Why is it ?

I think requiring kids to wear helmets when skateboarding or riding bikes is very sensible. I don't know about tricycles, but it couldn't hurt.

As for the drunk drivers, all the laws in the world are no good if they can't be enforced.

why do the nannies keep getting re elected?

Knee jerk comments....

I was never bothered by smokers on trains, planes, buses, or in restaurants years ago. Maybe that was because so many people did smoke cigarettes, pipes and cigars. There were plenty of other pollutants as coal was a common source of fuel, and factories belched the smoke form it, as well. There were fewer cars, though, and more trees and green spaces.

More people now are allergic to smoke. Thee are also newer factors in our environment that can trigger allergy, such as some carpeting and other materials in our homes. Those in turn can trigger other allergies.

There were plenty of cigarette butts on the streets. In public outdoor places the containers for them were not used as much as should have been.

As or helmets, I see that as a health cost issue. When I was young we had bicycles, (and an occasional bike with a motor and motor scooter, scooters) and roller skates. Sure, sometimes serious injuries and even death or paralysis happened. But now kids have dirt bikes, off-road 4-wheeters, skateboards, "toy" motorized cars . Those go faster, thus when they hit an immovable object they hit harder. They can also be thrown off of the vehicle with greater force. (Our laws here say that vehicles must have a license to be ridden on the streets, ad though dirt bikes can't be licensed, I see them being ridden on the streets.)

I have long supported the wearing of helmets and proper attire for motorcycle riders. Having worked in emergency rooms, I have seen what happens in an accident.

I see helmet laws as a health care issue. We all pay for the care of a head injury, for instance. Today many more lives can be saved, so much permanent damage lessened, by the advances in medical technology, research, and rehabilitation. Those advances, such as MRI machines, are expensive. We pay for those advances.

The way I see it, our elected officials ideally are supposed to listen to their constituents and look to their their concerns. Whether or not those who oppose the laws are less vociferous or if lobbyists have a stronger influence, I can't say. Another factor re: the nanny-ism post election could be that they now are exposed to more arguments, yea or nay, than when they were candidates. (I admit there are some who are committed to their own agenda, from the get-go.)

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator