Excuse me for my political incorrectness, however I can't help but feel that perhaps the lunatic is correct here and the journalists have got it wrong, or at least deserves more consideration? Actually I had intended to post previously on research that in fact the obsessive requirement in Australia for helmets does little for bike safety and just reduces bike transport!
I will need to revert to the reseacrh links but the reality is that the economics are being perveted in media reports! The requirement for helmets has destroyed public bike options in Australia. This has happened recently in failure of a Melbourne hire scheme because, hey, most people just don't carry a helmet with them, despite such schemes being successful in Europe.
As a lover of counter-intuitive economics, such as freakonomics, the reality is that people who die early from risky behaviour, be it smoking, drinking, or riding a bike without a helmet, may actually do a fiscal service by reducing the ongoing long term entitlement culture of an ageing society. This is not incorporated in the costs you see in the tabloid media. If you anticipate living long then your smoker friend is actually doing you a favour!
If you want to be safe and live long then it is YOU who may be the burden on society and NOT the smoker, drinker, or helmetless bike rider. There is also research in the USA that helmetless Harley riders serve an unrecognised useful social purpose as a source of organ donations!
The lunatic has been badly done by from the Magistrate, anyone who has had anything to do with Stanley knives in an industrial context would know that this item should be as regulated as guns anyway!
Bike helmet links:
Scone Police: "You're not in Paris now?"
WA bicycle helmets
Australian children the most chaufered in the developed world