Ross wrote:Xplora wrote:I truly can accept the argument that the helmet is acceptably mandatory if we are ready to ban booze, smoking, sunbaking, unhealthy foods, sex outside of wedlock and dancing (because sex has been known to lead to dancing).
The MHL is completely at odds with a laisse faire culture. "for your own good" needs to apply to a lot of other things before it applies to cycling. Ban cars if you want to stop people hurting themselves - they are responsible for a lot more societal costs than riding ever has.
Sex is a moral isssue, not a health one, so isn't relevant. I'm sure you were just being facetious about dancing.
DANCING MUST BE BANNED!
Sex outside wedlock is actually a
social issue - and I hope this is the key to understanding my approach. Our approach to these issues (of differing importance) must be practical, and it must be equitable from a social aspect. Morality is part of the fabric, I agree. All those things lead to Mulger Bill's Law. Someone think of the children - because apparently the social cost of increasing cyclist injury rates and reducing cycling participation by the MHL is acceptable to those who do not favour the abolition of MHL.
I definitely accept that jules for example doesn't want it abolished, despite not being positive about it, and many like ross or hightea aren't falling over themselves to have it repealed. That's the line in the sand from my perspective. That said...
Booze problems = social problems. Sex outside of wedlock leads to single parents and the inevitable collapse of future opportunities for those single parents. As a group, they are one of the true "losers" in society. Very little is out there to help them out, and it is getting harder. Sex outside wedlock is part of that fabric. The point being - ban booze, ban sex out of wedlock,and you create a net improvement in society IN THE HUMBLE OPINION OF XPLORA. Damn the rights of people to drink and sex up the people they want to, right?
It's for their own good, right? They are only hurting themselves in the long run, despite using condoms and being sensible in their drinking, right? Society sees no practical worth in preventing sex outside wedlock or prohibition of alcohol because it can't control everyone and everything - because regulation is quite lax in these areas.
I cannot put the argument more succinctly than this. The helmet law stands out as an aberration in a set of laws. If regulation of the roads was so effective, why the hundreds of road deaths each year? Why do cyclists still die? Why has there been no direct correlation with helmet laws and reduced cyclist deaths compared to other transport modes? We aren't leading the way on MHL because it is the next women's suffrage, but rather a foolish assumption that forcing protection on an unwilling populace doesn't work... condoms are a lot cheaper than child rearing, and yet...
Why force a helmet on an unwilling group of potential riders, who would functionally reduce injury rates by riding more often? Educate and implore, but don't force regulation that creates no appreciable benefit. The helmet is NOT as effective as a seatbelt over a population of road users. Apples must be compared to apples
I've compared apples to other varieties of apples simply to show that our values must be consistent otherwise they are discriminatory. Can you imagine a helmet law specific to Asian drivers? Of course not. Yet riders face this same discrimination, which is both impractical and unreasonable and ineffective at achieving the goal of safer riders.