AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        That there should be a law to make someone ensure his, or her, safety is bad enough. Worse that there should be a good number against such a law. The government here has said that motorcycle riders must wear a helmet from 1 June. Should it take a court to say that this is mandatory, and all riders should wear one whether government says so or not? Is it not logical that safety features - seat belts too - should never be enforced by law? It ought to be the other way round - the authorities should make them available. It must be realised that others will not be affected. Motorcycle and scooter drivers must wear a helmet, for head injury is the one cause of death in case of an accident. In Chennai, the number of fatal accidents is rising, thanks to the increase in the number of vehicles in the city. Add to this bad roads, indisciplined and drunken driving. Neglected epidemics they can be called.

        Some say they are against helmets, for it causes a lot of sweating, others fear they may lead to loss of hair or diminished hearing. Better to be without hair than without a head. So leave it to the rider to wear it.

        That one should wait till the deadline or question this is stupid - to put it mildly. Do those who doubt the wisdom of this rule really mean what they say? It is the bane of our society that people should go to court challenging laws made for their own good. Why will the government introduce legislation if there is no need for it? Why will a policeman charge you if you obey the signal? Is it not strange that there should be a policeman - often two or more - at every automatic signal. This manpower could be used elsewhere and more usefully. Then why is it no one has questioned motor insurance? Sadly, wearing a helmet has become a political decision and not a lifesaving issue. No one has to be held accountable for their choices in life anymore. They only have to be educated.

        If someone on a motorcycle is involved in an accident, check if he has insurance before he gets medical aid. Why waste the taxpayer's money to treat someone so stubborn he will not wear headgear? It is futile to try to protect people from themselves. The kind of person who has to be made to wear a helmet (as opposed to doing so just because it makes sense) is likely to get himself or herself killed some other way, So what does this law really accomplish?

        It may be right to ask why school children are made to go in a school bus with no seat belts. But it is surely not correct to say that one should wear a seat belt in one's car or a helmet, even if one is old enough to make one's own decisions. Makes no sense. So, pleading alone isn't enough, the stick has to be used at times — and often too. There are far better things to talk about than whether one should put on a helmet or not. Poverty, terrorism, homelessness, dowry, women's rights, child labour. When will the government be allowed to do something worthwhile instead of haggling over helmets? Put a lid on it, one would say.