Nuxx:6642e941-3874-41d7-952c-24646f4abb1a@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!13g2000yql.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <6642e941-3874-41d7-952c-24646f4abb1a@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Another house seriously damaged by a car. Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 04:10:49 -0800 (PST) References:  Lines: 18 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.151.152.80 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1233490249 2312 127.0.0.1 (1 Feb 2009 12:10:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 12:10:49 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 13g2000yql.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.151.152.80; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2159 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:684541

On Feb 1, 7:23=A0am, Doug  wrote: > Once again demonstrating the terrible impact force of cars and the > widespread danger it represents. And yet virtually anyone can climb > into one and wreak havoc, often with little or no accountability.

And yet the vast majority of drivers go through their entire lives without "wreaking havoc" or even causing any injuries whatsoever. If cars are as dangerous and drivers as irresponsible as you make out, how can this be the case?

A very small number of people use knives irresponsibly, murder people when they're drunk, and rob banks. Should we therefore ban all knives, all alcohol and all banks because of those people? If not, why should we ban all cars just because a very small number of people "wreak havoc" (usually only once in their lifetimes) when using them?

Once again, a car-hater's arguments are found to be shallow and severely wanting.