>>>>Will you at least agree that society has a stronger role in protecting children than adults?
>>>>
>>>>Tamar
>>>
>>>In the abstract, yes I agree. It's the implementation of the ideal that gets me.
>>
>>On this, in principal, I agree with you completely. I lean more to the libertarian views - less government control and oversight - than to any other party. However, when it comes to children, I really think that society has a reponsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves when necessary. Being realistic, I also know that many children remove the helmet as soon as the parent is out of sight. However, given that many parents (like yourself) would not voluntarily enforce helmet protection on their children, I think it is fine for it be enforced by law. Same with car seats and seatbelts on minors. Now, when it comes to adults, I disagree. There should be no helmet or seatbelt law for adults. Wearing either protects oneself, not others. I do not see any proportional good to the masses being enjoyed by having such a law.
>
>Just to be clear, I am not a parent, yet. Nonetheless, you are correct, I will not enforce a helmet upon my children and since we live in the middle of nowhere the nanny-state will not either.

It is common here to see children out in the country on quiet roads riding bikes without helmets. We have many roads (including the one I lived on when my daughter was young) that have no traffic other than those few who live there. Where I lived, there were only two houses on the road. Of course the fear then was not getting hit by a car, but getting bit or attacked by wild dogs, rabid racoons, or a bobcat.