....focused on the work of the North Wales Police and the Mountain rescue
team.

It was interesting that a woman who had fallen and seriously injured
herself in a relatively remote valley - and thereby put all those people
in the emergency services at risk, quite unnecessarily - was a
chav-cyclist who had lost control and plunged down the side of that valley.

If there was one good thing to come out of it, it was that she admitted
that her chav-cycling-helmet had saved her life. She had several
fractures of her spine and every left side rib broken.

JNugent <jnugent97@mail.com> wrote:
> ...focused on the work of the North Wales Police and the Mountain rescue
> team.
>
> It was interesting that a woman who had fallen and seriously injured
> herself in a relatively remote valley - and thereby put all those people
> in the emergency services at risk, quite unnecessarily - was a
> chav-cyclist who had lost control and plunged down the side of that valley.
>
> If there was one good thing to come out of it, it was that she admitted
> that her chav-cycling-helmet had saved her life. She had several
> fractures of her spine and every left side rib broken.

It’s easy from cases like this to see why over 16% of cyclist deaths arise
from Single Vehicle Accidents, a subject that the cycling fraternity refuse
to even acknowledge exists while making ever more strident demands for
expensive cycling infrastructure to improve safety while fiercely resisting
any and all attempts to mandate personal protection for cyclists.

--
Spike

On 18/03/2024 20:15, JNugent wrote:

> It was interesting that a woman who had fallen and seriously injured
> herself in a relatively remote valley - and thereby put all those people
> in the emergency services at risk, quite unnecessarily

I rather dislike this type of argument "what right do 'mountain users'
have to risk an accident and imperil all these 'rescue folk'?.
That is what they voluntered for, to help people in distress, after
all they (the MUs) didn't want to have an accident (people who don't
take reasonable precautions are another matter).
Civilians volunteer to help, as they want to help.
Military are practising helping/rescuing there own, at least that is
what is said, I suspect there is a bit of PR going on.

On 19/03/2024 09:22 am, Soup wrote:

> On 18/03/2024 20:15, JNugent wrote:
>
>> It was interesting that a woman who had fallen and seriously injured
>> herself in a relatively remote valley - and thereby put all those
>> people in the emergency services at risk, quite unnecessarily
>
> I rather dislike this type of argument "what right do 'mountain users'
> have to risk an accident and imperil all these 'rescue folk'?.

In that case, it is a good job that it is not an argument which I am
advancing, isn't it?

I merely observe the undisputable fact that some people taking part in
activities in remote and/or hazardous locations DO endanger others.
Riding chav-bikes in North Wales valleys isn't the only such pastime, of
course. ;-)

>    That is what they voluntered for, to help people in distress, after
> all they (the MUs) didn't want to have an accident (people who don't
> take reasonable precautions are another matter).

"MUs"?

>   Civilians volunteer to help, as they want to help.
> Military are practising helping/rescuing there own, at least that is
> what is said, I suspect there is a bit of PR going on.

Very possibly. But that does not detract from the risks which face the
rescuers, or from the expense to which the rescue services are put -
does it?

On 19/03/2024 12:14 pm, JNugent wrote:
> On 19/03/2024 09:22 am, Soup wrote:
>
>> On 18/03/2024 20:15, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> It was interesting that a woman who had fallen and seriously injured
>>> herself in a relatively remote valley - and thereby put all those
>>> people in the emergency services at risk, quite unnecessarily
>>
>> I rather dislike this type of argument "what right do 'mountain users'
>> have to risk an accident and imperil all these 'rescue folk'?.
>
> In that case, it is a good job that it is not an argument which I am
> advancing, isn't it?
>
> I merely observe the undisputable fact that some people taking part in
> activities in remote and/or hazardous locations DO endanger others.
> Riding chav-bikes in North Wales valleys isn't the only such pastime, of
> course. ;-)
>
>>     That is what they voluntered for, to help people in distress,
>> after all they (the MUs) didn't want to have an accident (people who
>> don't take reasonable precautions are another matter).
>
> "MUs"?

Ah... got it. "mountain users".
>
>>    Civilians volunteer to help, as they want to help.
>> Military are practising helping/rescuing there own, at least that is
>> what is said, I suspect there is a bit of PR going on.
>
> Very possibly. But that does not detract from the risks which face the
> rescuers, or from the expense to which the rescue services are put -
> does it?
>