squeazasis wrote:PeterD wrote:Riding Every Day wrote:RossCottee wrote: “I’d like to see helmets viewed as fashion accessories. Having acquired a brain Injury, I wouldn’t want the government to roll back on what they’ve achieved by relaxing helmet laws. I encourage people to have a go!”
Good on you Ross for the impressive usage stats. Well done.
Perplexed by the boldened text though. Exactly what have the government achieved with our helmet laws?
reinforced in the popular psyche the notion that a govt exists not only to defend its constituents form what dangers they do not control, but also from themselves? that's a very useful sentiment to have. the paternalistic govt neednt fear revolution....or, closer to reality, mass rebuke at election time for their encroachment of people's personal liberty. pfft. i am not the goverment's child; I wear a helmet because I want to, not because the govt dictates that I must. what were we talking about again?..
I haven't read much of the helmet debate that I gather is neverending..... but imho if helmets were not compulsory, a huge number of people who are happy to wear them as it is, wouldn't bother. Perhaps this would even include many who nonetheless would wear seatbelts in cars regardless of whether or not it's compulsory.
I dont doubt that. and i dont doubt that those riders would be grateful for the law, should their helmet prevent them one day from collecting a brain injury. but that's entirely besides the point.. protection against self-injury is not a public good. the govt has no business legislating to restrict individual freedom where no others are involved. it is not altruistic, to be authoritarian... no matter how many heads are saved.