Originally Posted by
radshark
I think that helmet laws are different from province to province. I think Ontario (for example) states that anyone under age 18? must wear a helmet.
I too advocate helmet use but not helmet laws. I don't like what the nanny state slippery slope holds... ban certain foods, physical activities, etc.. because they are statistically dangerous. Imagine the elderly mandated to wear hip protectors during icy winters in case they fall.
Let people decide how they want to ensure their health and let them take responsibility for it. Perhaps the provincial health care system refused to pay for head injuries sustained while cycling without a helmet. That might sober some cyclist up.
Heck - lets add lung cancer treatments resulting from smoking too.
You should wear a helmet just in case you fall on that slippery slope.
Seriously: If there is so much questioning around helmets (which there obviously is), is it really a good idea to make penalties for not wearing them? While I still disagree with it, cigarettes would be one thing: They are pretty unquestionably linked to lung cancer. Seat belts? Almost unquestionably save lives. Bike helmets? Pretty questionable; there's ample evidence they don't do as much as claimed, and there's also studies showing they do. I think you're drawing a false comparison.