🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ljh655.32.00101EB9@anugpo.anu.edu.au>,
ljh655@anugpo.anu.edu.au (Lubosh) wrote:

>Once for all the problem with bicycle helmets in Canberra can be solved.
It seems to be apparent that there are two sides in dispute here. One is
the ACT government that introduced the law with the intention to lower the
potential cost of treatment of inj

You seem to have a great understanding of Government intentions - probably
more than the Government :-) Now if you'd said "*the claimed* intention",
I'd believe the statement!

>There seems to be an easy solution to all this which can be implemented
in form of an amendment to the existing law. Helmets have been made
compulsory by the existing law, so that can be changed to "voluntary, but
strongly recommended", and the amendment 
>"those cyclists who have chosen not to wear a helmet will be liable for
the cost of treatment of any head injuries sustained in a fall and/or
involvment in a traffic accident".

It's an old idea, and sets a dangerous precedent in law...

First there are all those unhelmetted motorists, should they have to pay
for their medical treatment if a helmet could have reduced its cost?

Second, let's think of the unhelmetted cyclist who is struck by a car
which drives through a red light...

Third, you've got all those cases of people who maybe shouldn't have been
out that late...

Fourth, well you can fill the rest in!

Nope, nice as it sounds, such laws are rather hard to define, and even
harder ti implement.

-- 
Dr Nigel Perry                  Email: N.Perry@massey.ac.nz
Department of Computer Science  Tel:   +64 6 350 4007
Massey University               Fax:   +64 6 350 5611 Attn. Dr N. Perry
Palmerston North                Ftp/Gopher: smis-asterix.massey.ac.nz
New Zealand                        (Mac software/Research papers)

The Cycle Helmet Law: New Zealand's Shame, Speeding before children :-(
                      Prevention is better than padding!