human909 wrote: So why would this apply to cycling but not driving or walking?? What defines the base level of 'safe' living as opposed to 'elevated risk' living?
it's determined on a case-by-case basis. where there is a disproportionate risk associated with an activity and its mitigation is practicable, the case for regulatory intervention is stronger. there is absolutely a case for head protection in driving - there is a strong degree of associated regulation (new car design rules) - helmets aren't the most effective solution in that case. with walking, the risk is obviously much lower.
the state has three responsibilities in this context: to protect its citizens from harm, to minimise its cost exposure and not unnecessarily infringe on people's freedom rights. helmet laws tick the box in all 3 - except for those who unreasonably believe that being required to wear a helmet is somehow a gross imposition on their rights.
human909 wrote:And pretty much implies that 90% of the Dutch do not take on personal responsibility.
i'm sure they'll forgive me. cycling in the netherlands does not equate to cycling on australian roads. the reality is, the risk here is higher.