Yesterday’s working day was brightened by a friend’s Facebook status:

“Hey! You! Fat man on a Cervelo puffing up the slight incline in Richmond Park.. You want to swap bikes? Mine costs less but you wouldn’t notice the difference, seriously. P.S buy a helmet”

After reading this I carried on working, lifted by the image of a low performance athlete on a high performance bike and also content in my superiority, for I (smugly self-assured) wear a helmet.

So today I find myself considering the value of legislation to force cyclists to wear helmets. There would appear to be plenty of precedent: Australia, Canada, USA, Sweden and South Korea all have either federal or state laws that mandate helmets for cyclists. And here in Britain we see fit to force riders of motorcycles to wear helmets.

If legislation compulsory helmets for motorcyclists are acceptable because the cost to society (particularly costs associated with injury: healthcare costs, police and court costs etc) of motorcyclists not wearing helmets outweighs the cost to individuals of having to cover their heads, then the same should apply to pedal cyclists, should it not?

Well, no. At least not in my opinion.  I’m a fervent believer in the value of wearing a helmet. I wear a helmet without being told by the government to do so and only considering the costs vs benefit on an individual level (if I’m honest, I’ve never given too much thought about the cost to wider society). But for me, the issue is much bigger, it’s about allowing individuals to make their own decisions about the risks they wish to take. If individual X decides to put himself in harms way then, as long as he isn’t putting anyone else in undue danger, I believe X should be allowed to continue.

But perhaps that’s just me? I recently had a lengthy conversation with a lawyer-friend of mine about the value of legalising drugs and prostitution, for I have long been of the opinion that it’s acceptable to educate society about the risks they’re taking and for the government to remedy any perverse incentives, but that folly should not be illegal.