Nuxx:J1glbk$mfi$5@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!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!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 12:49:08 +0100 References:  <10qm37da62p03phjp2d0i997bc8fav2aum@4ax.com>   Lines: 14 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 11:49:08 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8psORfuBq3je/hVXnlNHEQ"; logging-data="23026"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18bTgifjgdMQBMceroawuA0lYXj5etBR0E=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 In-Reply-To:  Cancel-Lock: sha1:54ajx3cxr1S68l7L+T9YEA2Ek/4= Bytes: 1819 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:820569

On 05/08/2011 11:07, Zapp Brannigan wrote: > Ding Dong wrote: >> 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? > > I oppose compulsion. Taking a risk decision about your own safety is an > individual right, as long as no-one else is harmed.

Fair enough, but do you think people should pretend to think helmets don't improve safety when really they think they do, because they're scared that if they admit they improve safety then they'll be made compulsory?