Rustynuts, so my question then is what was the ‘thing’ that tipped Parliament to overrule human freedom to choose whether to wear one and make it compulsory. From previous replies it was the cost of the deaths.
Martin
Don't know. At the time I was more interested in my Commodore VIC 20 computer, dreaming about being able to get a motorbike in a few years time and starting to wonder what girls were all about.
Seriously though, I think that you are right about the cost of deaths, together with the level of risk that is tolerated by the public, which reduces over the years. Years ago if you got your arm ripped off by an unguarded machine tool or an entire town suffered the consequences of being downwind of an asbestos factory that was just accepted as normal life. Today we have different expectations and legislation reflects that.
As someone who works in high hazard industries, I know that as well as risk tolerance, the cost of life is something that drives legislation and standards. Taking into account legal costs, fines and reputational damage, the price of a life can be measured in millions. In other parts of the world sadly it can be somewhat less. For example, here a chemical plant processing highly toxic material will be automated and remotely operated. In somewhere like India it may be cheaper to send someone out to manually operate the plant. If a valve leaks and the operator is killed, no problem, bung his family a few hundred quid and get some other poor sod to do the job.
You can always argue that any law infringes upon personal freedom. The scales of justice that symbolise law represent a balance of public good versus private good. If there were no laws we could rob and kill with impunity, which might be good for the individual doing so, but not for society. Ultimately we have no legal right to drive a motor vehicle on a public road: we have to be licenced to do so and therefore cannot argue that any of our rights are being infringed by having to comply with legislation.