A
Alan Braggins
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Chris Slade wrote:
>Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>> They want every child (and preferably every adult to) cycling to be
>> wearing a helmet. That's it. They're very clear about that. They may
>> be misinformed about how useful that will be, but they are *very* clear
>> that that is all they want.
>
>Indeed. Why do they want this? Is it because:
>a) they think injuries will be reduced, or
>b) some other reason?
>
>I suspect that they have deluded themselves into believing (a). I'm not
>really sure how much use reasoned argument is with the zealots who
>willfully ignore the facts.
>
>It seems unlikely to me that the reason they want compulsion is simply
>because they want compulsion. Perhaps I'm being a bit naive here, but
>surely there has to be more of a reason than that?
More votes to be gained from being seen to be doing something about
safety than there are to be lost? (If it was just about reducing injury,
or they had an obsessive desire to make things compulsary for the sake
of it, they'd logically be arguing for walking and car passenger compulsary
helmets too. Though I suspect it's just that common sense takes over in
the non-cycling cases they have more experience of.)
>Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>> They want every child (and preferably every adult to) cycling to be
>> wearing a helmet. That's it. They're very clear about that. They may
>> be misinformed about how useful that will be, but they are *very* clear
>> that that is all they want.
>
>Indeed. Why do they want this? Is it because:
>a) they think injuries will be reduced, or
>b) some other reason?
>
>I suspect that they have deluded themselves into believing (a). I'm not
>really sure how much use reasoned argument is with the zealots who
>willfully ignore the facts.
>
>It seems unlikely to me that the reason they want compulsion is simply
>because they want compulsion. Perhaps I'm being a bit naive here, but
>surely there has to be more of a reason than that?
More votes to be gained from being seen to be doing something about
safety than there are to be lost? (If it was just about reducing injury,
or they had an obsessive desire to make things compulsary for the sake
of it, they'd logically be arguing for walking and car passenger compulsary
helmets too. Though I suspect it's just that common sense takes over in
the non-cycling cases they have more experience of.)