Bicycle helmets are required in Florida

Helmet compulsory ...

There is no question that a helmet is certainly sensible and especially essential for motorized two-wheelers.

But in my opinion that wasn't Tom's question, but rather: Should something like that be regulated by law?

I actually find this regulation frenzy quite cruel and I plead for people to take responsibility for themselves wherever possible. It may be that I'm a little naive when I leave it to the individual, but maybe the fact that it doesn't work for everyone is also due to the fact that they haven't learned it - they had to learn it.

I don't think the insurance policy is bad at all - as long as it is followed through consistently. Everyone should decide for themselves whether they want to risk their health or not. He is allowed to smoke, drink or anywhere else - and that is also very likely to be fatal, at least here in Germany a lot more people die as a result of tobacco consumption or alcoholism than in traffic accidents.

It would only have to be ensured and communicated that in the event of damage there would be no insurance and that the community would not be responsible for the consequences - who would then take the risk? But only all the potential organ donors who are already (with helmets) racing through the march with us at completely excessive speed and endangering other road users. We have such a dangerous left-right bend near us at the end of a straight stretch that is often contaminated by agriculture, several of these specialists have already driven themselves to their deaths because, instead of going straight through the bend, they headed over a ditch crashed into the opposite embankment - I don't feel sorry for them for a second, however sad the individual case may be for relatives and friends

In the case of children, it is ultimately the parents who are responsible for this. My children also wore a bicycle helmet up to a certain age (or my daughter still does) but my son, who is almost 13, doesn't have to do that anymore - I personally think that's exaggerated in our village. In the city or on a racing bike with which he would be traveling at 40 km / h, that might be something else, but in our village for football training, to school or to his friends, he no longer needs that.

As for Tom's argument, it used to be different: to a certain extent, I agree with you, I also sometimes think that the caution and care is sometimes a bit exaggerated - on the other hand: When something really happens you do presumably accusations - of course you avoid that with this caution. There is certainly a certain balancing act called for, because how should my child later learn to calculate and assess risks for himself (and his children) if he does not get the opportunity to do so in the first place? Besides, didn't we all hate it with our parents when they seemed far too fearful and overly cautious? At the latest when they are of legal age, usually earlier, they try to do it on their own without being able to gain experience beforehand - isn't the risk much greater then?
So, as long as I still have influence, I try to ensure that my child has the opportunity to assess this on (in my eyes) meaningful opportunities - in my eyes that is also part of upbringing: preparing for situations in which you assess risks and have to make their own decisions. I can't ask you to be able to do that all at once, just because you will come of age at some point ...

Basically, with the attitude "It went well with us in the past ..." you should ask: Would you still buy a car today without ABS, without airbags, power steering, etc.? In the past everything worked without it and we are still alive, I would still not want to do without it .....

So the bottom line: I think you shouldn't regulate everything by law, but also give common sense a chance - and for those who don't get it, in my opinion (although I'm otherwise socially minded ) also includes a "If you can't hear (think), you have to feel ...".

Just my 2 cents ...