Perhaps I should’ve tried to express that better. I wasn’t so much saying it is justified as it is justifiable. To the life that was saved by a helmet (as it was in my case probably), it is not hard to see the rationale behind supporting a more rigorous enforcement of such preventative measures, as disagreeable as the act of such enforcement it may be in itself.

Meaning well is certainly commendable, though one of course can never predict the results fully, and like you I am rather partial towards the notion of individual self-determination if what is being considered only affects the individual in question, though inevitably as social creatures it’s hard to not affect others, even if only emotionally.

Huh? This contradicts the statements that follow it–you would have done well to leave it out. For a site that prides itself on a socialistic bent, that’s a highly totalitarian position to take, even if it’s only offered up in mild fashion. Let each cyclist decide what affects only him or her.

Also, stats indicate that mandatory helment laws cut bicycle usage dramatically–this may be a large part of the reason why cycling deaths supposedly decline where helmet use is mandatory.

No worries; I still dig your site!