No helmet

[davidwalton]

So, tone it down a bit until you are?

No problem with you wearing a helmet.
Big problem with you wishing to have this imposed on the population.

I have a big problem with you telling me I am trying to do something I am not. You repeatedly lie and twist what I wrote, even when I keep on repeating the same thing. IN ENGLISH:-

I will support any government action that leads towards compulsory cycle helmet use.

If you wish to support the opposite, then fine. I will not think that is you trying to impose on me for doing so. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?

I don't think you have any right to tell me to do anything.

 

[Chuffy]

No point trying to argue facts and figures when the experts fail to agree.

Then what is the point of this umpteenth iteration of a pointless argument?

I still have the same view, and would still support compulsory wearing of cycle helmets. If you would support the opposite action, then fine. I won't hold that against you or think you are imposing

If you support compulsion, then it's you who is imposing. I don't wear one, never have and don't want to. Thanks a bunch for hoping that I will one day be forced to wear one against my will.

 

[davidwalton]

That's not the way the government works, fortunately. They don't know any more than the experts that they ask.

Government is there to resolve these types of matters.

 

[davidwalton]

Then what is the point of this umpteenth iteration of a pointless argument?


If you support compulsion, then it's you who is imposing. I don't wear one, never have and don't want to. Thanks a bunch for hoping that I will one day be forced to wear one against my will.

If you support a government action does that mean your imposing or supporting???

You have not read the whole thread. I made a statement that got twisted to what you said, again, and it went from people trying to lie to me to telling me I have no right to a point.

 

[Chuffy]

I have a big problem with you telling me I am trying to do something I am not. You repeatedly lie and twist what I wrote, even when I keep on repeating the same thing. IN ENGLISH:-

I will support any government action that leads towards compulsory cycle helmet use.

Let me just get this straight.
You would support any legislation that makes the wearing of helmets compulsory, yes?
And you are calling Jaded a liar for saying that you wish to impose the wearing of helmets on everyone, yes?

 

[davidwalton]

Let me just get this straight.
You would support any legislation that makes the wearing of helmets compulsory, yes?
And you are calling Jaded a liar for saying that you wish to impose the wearing of helmets on everyone, yes?

I am not going to impose anything and have no wish to. I would support government action to in this case. Government is voted in to power by the people, and supporting an action of the government does not constitute anything other than support for the government. Support does not mean impose in my dictionary.

I would support government action based on my understanding of the arguments for and against. I do have a right to support the government, and for that support to be called support instead of an imposition.

I have also made it very clear that the opposite view, I would not see as imposing. Now, ALLOW ME MY RIGHT TO THIS OPINION, and stop twisting it to be something it is not.

 

[davidwalton]

David,

Would you also support any government action that advised that helmets aren't advantageous, if the research leaned that way?

Tried to be clear on this as well, ie. that I would not deem it an imposition if others took the opposite view.

If it comes down that helmets are proven to be less safe than not wearing a helmet, I will take mine off. However, I would still wear some sort of head gear.

 

[davidwalton]

Yes it is. But the government resolves matters based on information, research and advice, not the toss of a coin.

And at the moment there isn't sufficient information, research and advice available for the government to make a decision.

They use the same sources as we do.

I know, and with government involvement more pointed questions can perhaps be answered to their satisfaction to make a decision. At the end of the day, it is one of the things they get paid for, so doing nothing is not a real option.

 

[davidwalton]

OK. So at the moment we're in between the two, with no clear acceptance of research leaning enough either way.

So, how could you support the government if it was stupid enough (and it wouldn't be) to make a decision based on the current findings?

As I said before, I would support a government action based on my own decision to wear a helmet, ie. that I believe it is safer to wear a helmet than not.

It is ALL about opinion here, nothing else. It is my opinion that for the small expense and trouble a helmet is, the fact that you are putting something that will crush between your head and a solid object has got to be better than nothing when it come to hitting your head.

 

[Chuffy]

Now, ALLOW ME MY RIGHT TO THIS OPINION, and stop twisting it to be something it is not.

You have every right to your opinion. No-one has said otherwise. You do not seem to be prepared to extend this to the people who disagree with you. You shout them down and bellow that THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO AN OPINION.

You believe that, via legislation, people should be forced to wear helmets, whether they want to or not. You believe that this is not tantamount to you imposing your wishes on other people.

I believe that you either have a breathtakingly simplistic view on what various words in the English language mean or you are breathtakingly simple minded. Take your pick and feel free to disagree. I won't be calling for Govt legislation demanding that you understand the rubbish that you post before you post it....

 

[davidwalton]

OK, so what you're really trying to say is not that the goverment should jump down off the fence with what info we have now, but that they should commission research to try to settle the argument?

Thats what I want, but there should be no trying, doing. My opinion may end up wrong, but that doesn't matter. What does is safety.

 

[davidwalton]

That's not saying anything though is it? You've said that you would support whatever way the government decided to go. Which has nothing to do with your belief.

If they decided I was wrong...,fine.

Until then, there is only opinion.

 

[Chuffy]

Until then, there is only opinion.

How about we leave it there, because that's what it comes down to...

 

[davidwalton]

You have every right to your opinion. No-one has said otherwise. You do not seem to be prepared to extend this to the people who disagree with you. You shout them down and bellow that THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO AN OPINION.

You believe that, via legislation, people should be forced to wear helmets, whether they want to or not. You believe that this is not tantamount to you imposing your wishes on other people.

I believe that you either have a breathtakingly simplistic view on what various words in the English language mean or you are breathtakingly simple minded. Take your pick and feel free to disagree. I won't be calling for Govt legislation demanding that you understand the rubbish that you post before you post it....

Thanks for the insults

I do believe there is a difference between supporting the action of a government and imposing, yes.

Based on what I believe, I would support a helmet law. Where is the imposition? If you believe the opposite, I have made it very clear it won't be seen as imposing.

I do object to you continually being insulting to me though.

This went from being told I am wrong, to being told I have no right to an opinion to having my words continually twisted to suit what you want. Get real and get an argument instead of the insults.

 

[davidwalton]

How about we leave it there, because that's what it comes down to...

Thank you. It is ALL about opinion, and we ALL have a right to one.