I don't think anyone disputes measures with a genuine safety benefit, like ensuring machines have guards, stairs have guard rails, dim factory areas are well lit, that sort of thing. Its the Nanny State (tm) end of the spectrum that upsets folk. Regulations insisting on fluorescent wear for road workers, when the research carried out by the very same government that introduced the legislation had found no proven safety benefit, would likely fall into that category. That's why I'm deeply suspicious when the Government tells us that any helmet legislation form cyclists would be evidence based. They've ignored the evidence of their own scientists and statisticians in the past, so why should we suddenly believe them now?