On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:44:02 +0100, Mrs Redboots
wrote in message
:

Surely Nick
was just introducing a red herring into the original thread, something
we all do from time to time.

Arguably so, but given that it was (a) a tired restatement of
well-rehearsed arguments and (b) cross-posted to the cycling
newsgroup, it was unlikely ever to be seen as such. We have become
very tired on urc of hearing these arguments used to excuse all
dangerous behaviour by other road users, call for enforcement against
cyclists in preference to other road users who by any measure pose
much more danger, to call for cyclists to be subjected to absurd and
draconian regulation, or even simply to undermine the right of
cyclists to use the road at all.

So maybe it was a reflex brain fart on the part of the PP, but given
his subsequent defence of his posting I am inclined to think not.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University