Nuxx:J1g8fc$f9l$1@dont-email.me

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!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Ding Dong  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Not Viable Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 09:09:11 +0100 References:  <10qm37da62p03phjp2d0i997bc8fav2aum@4ax.com> Lines: 28 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Reply-To: ding@dong.invalid Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:09:16 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8psORfuBq3je/hVXnlNHEQ"; logging-data="15669"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JXMrpfrsQ9bExdB4faUKGtrZrnyMVIo4=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 In-Reply-To: <10qm37da62p03phjp2d0i997bc8fav2aum@4ax.com> Cancel-Lock: sha1:7ZALXmPmt/Y4vgOtys3V+knuba8= Bytes: 2258 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:848491

On 05/08/2011 04:49, Judith wrote: > On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:01:12 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller  > wrote: > >> >> http://bit.ly/nThvoE > > A Keller own goal: > > Why is he wearing a cycle helmet? > > Does he not know that they are dangerous?

Well, they're compulsory in New Zealand, but all the same, they're so dangerous that you'd think that this paramedic would defy the compulsion.

Oh, hang on, they're not dangerous...even Chapman and the other nutters don't say that they are. So why are they so desperate to resist compulsion here, when helmets aren't dangerous and may well improve safety? Especially when people like Chapman already wear helmets...what difference does it make to them?

It's just a pointless obsession with preventing cyclists being subject to any rules, no matter how sensible, on "principle" (because cyclists are "morally superior" and "saving the planet"). It's not about real road safety at all. (Cyclists also "shouldn't" have to obey red lights, "shouldn't" have to obey one-way restrictions, "shouldn't" be prevented from cycling on pavements, etc, etc....)