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
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.