Nuxx:1c2544d7-5173-4619-85af-97fddd78e321@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <1c2544d7-5173-4619-85af-97fddd78e321@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT) References:  <8uu1h9Fh5jU4@mid.individual.net>  <8uu5l9Fg4gU1@mid.individual.net>  <28a47af8-30fb-45fc-9341-9d2f057b6fd5@n1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <3f326b6a-0e02-4447-bdfe-5c582d2b259f@u8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <989ec086-0287-402c-8b3f-e93184ee53d7@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <9a151089-10fc-4d16-8930-f433582c72d8@d2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <20110323180524.71b5faa3@bluemoon> Lines: 20 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1300913029 24594 127.0.0.1 (23 Mar 2011 20:43:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:43:49 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2589 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39361

On Mar 23, 6:05=A0pm, Rob Morley  wrote: > On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:49:44 -0700 (PDT) > > Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > I honestly think you're a bit naive about the motives and honesty of > > those who run speed cameras. > > I honestly think that if you don't want to give them your money you > just have to not break the speed limit by too much.

I just hope that if and when they introduce a cycle helmet law and start fining cyclists for profit for not wearing one, you'll be content with people saying "I honestly think that if you don't want to give them your money then you just have to wear a helmet", and pretending that there's no need to discuss whether the helmets are actually needed, whether it's appropriate to set up conveyer-belt, discretionless enforcement of that particular "offence", etc.

Well? Will you be content with that? No wriggling or refusing to answer please.