Re: Yet another pedestrian hurt
- From: Ian Smith <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:12:45 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:39:21 -0000, pk <pgk2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ian Smith" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 22:08:08 -0800 (PST), delboy
According to the anti-helmet brigade, cyclists never go over the
handlebars, bang their heads on the ground and suffer fatal skull
fracture injuries as a result. Could they possibly be wrong?
You do realise that when you lie so blatantly about what your opponent
has said, the over-riding conclusion amongst your audience is that you
are unable to address what they have actually said, don't you?
but Ian, that is exactly the tactic adopted by the anti helmet brigade!
Firstly, no, it is not. Secondly, there is no anti-helmet brigade. I
am only aware of one or two people who have ever advocated banning
cycle helmets. You can find one or two people that want to ban pretty
Even if it was a tactic adopted by a group that actually existed, if
someone makes such an unreasonable argument, then you should highlight
it. Please do so. The fact that you have not done so speaks
Recently you have instead chosen to rant about unreasonable arguments
that haven't been made and then when it is pointed out that those
arguments have not been made, decided to resort to calling anyone that
points this out 'fuckwit'. That's not really a reasoned approach.
On the specific topic here, I don't recall ever seeing anyone claiming
that cyclists never go over the handlebars, let alone claim that this
is the reason why it is not necessary to wear cycling helmets.
However, Delboy suggests that this is the main plank of the argument
against helmet compulsion. Presumably he can provide lots of examples
of people making that argument...?
|\ /| no .sig
- Prev by Date: Re: Help please re bike rental idea
- Next by Date: Re: Another comment rejected by UCRM moderators!
- Previous by thread: Re: Yet another pedestrian hurt
- Next by thread: Re: Yet another pedestrian hurt