historyman
New Member
I must come to the defence of Norv. What he's saying (I think) is that there's no point labelling cycling as 'dangerous' as if from a point of view where a state of 'nil danger' is normal or at all achievable. All life is dangerous. Anything we do could shorten our life. The point is that cycling doesn't on average shorten our life more than any other course of action. So labelling it as 'dangerous' is seriously misleading. It suggests wrongly that if we didn't cycle, there would be no danger.