WHAT HAPPENED TO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Safety concerns about mo-peds, those mini-motorcycles that are a cross between a bicycle and riding lawn mower, are an example of the conflict so many Americans have about government intrusion into their private lives.

On the one hand, some safety-conscious cyclists and many law enforcement officials would like to see stringent regulations, including a requirement that mo-ped operators wear a helmet, just as motorcycle operators and passengers already must do in Missouri.

On the other hand, Americans continue to fuss about too much government intervention. And opponents of helmet laws cite personal choice and the freedom to place themselves in life-threatening situations as good reasons for not having stricter rules.

Both sides can make a good case. But look at the issue from the perspective of emergency medical crews and law enforcements officers who see what they consider to be far too many fatal or impairing head wounds at the scenes of accidents involving mo-peds. The cost of dealing with these tragedies comes directly from the pockets of -- guess who. You.

Besides the public's cost of highway accidents, there is another issue at stake in the mo-ped give-and-take. It is the question of how far the federal government ought to go in putting strings on funding to states that don't have strict safety requirements.

At this past week's meeting of the nation's governors, Iowa's top elected official pleaded with the U.S. secretary of transportation to relent on federal mandates, particularly those that hold back highway funding to states without helmet laws. Iowa is one of those states. So is Kansas, another Missouri neighbor. But while our own state has a helmet law for motorcyclists, it doesn't require much of anything for mo-ped operators, not even a driver's license.

The question about federal mandates is another example of why so many Americans complain about government intrusion. Is it fair for Washington to appropriate tax dollars back to the states where taxpayers live, but require the states to adhere to rules unacceptable to local legislators? Many of us would line up with those who say federal mandates are little more than a method for Washington to impose regulations at the local level. States that don't comply risk losing millions of tax dollars.

Then there is the issue of personal responsibility. Why is it that government must intervene more and more frequently in decisions that more properly ought to be made by individuals? Anyone who thinks having the wind blow through your hair outweighs the risk of slamming your skull against asphalt is making a fairly outrageous choice. It might be better for government to spend more dollars on safety education and reinforcement of good safety practices instead of constantly punishing states for not following a set of national rules.

It boils down to this: Individual liberty comes with the price tag of taking responsibility for individual choices. Many, many Americans choose to wear appropriate safety equipment -- helmets, padding, clothing and footwear -- when riding bicycles and mo-peds, even though there is no legal requirement in Missouri. These folks are exercising the freedom to make a sane choice.

The question is what to do about those who think they don't have to take precautions unless they are forced to. It is a murky area, but it clearly would be better to find ways to persuade individuals to willingly participate in their personal safety rather than having government make all our decisions for us.