Roads you would not ride on.

[Cowsham]

That's self evident.

No I don't think it is.

I find it quite an ambiguous statement from Jonathan who's nearly always very concise that's why I'm genuinely interested.

ie he hasn't learnt so didn't cite because of that. He cited because of something else.

or he has learnt but conveying the fact he didn't cite because of that.

I just want to know which.

No reflection on you Pete -- I know your views and don't need to be drawn into that argument I just want to hear from Jonathan as he knows what he meant and can maybe convey the message more concisely for me to understand better.

What I meant is it's self evident that there's no wholly sensible discourse on the twin cycle safety canards of hi-viz and helmets in lightly moderated or unmoderated public internet space, and I say that because I don't think I've ever seen such a thing in over 25 years of looking (including the online rapid reaction space of prestigious peer reviewed journals).

I'd be delighted to hear about an exception.

As to you knowing my views, I am less confident than you are that that is the case. My views on helmets and hi-viz strike me as being routinely misunderstood and mis-characterised here (and, as above, anywhere else I try to get them a across).

Pete.

That doesn't really matter. I'm not interested in the discussion about whatever it's to do with the either ambiguous statement from Jonathan or maybe a deeper meaning I'm not understanding from him. What I want to know is, does he know what he meant? Do I understand what he meant? Was the message formed correctly or is there a bit of an unusual bad grammar going on or I'm I just taking it out of context.

It's strange to say the least.

[Cowsham]

I didn't cite it it because I've learnt from painful experience that it isn't possible to have a sensible discussion about this or similar issues in this forum.

But I live in hope that it will improve.

Jonathan

Can you tell me what this means?