> Taking risks should be legal

What's the difference from a seat belt law? As long as I'm paying for everyone elses' healthcare (which is the norm in developed countries), their personal risk taking is my concern. Even in places without publically funded healthcare, everyone pays for others' risks through premiums so the difference isn't as big as it would seem.

Bicycling makes you fitter and healthier, reducing overall disease burden, as well as providing mental health benefits, reduced traffic, consequently reduced air pollution which also is a major win for public health.

Cars literally don't do any of those things. They're convenient (at least when your city isn't subject to awful traffic) and that's it.

> What's the difference from a seat belt law?

You found a risk reducing law that probably does make sense. Very small investment (Volvo relinquished the patent, thanks Volvo) and very large benefit.

But this "their personal risk taking is my concern" argument of yours makes me shiver. I'd never want someone else's risk taking to be my concern: I've got more important stuff to attend to, thank God.

All right, let's suppose for a minute that self-interest is literally the only thing to be considered.

Your personal risk preferences impact me in a variety of ways:

* my cost of living goes up, because damage control is much more expensive than prevention; someone has to pay for it, and dead people can't.

* my personal risk goes up, because resources I might need such as emergency doctors' time are occupied dealing with the consequences of your decisions instead.

* my quality of life goes down, e.g. I have to spend more time waiting in traffic jams while the bodies are scraped off the roads.

If you take your risks in a space I am forced to share with you, whether physical, societal or economical, your choices affect me.

And we will live in the most boring Brave New World where all danger is eliminated because of this reasoning.

Sports will be gone, only the gym survives as it has the lowest risk factor. No more alcohol and drugs. And there will be condom police checking up on you when you cozy up with anyone except your wife.

Sure, go and try to make it happen. But I will also try to subvert it :)

There was a commedian saying cars should be make more dangerous for the driver: "that will teach 'm". He claimed car's driver safety features made them less safe for everyone else, as driving like an idiot had little negative outcome for the driver.

"Put a sharp pin in the steering wheel and forbid belts and airbags." he jokingly argued.

There's quite some truth to it.

Dead people can't learn.

But they wouldn't be dead, because no one would be brave/stupid enough to drive such a car at high speeds while texting on their phone.

I dunno, people are generally wired to ignore high-severity but low-frequency bad events. You can drive like an idiot for a long time and have nothing happen.

Seat belts laws also shouldn't exist

You also shouldn't be paying for everyone elses' healthcare

Interesting take, so we should allow people to ride without helmets and then when they're bleeding out on the street we should just leave them there if they can't pay.

Yes, we should allow people to ride without helmets.

No, I'm not saying we should just leave them there to die.

But if they can't pay, society will have to. Granted, I guess this isn't technically paying for everyone else's healthcare.

You can contribute voluntarily to charities to help people pay medical debt, to charities that provide free medical assistance or there could be free/less expensive medical treatment given by universities as training to medical students

A priori, you don't know if someone won't be able to pay for treatment, so there's no reason someone should be left to die

The important part is that things should be voluntary and not forced

And if charities/universities are unwilling or unable to give all of the emergency medicine needed?

The same thing that happens when hospitals are unable to give care today in any country

In same vain we could ban ice hockey then :)

Even in the US you would be paying for the risktaking of others because their premiums depend on whether everyone in their insurance pool wears a seatbelt or not.

I don't know if this is legal now in the US, but insurance should be allowed to charge more for people with higher risk-taking, either because of past offenses, or other behaviors

Motorists and street furniture in bike lanes are not the only things helmets protect you from. Pedestrians, other cyclists, mechanical failure, rubbish in the road, oil patch, black ice; any number of things can result in you hitting the ground even when entirely separated from motor vehicles. Meanwhile, more and more people are using e-bikes and spending a larger proportion of their time on the bike doing 20-30mph or more.

Hitting concrete with your body at speed is not going to be great for you regardless of the exact cause or exact body part. Just wear the helmet, pity's sake. Why be a meat crayon?

You do you. I want helmets for those who want helmets.

I'm fine without, thank you for being considerate.

The article makes a point, I agree with: don't put barriers on cycling.

I agree wholeheartedly. And I have trouble with most safety laws: they can be recommendations, but not laws (yes seat belt was mentioned, I know, I know).