wilddemon wrote:Xplora wrote:Go back to my statement about subtext. What lesson do we learn about Xplora from this thread? H909? Paddy?
You like to use be thoroughly cryptic and use long words when short ones will do. If your arguments weren't so paper thin it wouldn't be necessary.
Not at all. The painfully obvious explanations and evidence have already proven that MHL has failed. I am now dealing with the next stage of the argument - if we will not change the law despite the incredible failure after 20 years, we must now demonstrate why it is hurting cycling and cyclists. I don't use short words because I have never tried to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I am no politician or lobbyist. I hope that thinking people can be engaged and start to consider what a massive problem we face as a community - the importance of safety on a commute, and the responsibility of all people to pay attention when they are using a footpath or road or share path. Negligence seems to be unpunished, yet it feels that a cyclist is treated as negligent if they don't wear a helmet. Our legal structure sucks for the most dangerous act we do every day, and MHL is a part of that picture.