il padrone wrote:
The helmet law was introduced simply because of a desire to reduce the number of deaths and severe injuries from head injuries - nothing more. Any other suggestion is kicking up a spurious smoke-screen.
+1
Can I get my position clear please... (directed in general, not to you il padrone)?
My point was that not everyone can know everything and therefore it is prudent to rely on the opinion of experts who have experimental/experiential evidence to advise us on areas we know little/nothing on. It has nothing to do with what governments decide to do or the law etc, other than these decisions also should also be based on the above, rather than just public opinion (taking into account that almost half the public have below average abstract reasoning powers, by definition... although their POV should be listened too).
As far as the comparison of seat-belt laws and helmets. It is valid. Both can be seen as an infringement on individual rights. However, the Australians governments mandate to provide universal health cover and to minimize the cost of doing so means that not implementing the laws can also be seen as an infringement on the right of the individual to not have to pay for the follies of others*.
In hindsight, seat-belt laws have be shown to be very effective. Helmet laws... not really. Sure, the non-helmeted are over-represented in serious and fatal brain injuries, but the contrast is in no way as clear as with seat-belt vs the non-seat-belted, so much as to make it pretty much irrelevant if the hypothesis that more people will ride if they do not have to wear a helmet proves true (which, anecdotally, would appear to be true if Manly, NSW a.k.a New Amsterdam is anything to go by) and that more people riding means more care taken by MV drivers (again, anecdotally, Manly, drivers appear more considerate than a lot of other places... although the number of cyclists in Manly increased dramatically with the increase of cycle facilities).
*I find this moral/ethically repugnant, but it is still true that it can be seen this way from a libertarian-esque point of view.