If you won’t wear a helmet, we’ll make you wear one, goes the argument. Not “enough” cyclists wear a helmet so a law is needed to make them.
Well, it’s one way of thinking about it I guess. Another way is that a helmet law will be burdensome to the majority of cyclists, those who choose not to wear one.
Begging the question
Over and above all these philosophical questions is the fundamental logical flaw in the statement that “not enough” cyclists wear a helmet: the logical fallacy of begging the question – that is, embodying in a statement the assumption that the statement is itself correct. Who says not enough cyclists wear helmets? Who defines enough?
Might it not be the case that a given cyclist wears a helmet some of the time, just not always? It would be absurd to suggest that the risk of falling off your bike is identical on a dark winter morning with ice on the road, and on a summer afternoon. Is it so very strange that some riders choose to respond to that difference by modifying their behaviour? Maybe just not riding at all when the roads are bad? Downhill mountain bikers wear body armour and shin guards, cycle commuters rarely do. Nobody thinks this strange.
Notwithstanding the special status of the head, is it not likely that an individual cyclist will understand the differences in risk between their various journeys? And if we are going to require protection level X for summer afternoons, what are we going to mandate for icy winter mornings?
