on 2013-05-07 1:05 Bob W wrote
Second, people take part in all sorts of activities which damage their health one way or another, from driving cars, to eating meat, drinking alcohol, climbing mountains, and taking drugs. These things are all costing the public purse, in many cases far more than cycling does (in fact, cycling is a net contribution to the public purse) and the argument you put forward for cyclists applies equally or in greater measure to many other activities. But nobody suggests similar measures for these activities, so why cycling?
the merits aside, i don't think that's correct; society accepts many restrictions on individual liberty designed to reduce specific risks, and lots of people suggest stronger regulations and more direct "preventatives"; however the risk assessments and countermeasures tend to be tremendously subjective and unbalanced, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
