More helmet debate - but this time sensible!

[2volvos]

Hi

I know we've all been here before a thousand times but I think this is an very well thought out piece especially the discussion of risk and cost to society and the relativity of that risk/cost compared to hefferlumps/smokers/drinkers etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/20...

However, I do still choose to wear a helmet....most of the time...

[2volvos]

'The ethical problems associated with legislation prohibiting adults from cycling without helmets are relatively obvious. First, John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle" suggests that we should not interfere with competent adults who wish take risks with their own health. Second, even if we do not always agree with the letter of Mill's "law" we still have sound liberal reasons to avoid paternalism unless the risks we wish to prohibit are significant and unless there is a highly effective way of reducing them with little infringement of liberty.

Of course, some will argue that cycle helmet legislation conforms to these latter requirements. However, it is not clear that helmets provide sufficient protection to warrant the claim that they are highly effective and, as a keen cyclist, I would argue that the right to cycle bare-headed is by no means trivial.'

I've not heard Mill brought into the debate about helmets before so think that is something new....

But I think a good comparison is with compulsory wearing of seatbelts. The infringement of liberty of wearing a seatbelt is, I would argue, negligible, but the safety impact has been great - I don't know the figures though. Apply the same criteria to compulsory helmets and its probably balanced differently - lower impact on overall safety, higher impact on liberty. Then throw in the effect on cycling participation (I doubt compulsory seatbelt wearing reduced the amount of divers and driving done!) and, to me, you've got a sound, thought through argument against compulsory helmet wearing, rather than a knee jerk response.