> Try having a calm and balanced discussion with an Australian about bicycle helmet laws for a wonderful example.
As an Australian I’d be curious to know what the argument against them is? (Keeping in mind that most Australians don’t see ‘freedom’ as a terminal goal.)
there's some research suggesting that bicycle helmets are harmful. In part because they are pretty useless at protecting against the type of accidents that actually cause severe head trauma, and then also because they seem to induce risky behaviour from both cyclists and cars around them. And then finally because they significantly reduce uptake of cycling which means people are doing other unhealthy things instead.
(I'm not actually arguing a position here, just saying that this is not as clear cut as you might think).
As an Australian I’d be curious to know what the argument against them is? (Keeping in mind that most Australians don’t see ‘freedom’ as a terminal goal.)