But you’ll note that the original users of the route/road/track still have the right to do so?

Obviously. As have pedestrians and cyclists. It’s just that they don’t quite so regularly turn the surface into an impassable quagmire, and don’t (as a general rule) defecate all over the right of way…

Who do you think all your bridleways were made for?

Yeah, in the same way as roads were for driving livestock to market, and canals were for the mass transport of goods. Things move on, cycles and walkers are just as entitled to use bridleways as equestrians. It’s all for leisure. Agree that horse dung is far less nasty than dog do, but Im not keen on either getting sprayed up into my face…

I don’t think you can blame a bloke for doing his research and going a little off piste to get the best prices for the jobs he needs to do. Saves paying daft B&Queue prices. And who wants to employ a tradesman to do a job you can do yourself? I’ll save my money for the stuff I can’t/not allowed to do, ta.

I used to love the public, give them the chat, let them get the trade discount and smile at how the margin went up. It’s a win/win/win situation.

We aren’t daft (well not all of us) we know this happens. But so long as you are still cheaper than the aforementioned, then like you say, everyone’s a winner.

Mud piranha. Definitely. Probably fatal due to their toxic saliva.

Ah ha… I’m beginning to understand what ‘Elfining’ is now… It’s like being a troll but more pedantic, (innit)?

Hear hear.

Private sector workers deserve better pensions, but they aren’t going to get them because there is no-one to pay for them except themselves.

How about the aforementioned massively paid, superbly pensioned executive level and the shareholders etc? If large PLCs were made to operate as true cooperatives, for the benefit of there employees and accountable to them, rather than for directors and shareholders, then there may be a different picture. The ruthless pursuit of wealth by the already wealthy is what is fundamentally wrong with the global economy. And the fact that the problem is global, yet any government introduced solutions can only affect the state in question is why I’m pessimistic about any actual solution. Truth is, the collective überwealthy are far more powerful than any one government, far more selfish, far more ruthless and far more stupid.

We. Are. ****. (unless you are one of them…)

Hmmm. Does this make me a neocommunist?

Even with two nice bikes inside, it’s still proper fugly, I’m afraid.

I don’t know. Some of the bitchiness on this thread is certainly on the disrespectful side, but if I were a relative of the deceased, and especially if helmet wear or lack thereof was a factor (we don’t know do we) then I would be at least understanding, and quite probably glad that it has raised the profile of this thorny issue. Sadly, it always seems to take something bad to happen before people take notice of anything, such is human nature.

I don’t think that it is the discussion in itself that is disrespectful, more inevitable. But the way some people have behaved themselves during it could certainly be perceived as such.

Whether there’s actually any point to the discussion, well that’s a different matter…

1. You have never treated a motorist, pedestrian or anyone else in the with a head injury.

Don’t be silly, of course I have. Not sure I see your point.

2. Are cyclists the most common group for head injuries? All stats suggest they are only a minority.

Cyclists within the population as a whole are a minority full stop, but its a minority that I am part of, so why increase my risk of injury needlessly?

3. Do you give the same advice on prevention and recommend helmets for pedestrians and drivers/passengers.

No, but I would suggest that wearing a seatbelt may be a good idea, and walking of a cliff or across a busy motorway would generally be regarded as a ‘bad thing’.

4.If not, why do you feel head injuries in these groups are not worth being given the same professional advice reserved for cyclists?

Yeah, you are obviously right. while we’re at it, lets get rid of airbags, crumple zones, 20 and 30mph speed limits, pedestrianised areas… in fact any measure previously introduced to reduce the chance of injury to motorists and pedestrians.

For the record, I don’t agree with compulsory helmet wearing, for bikes or even for motorcycles. I don’t even care if you wear a seatbelt. It matters not by the time you meet me, just a matter of patient history, and maybe more challenging patient management. (or maybe just a case of covering with a blanket and filling in some paperwork, which is much easier) I’m all for personal choice and responsibility. Its up to you. I’ve ridden a motorcycle lidless through Arizona. It was my informed choice, and I had the capicity to make that decision, and it was fun.

I am not advising anyone whether they should wear a helmet or not. I’m just sharing what I do, and why. From the things I’ve seen, I have decided that a helmet has the potential to make a real difference, and thats enough for me. Wheres the downside? Why NOT wear one? You could say that you don’t intend to fall off, but I don’t think anyone does… You can be damn sure that my one year old son will be brought up never even considering not wearing a helmet.

BUT, if I don’t ride with you, or you’re not someone I care about, I REALLY couldn’t care less about what interesting and inventive ways you think up of increasing your risks of injury. Like deviant says, You keep me in a job…

Here is a question: Your head is precious, traumatic injury to it can quite easily be serious, potentially life threatening and difficult to fix, unlike most other parts of your body that generally bounce well and sometime snap but will heal/can be fixed. You enjoy travelling faster than the human body was designed to, maybe surrounded by metal boxes that travel around many times faster, often driven by idiots that aren’t paying attention. There is an easy way of providing a little additional protection for your head that neither breaks the bank, nor is incredibly inpractical or performance reducing. why NOT wear a helmet?

ITU nurse of 23 years? Well you only see the ones that survived as far as hospital then, even if all they are good for is harvesting, don’t you? Oh well.

More drinking injuries than cycling ones???? Well, duh, really? What a suprise. How many more people go end up in A&E through alcohol than through falling of a bike? Lol.

Listen. Wear a helmet, don’t wear a helmet, I’m all for freedom of choice. You’re not going to hurt anyone but yourself, after all. (i suppose your loved ones might be quite upset, mind you) Doesn’t bother me, I mean you keep me in a job, right? All I’m going to say is it isn’t the people that I’ve met who survived because of or despite the fact they were or weren’t wearing a helmet that convinced me to wear one, it’s that other, quieter type of patient that I come across from time to time.

Northwind, as a medical professional, I can conclusively tell you that it wasn’t your helmet that saved your life, it was your big, thick skull. :wink:

I’m a Paramedic. Trust me, you should wear a helmet. Voice of experience here.

HOLY CRAP! that wingsuit vid is crazy.

You are wrong in my humble opinion but why are you afraid?

Fixed it again, you really must be more careful with it! (whether you like it or not, it is your opinion, and not a fact, kid) :lol:

And stop rubbishing people while you’re at it, play nice. You seem to be the rudest person in the playground tonight.

Anyway, it’s time to go to bed, work on the morning. I’m quitting while I’m quite obviously ahead. Goodnight! Xxx

Elfinism

It is the only True Way. Sounds like a religion to me.

You are wrong,in my humble opinion but why are you afraid?

FTFY :wink:

goodness me it’s only a bit of oil; just scorch it off either with friction generated heat or blow torch generated heat or oven or frying pan heat. You won’t die, (unless you crash and kill yourself, then you will) Seriously. don’t worry about it.

All you’ve done is try to present your onions as the Truth, and rubbish any alternative views.

Is this a fact, or your opinion? lol

See, when you say rubbishing alternative views, I say offering alternative views. If anyone is rubbishing people, calling them arrogant, etc, it would be you, i’m afraid.

Well done you’ve found a slightly different definition, doesn’t make mine wrong. I still think (see opinion, not fact) that if you believe in god then you are religous, even if it IS a religion with only one member. (I shall call it Elfinism) I accept that you think different.

Anyway this is a fairly pointless agument about semantics.

So, I can just as equally claim that if you are an ‘atheist’, and belive that no god exists, then you are equally as religious as anyone else.

I guess you could, if you wanted, Dawkins certainly presents an almost religous fervour.

I would however describe myself as more of the agnostic persuasion, in that I don’t really care either way, as it is pretty much irrelevant to me in my daily life.

i’m just bemused and interested as to why others hold such strong beliefs.

How about the Religious Society of Friends aka Quakers. Some believe in a god, some don’t. Or Buddhism for that matter?

Yeah, how about them?

No seriously what about them? Its just a quote from a dictionary, that I quickly found to explain to Elfin why I thought that someone who believed in god was by that virtue, religious (because he said I haddened explained myself) I never suggested that someone couldn’t be part of a religious community without believing in god. I hadn’t even thought about it either way…

So you can be a Quaker without believing in god? never knew that. how curious. Whats the point?

lol, what makes you think that I am arrogant? I mean, I might be, but I always try to see both sides of the argument, and I try never to express my opinion as fact, unlike you.

Explanation to my last; What I mean is, that if you believe in God, you are religious. I think that is pretty much the definition of the word. hang on…

re·li·gionNoun/ri?lij?n/1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2. Details of belief as taught or discussed.

Yep, there you go. I accept completely that a person can believe in god but not be a part of organised religion…

Also I’m quite new to here. what is ‘out-Elfining’? Is it presenting your own opinions as the god given irrefutable truth? pretty sure i’m not doing that…

Quite why we’re discussing Religion on a ‘Do you believe in God’ thread I don’t know,

Maybe because the two are inextricably linked? Seems unsuprising to me. Those who say ‘I believe in god but I’m not religious’ are kidding themselves IMO, they are maybe just practising a religion all of their own.

BTW Elfin, no witty comeback? I’m hurt…

Respect for sharing!

Do we not call it capitalism now?

True that.

Explain please. Seeing as how you’re so clever. Thanx.

Well bud, Firstly I should say that I enjoy reading your posts and find that you mostly put across a reasoned argument, that I often tend to respectfully disagree with. However, (and it’s probably the reason that I end up biting to your posts more than others) I do find that you have an annoying habit of stating what are your opinions (of which you are perfectly entitled to, and I would defend you right to state them) as actual facts when they patently are not.

I could trawl through your previous posts and find loads of examples but that strikes me as a little anal, However I think you have done it at least twice in this thread alone.

regards x

EDIT; PS, I’ve never said that that I’m clever, however I seem to remember that you are a self proclaimed genius… :wink:

Jesus existing doesn’t actually prove anything does it though, other than there was once a nice chap with an infectiously likeable personality and some strange ideas that the rulers of the day found threatening. If a similar character turned up in this day and age he would probably end up sectioned.

EDIT: autocorrect fail

Religion has been a useful tool to impose morals and good conscience on the uneducated masses, in the past, and to provide convenient justification for some extremely morally dubious acts by the ruling classes since time immemorial. It has seriously outlived it’s usefulness; we have mass media to do that now.

Shock news: elfin confuses opinion (onion?) with fact. Again.

Religion is far more culturally significant than Dawkins or N-Dubz.

Maybe in your culture, certainly not in mine. In my culture we value education, knowledge, reasoning, respect, understanding and empathy. Whilst I accept your assertion that Dawkins is a ‘pop’ scientist, more your Gary Barlow of science than your Mozart maybe, he still asserts his argument based on logic and fact, as opposed to the feelings and beliefs of religious argument.

So for me and my culture Dawkins (and n dubs; loads of people love x factor) is FAR more relevant than religion.

The (insert denomination here) church is simply a publicity machine, (hell?) bent on making money. Which it is exceedingly good at, considering how many books it has sold.
I find it about as culturally significant as N-Dubz though.

There you go Elfin, FTFY.

I think you’ll be waiting a good while Swelper… Oh hang on there was that time… No, that was just a fairy story.

EDIT; Herman +1million.

You can’t easily prove a negative. You can usually prove a positive though, which we as the human race have singularly failed to do in th case of god(s). So for me, it’s a no.

If by judgment day, he means the complete collapse of civilised society brought about by the ultimately unsustainable and ever widening rich poor divide, that is the product of a market driven (read; greed) near pure capitalist system, then he may have a point…

Just saying.

Oh come on elfin, countzero, qualify your anti Dawkins sentiment! I’m not a particular Dawkins fanboy, but previously the only people I’ve noticed refuting him have been somewhat on the zealotty side? You both seem relatively reasonable…

Dawkins talks bollocks sometimes generally.
FTFY

Elfin, really? Surely you have the time to back that up…

iPhone 4 for me, swore I wouldn’t fall for the hype, follow the herd etc… Them I tried one. As well as the awesome functionality and versatility afforded by having apps for everything, the biggest selling point for me is that it is feels like it will last. Other phones these days feel like they are designed to last for just less than the length of the contract, this phone feels like it will last for as long as I care for it. It’s actually changed the way I live my life on a small but significant way. Autocorrect can be a pain though… (but it can also be funny, so I keep it on)

Carbon fibre repair

I’d have a word with these guys.

4) Targets (when set by clinicians who understand how to properly measure desirable outcomes, not set by the daily mail et al who convieniently ignore/don’t understand the manifold undesirable effects that a headline target such as 4hr waiting times in A&E can have on patient care)- which the Tories are against – work.

FTFY

Problem with that 6R4 metro is that it’s got 3/4 of a cosworth V8 shoehorned in the boot, so still not terribly practical… Without doubtthe coolest metro ever though (not that that would be difficult).

MG XE Concept. Austin’s very own supercar. Apparently influenced the design of the NSX…

70s countach pretty ugly imho, designed just to be obviously different to Ferrari, was the consensus of opinion iirc. Have to agree that the integralé is a damn fine looking car, all squat menacing power, it seems to say ‘bugger your namby pampy aerodynamics, I’m going to smash my way through the air, faster than anything else’.

But, this thread was about practical performance, and you can’t get more practical than a nice old V70R…

no hate, just sympathy for people who you choose to ‘help’.

maybe I was a bit harsh, I’m sure you’re a lovely person, sorry.