THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW 
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

On 30 Oct, 01:29, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:36:37 AM UTC, thirty-six wrote:
On 29 Oct, 15:55, Andre Jute wrote:

THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW


(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)


by Andre Jute

It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free 
individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much 
constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese 
collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled 
in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese. 
To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the 
ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than 
liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory 
bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that 
rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality.

Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and 
statistical grounds.

State intervention MUST be opposed at every opportunity.

Examples are driving licences, crush zones on 
cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million 
other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part 
of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day.

State intervention MUST be opposed at every opportunity.

Failure to persist, allows them to control our thoughts.

HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?

IT'S NOT!

EOT

That's the conclusion I arrived at, Eeyore.

Andre Jute

I was unable to comprehend it due to tiredness and noticed you
mentioned helmets. EOT