The legal profession must take much responsibility for this abysmal state of affairs where taking responsibility for your own actions is not an option.
Our political leaders are particularly adept at this. It is always the other party`s fault.
The buck never stops with them.

But of course pollies won't take responsibility for not taking responsibility for the irresponsible . The police state won't police petrol ethylene wall-cladding for high-rises and people have the choice of keeping water-buckets handy or riding the wall of death.

Mostly agree David. It's the same with a lot of things. Seatbelt and lifejacket laws immediately come to mind.
Where we fish in our little dinghy for the most part we stop next to a channel and push an oar down into the silt to tie up to. If it sinks we'd just wade back to shore but because we use a little egg beater to save rowing nanny dictates we must clutter the boat and ourselves with a list of "safety" gear under threat of heavy fines. It's tedious.
Yes we should be free to make our own judgement on what safety gear's needed for the situation.

And yes, hear you regarding the growing fashion of police saying what the rules should be. Down here in Tas at the moment it seems they're writing the bills and the current hapless Lib government aren't questioning them.

Of course this smothering nanny state's a rentseekers paradise. Lots of compulsory safety gear and training courses to sell.

But I don't agree with you on public hospitals being selective. Stupid or plain unlucky shouldn't be punishable by exclusion. Giving the public service freedom to choose who it serves based on views about choices is a recipe for disaster. The injury and embarrasment for stupid is penalty/reminder enough.

Stupid is as stupid does!

David

So, if you are a police officer you are not entitled to have opinions, according to this narky politician. And we should all pay for injuries incurred by people too stupid to protect themselves. Leyonhjelm's libertarian ravings show the Senate up for the childish waste of time it is. None of the bozos would ever be elected under procedures and requirements for the lower house.

“...we accept the risks”. Well how about accepting the costs of injury and treatment in public hospitals where you will be taken in an emergency!

Anyone who rides a motor bike on today's roads is as thick as a brick.

As long as other folk are all but compelled to pick up the pieces, we need laws/rules to protect stupid morons from themselves, or like, "I'm alright Jack," smokers, the harm their irresponsible activities could impose, without even the shadow of consent, on others.

I've also ridden bikes and before helmets became mandatory, loved to ride, the wind in my hair, the flies in my teeth.

The small peppery ones weren't too bad, but those blue bottles tasted like the toilets they regularly frequented when on the piss or a drop of the "hard stuff."

As for boots and gloves? Only folks not having ridden unprotected into the teeth of an unavoidable, howling hail storm/sandstorm, would contemplate not wearing them.

And the fact that some folks think we should remain free to please ourselves to do as we see fit, when it comes to protective gear, will see a return of blokes operating grinders etc., without protective eyewear. Just to save pennies!

I guess you've never had to remove a steel speck from an eye David?

When it's your responsibility to patch these morons or remove lumps of metal or splintered wood from an exposed limb hand or foot, you may have justifiable cause to come to another more sane, respect for the rights of others and the wider community, opinion?

Sometimes the wide eyed look just emphasises, the vast, empty space between them!
Alan B.