Of course it does. But presumably most people who bike will never have a potentially fatal brain injuring accident, while having a healthier, more environmentally friendly, cheaper life (gas is expensive!), and on balance, it's a net positive expected benefit, for some set of plausible weights of pros and cons.
Ah, but this is the tricky moral question, do we enact a law that may decrease a large population's quality of life significantly, or do we enact one that doesn't, but allows for the death of a few?
Arguably, the greater good is done by not enforcing helmet laws, because vastly more people will bike, and thus get more exercise, outweighing the few major accidents per year.
do we enact a law that may decrease a large population's quality of life significantly
Before asking that question, I wonder how many people don't bike because of the helmet versus how many say that they don't bike because of the helmet but really would take any excuse.
Comments
I feel like being dead or brain damaged also reduces the overall quality of life.
Of course it does. But presumably most people who bike will never have a potentially fatal brain injuring accident, while having a healthier, more environmentally friendly, cheaper life (gas is expensive!), and on balance, it's a net positive expected benefit, for some set of plausible weights of pros and cons.
Ah, but this is the tricky moral question, do we enact a law that may decrease a large population's quality of life significantly, or do we enact one that doesn't, but allows for the death of a few?
Arguably, the greater good is done by not enforcing helmet laws, because vastly more people will bike, and thus get more exercise, outweighing the few major accidents per year.
Before asking that question, I wonder how many people don't bike because of the helmet versus how many say that they don't bike because of the helmet but really would take any excuse.