Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws

[Sans__Culottes]

6. In My Opinion...

The helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc, have a lot more to do with protecting insurance industry profits than they have to do with protecting adults from themselves.

I *do* agree with restraint laws for underage drivers, youngsters are not always capable of making rational decisions and do need to be protected from themselves at times.

As to protecting ER and emergency response crews from seeing massive trauma, I find the comment fatuous for several reasons:
1. It's their chosen occupation, they *expect* to be exposed to gore.
2. There's plenty of godawful carnage they witness that has nothing to do with bikes/cycles; the additional amount from cyclist injuries-to-the head is just a drop in the old brainbucket.
3. Helmets do not protect other body parts from injury and cycling accidents are frequently horrific from the spinal trauma, massive flesh-abrasion, et al. Should we just ban all two-wheeled vehicles to protect the sensibilities of aid-workers?

I don't ride motorcycles because they scare fuck out of me. That's *my* choice. Those that choose to ride, or choose to ride w/o headgear are making their own life-choices and I much prefer that they have the freedom to choose, even to make bad choices, than to project my fear onto them.


My definition of nanny-laws are those that appear to protect us from our own freedom to choose (but actually protect the profits of the 1%). Remember when the insurance companies in this country forced a ban on convertible cars in the 70s? *That* was nannyism-for-the-protection-of-insurance-profits at it's most ridiculous.

When do we legislate against bungee-jumping, base-jumping, rock-climbing, et al, because someone might get hurt?

Adrenaline junkies *are* going to devise means to achieve the rush and we can not protect adults from all self-endangerment, nor fools from folly.