it moving until it collapsed.

Maybe, although there’s no evidence it was widespread. They probs mostly jabbed at them with pointy sticks and bits of sharp rock. Humans can get to 20mph (That’s not even a sub 12sec 100m) I think if we started to do real damage at 6mph I don’t think we’d have lasted long as a species.

without checking I think horses have been domesticated for about 5000 years or so. I think the 3rdC BCE version of Mick Lynch was trying to get extra pay for riding the things as opposed to making them pull things along.

We’re constantly evolving, whevere the time frame, Ernie:

https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/genes-discovered-in-unlikely-places-study-finds

Within homosapiens from the holocene there are many adaptions to environment including bone density and strengh in populations that have survived using different strategies.

Just as the horse has evolved by selection to the variety domesticated sub species we know today (I ride an Appaloosa which is particulary happy in human company) humans have no doubt adapted to riding horses in that those who haven’t killed themselves riding or been kicked/trampled to death before reproducing are our ancestors in Europe.

Is this the thread I saw yesterday?

Get a room you two…

Yes I know it’s possible to ride at 25mph headfirst straight into a solid object if you really try. It’s a very rare form of impact.

I’ve managed to do it, car pulled out in front of me when I was 14 years old and I was doing at least 25mph downhill, without a helmet. Obviously I survived thereby completely undermining my theory.

Mind you I did have a fractured skull and obviously had a stay in hospital, so my chances of surviving such an impact 300,000 years ago wouldn’t have been great.

Indeed.  How did a thread about a union leader drift to helmets and horses?

How did a thread about a union leader drift to helmets and horses?

You said something about pedestrians should wear helmets if cyclists do.

That’s when it went on a tangent.

You “derailed” it by getting onto your usual topic of helmets, TJ and then Ernie replied with the comment that the human body hadn’t evoved to crash into things at more than 5-6mph or soemthing like that.

It all seems very much on topic to me, horses are transport and Mick’s union accepts members from transport.

Edit: we not only have helmets when riding but an air bag too. 😉

They would choose a distinctive animal and keep it moving until it collapsed.

Persistence hunting, humans are good at it because we’re better at regulating body heat than our prey.

Not sure of the hunting bit but some have evolved to astounding levels of persistence

Persistence hunting, humans are good at it because we’re better at regulating body heat than our prey.

sounds good. Is a myth. It’s an evolutionary “just so story”. We have this set of traits; what did we use it for? Its arse backwards silence. The Kalahari hunters that practice now have something like a 1-2% success rate.

like I said there evidence of sharp sticks and rocks. We don’t need to make up stories about our early development

How far or for how long would your ancestors have to chase Mick Lynch until he collapses?

Persistence hunting, humans are good at it because we’re better at regulating body heat than our prey.

An 8 hour hour hunt condensed into 7 minutes:

Just popped in to see how the ML thread is going and it’s all horses and head butting trees.
Confused

I’ve heard Mick Lynch is trying to get all RMT members to wear helmets when walking, running and cycling for their safety so there is a link here. I also think RMT members are from a different gene pool where their skulls are thinner due to not needing to hunt due to be on trains and all.

oh, what a surprise for singletrack, an interesting thread totally derailed by a couple of arseholes, well done chaps have a gold star and scratch and sniff sticker for services to internet bellendery

an interesting thread totally derailed

What’s interesting is the things that some people think is important to get angry about. As someone with a sense of humour I reckon Mick Lynch would find that highly amusing.

If you think the thread has been totally ‘derailed’ (I see what you did there) you can put it instantly ‘back on track’ by commenting whether or not you believe Mick Lynch is prime ministerial material, instead of whingeing.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing that. And that might prove a tad more interesting than whingeing.

Why for one second would anyone think that ML might not make a suitable PM?

Highly articulate, obviously very shrewd and intelligent, absolutely has the interests of working people at the core of his values, huge determination and resolve, unflappable under media pressure……. The list is endless.

That there’s any doubt is testament to the conditioning we’re all subjected to that results in only a very narrow band of people ever being considered suitable for the role.

Mick Lynch would most definitely bring a sense of humour to the role of PM. He would get my backing if only for that.

I would back him but hold on, what about his Brexit stance

It’s similar to Starmer’s isn’t it?

TBH I don’t really care. I am coming from the opposite angle as I was strongly remain and think Brexit was the stupidest thing the country has ever done whereas you loved it.

Tend to agree with you on Brexit, it happened, the damage has been done/continues to be done and how it is now dealt with is the question with rejoining not being the answer.

I do think Mick may find being PM a bit different as he is a one trick pony dealing with one subject (very well) but would still prefer him over pretty much all current MPs.

I said a page back I don’t think Mick Lynch would make a good PM. The helmet, crash, horse, hunter gatherer interlude was a much needed light hearted interlude which convinced me I’m dealing with people with a sense of humour and a bit of perspective, but aparently that makes us “arseholes” – can’t please al the people all the time.

The way society runs is a huge colection of compromises, we’re also operating in world environment and deviation too far from how the rest of the world works results in being cut off from opportunities. Liz Truss went far to far to the right and it was quickly obvious that what she was doing was unworkable. I think Mick would do the same in the oposite deirection because he’s an idealist.

We all have our own idea of what constitutes progress, the electric bus running around our city centre with just the driver, handicapped access is progress over the stinking 60s busses a driver and usually fairly obnoxious ticket collector, IMO. The bus users who don’t live on the main network can reserve too thanks to modern logistics – flexibilty thanks to technology.

Mick is resistant to change and I don’t see that as a quality in a politician. We’ve lived through decades of people losing their jobs in low-tech industry where they can be replaced by technology or their jobs have be exported, and new jobs being created in other areas. Britain is still the 6th biggest economy without a coal industry or a car plant in Longbridge. However a rail network is very much a part of the future and the future is higher tech trains and infrastructure run by fewer people.

I would back him but hold on, what about his Brexit stance

Why on earth would someone’s stance on a six year old, decided referendum get in the way of electing them when they clearly want to better the lives of the vast majority of the population?

how it is now dealt with is the question

Absolutely. It’s done, we’re out, get on with it. We can either go along with the low tax, small state, ERG version of life after the EU or we can at least try to make it work for the people in the way that many genuinely left wing ( as opposed to merely socially liberal) people have been arguing for since the 70s.

I think there’s a reasonable argument that the only government worth electing at the moment is a left wing government that is totally committed to making Brexit work for the people.

**Before the pile on starts, I voted Remain and if it were 2016 again, I still would**

We’ve lived through decades of people losing their jobs in low-tech industry where they can be replaced by technology or their jobs have be exported, and new jobs being created in other areas.

And it’s resulted in an extremely inequitable and divided society. One so fractured and unhappy that popular feeling has enabled the BNP manifesto dreams of 2010 to become government policy by 2023.

Mick is resistant to change

Far from it, I think he’s totally committed to changing the way that society is organised and wealth is distributed.
Hopefully that will give desperate and disillusioned people an alternative to Nationalism and Populism.

You’ve split my quote to misquote me and distort what I’ve said Trailmonkey. The change I’m talking about is technological.

Make your points which are valid, no need to manipulate what I’ve said to put words in my mouth and create argument for the sake of argument when I might agree with you on the points you make about the the way that society is organised and wealth is distributed, I do.

I think there’s a reasonable argument that the only government worth electing at the moment is a left wing government that is totally committed to making Brexit work for the people.

1) there is no left wing government on offer

2) the majority want a second ref on rejoining

3) there is no “making brexit work”  Its a complete nonsense.  The only way brexit works is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.  thats the whole aim.  Brexit is not the destination.  its the tool

the majority want a second ref on rejoining

It’s that today’s best made up statistic or is there some evidence?

Recent opinion polls show not only that a majority of respondents recognise that Brexit is an unmitigated disaster, but that a majority would now actually favour another referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/08/brexit-is-just-one-of-the-three-tory-errors-that-have-brought-britain-to-its-knees

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-poll-referendum-rejoin-eu-b2250813.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-rejoin-poll-b2212730.html