JC> I'm not against helmets.  What I am against is government 
 JC> regulations that decide what I may do with my 
 JC> own body.  I want to 
 JC> be able to choose whether or not to ride a 
 JC> bike with a helmet on my 
 JC> head. 
 BA> Glad to get that clear. I agree with you 100%. All 
 BA> the way back in 1963 I 
 BA> had seatbelts installed in my mother's car, but I STILL think it is a 
 BA> personal decision, not one of government fiat. 
 
I'm willing to "give" on the seatbelt law because I believe it is a vehicle 
control issue.  I wouldn't be against a law requiring bicycles to have 
functional brakes when operated on public streets, for example, because this 
would be a "vehicle" control issue (your inability to stop puts pedestrians 
at risk of injury).  But if the issue is just the own person's safety (or the 
governments inane perception of what gives safety whether it does or not) I 
think personal liberty is far more important.
 
If they can force you to dress safely, could they also force you to speak 
safely?  If you make vile racist comments, someone might beat you upside the 
head with a baseball bat (another item they might ban, btw) and cause a 
massive head injury, which might make you become indigent and society would 
have to pay for it.  Therefore, because it costs taxpayers money, the 
government has an economic interest in banning unpopular speech.
 
Bicycles themselves have been banned from some areas.  There is a section of 
a community right outside my city where it is illegal to enter or leave that 
area on a bicycle (it has been specifically designed for automobile access 
only) and the law enforces this.  And the reason is that it is "unsafe".  I 
get the impression that the oil companies just love this situation and would 
like to see it proliferate.
--- Maximus 2.02
---------------