On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:49:31 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I wonder if the usual suspects will be exploiting this as part of a
campaign to enforce pedestrian helmets? I suspect not, partly in
deference to family and friends of the deceased. It is a pity the
usual suspects are not as respectful of cyclists and their family &
friends.
Whilst I understand your point, it appears that you are exploting this as
part of an anti cycle helmet campaign,
Incorrect. I am simply pointing out the flaws in the helmet lobby's
arguments. It is not an anti-helmet argument, it is an anti-helmet
lobby argument. The difference is important.
In normal circumstances I would be entirely indifferent about
whether people want to wear a silly bit of plastic on their heads
when cycling or not. I am pro-choice and it is up to them. However,
we are not in normal circumstances, because government has said that
when enough people have been "encouraged" to wear silly bits of
plastic on their head when cycling government will force all to wear
silly bits of plastic on their head when cycling.
As a result of this government policy I have modified my stance if
indifference so that I occasionally remind those who wish to wear
silly bits of plastic on their head when cycling of government
policy. It is then up to them to cogitate on this fact. When/if
government changes its policy I will change my stance. The choice is
theirs.
Of course if someone wants to wear a silly bit of plastic on their
head then it is best if they adjusted it so that it stood some
change of doing something. To this end I occasionally spend some
time adjusting cycle helmets for people.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54