jcjordan wrote:Governments have put limitations on choice for the good of social welfare since the beginning of time, as is there central purpose. MHLs are no different to speed limits, DUI laws, littering, etc in their general purpose.
As with all these laws the belief is that the restrictions place on society are overall beneficial. Where the majority of members disagree, such as with prohibition, they can rise up and work towards changing them.
No disputes there. Except all those things you mention are individual actions that significantly and regularly hurt others in society. Me not wearing a helmet doesn't.
jcjordan wrote:In this case I have seen no evidence which shows a overall benefit to improved cycling numbers which would warrant the removal of the laws when compared to protection aspects.
So remind me again what public benefit have MHLs had?
high_tea wrote:I dunno, but from my personal experience, that attitude predates MHLs. Have they reinforced that attitude? It's plausible, but I can't see how you'd ever get a definitive answer.
In my personal experience as a child pre-MHLs was one of riding around the neighbourhood on my bicycle. All the neighbourhood children did this. We set up jumps and race down hills and launched ourselves off them. We rode everywhere and anywhere in the neighbourhood. Helmets were rarely see. Scraped knees and elbows we occasionally had but no bid dramas or head injuries. (Probably 50% of my riding was on roads, 50% on footpaths, carparks, backalleys, etc.) Around the start of my teens I lived in Holland, again only 50% of the riding here was on roads without a helmet.
I find it sad that we tell our children that the roads are too dangerous.