Originally Posted by
Brennan
They might think so, but I don't believe that's really the case. I think when we go down this road of allowing the government to impose personal decisions on people, it sets precedent and contributes to less freedom for everyone over time. If they support an overreaching government on principle, it might be only a matter of time before a new law comes around that does compel them to change their behavior against their will.
What matters is that
they believe so, which is why they might find MHLs acceptable.
As I said afterwards (in #20 on the first page):
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
That's possible. All I was doing was showing why some (clearly, not all) cyclists might be for such laws. Clearly, it's the appearance of "no cost" (whether or not there is an actual cost) that is the thing. Anyway, I think people should be suspicious of using the "it doesn't matter to me" as a reason to accept restricting things.