Logical Extension

(Image from tribesports.com)

Bicyclists are pushing back against mandatory helmet laws for adults (over 18). They are claiming that overall societal health will be reduced because some adults will be discouraged from riding due to the hassle of carrying and wearing a helmet.

I happen to agree with that reasoning, but it's also clear that there will be additional head injuries without the law.

Statistics vary, but several studies show that wearing a helmet reduces the risk of head or brain injury by about two-thirds or more. An analysis in the Journal of Pediatrics of a decade of data concluded that bicycle-related death rates were about 20% lower among children in states with helmet laws.

Sorry helmet-freedom advocates, but such injuries will be a burden to society's health-care systems; therefore society's right to keep its costs down trumps an individual's freedom to decide. This is the same argument that was used to justify mandatory car seat-belt laws, which were upheld by the courts in the 1990's.

When you argue against someone else's freedom, even for what may be the "best" of reasons, you may be putting your own freedom at risk.