Nuxx:4e30dd41$0$2498$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk

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!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e30dd41$0$2498$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Why Would... Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 04:53:37 +0100 References: <4e30dd0b$0$2498$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> Lines: 32 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4e30dd0b$0$2498$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: c4626a64.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=>IGijQojbaF49nW[gEdniF0g@SS;SF6nGR9OH0:RnENDWTZeX\QFYYO`:ITG5aA:cGOie_:PcCSEL X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 2314 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:819147

On 28/07/2011 04:52, Nuxx Bar wrote: > Why would someone: > > 1) Claim that cycle helmets have no safety benefit, and that if > anything, they make matters worse; > > 2) Wear a cycle helmet themselves; > > 3) Refuse to admit to wearing a cycle helmet themselves?

Perhaps it's because:

1) They don't really believe that cycle helmets have no safety benefit.

2) Nevertheless, they lie and claim to think that cycle helmets have no safety benefit, because they think that's the best way of heading off compulsion.

3) In other words, they think that minimising restrictions on cyclists is so important that it's worth giving false advice about road safety...as long as they don't follow that advice themselves, because it's OK if "other" cyclists die for "the cause", but they're too important.

Mr X thinks that minimising restrictions on cyclists (and maximising restrictions on motorists) is so important that to "achieve" it, it's "worth" killing a "few" people in the "short" term with deliberately duff road "safety" advice, the true purpose of which is to fill the roads with cyclists and purge them of drivers. He thinks that once that happens, those "few" deaths will be "compensated" for.

So that's OK then. (A shame no-one ever asked the "few" whether they were happy with being "sacrificed"....)