Imagine a helmet strapped on a human skull— forever (2 Viewers)

[Slidey]

This actually turned out to be quite an interesting topic. First we must establish the ground rules....If there are too many laws then it restricts the freedom of the populace, however if there are too few then something akin to anarchy could occur. The trick is to find the right balance, and personally I think our society in general has become to safety prone, many people growing up now are often mothered/protected from situations that they need to experience to help them deal with future issues. For example isnt it now illegal to smack a child with a rolled up magazine?

Such laws are pointless because it begs the point someone who is genuinely punishing there child might take notice of the law and thus the child wont necessarily have pain as a punishment and one must admit pain is effective. But the other point it people who actually abuse their children will continue to do so. I feel its the same with bike helmets the law is pointless, those who want to feel safer wear the helmets and the ones who dont well Im sure we all know Darwins law.

Also I must raise another point that nearly all vehicles have to get a green slip in case of an accident so the medical bills are covered, but if a bicycle rider causes the accident where does the money come from? They didnt have a green slip.

You went from smacking children to social Darwinism in a single post. Well done son.

 

[pman]

How is it beneficial to society?

Why shouldn't the individual have the right to chose whether or not to undertake a risky activity? Should legislation prohibit all risky activities? Should legislation require that safety procedures be followed? Should the govt ban unprotected sex?



I must admit that I am shocked. So much so that I suspect you are playing devils advocate.

I also can play devils advocate:

The central problem with the European example is that even if helmet laws were repealed in Australia there is no reason to believe that more people would ride bikes and therefore no safety gain. A helmet is a very low barrier to entry whereas the distances which australian commuter cyclists would need to travel are quite a high barrier to entry.

A $50 helmet and some inconvenience is not a deciding factor for a 50km bike ride.

If people are not injured, you and I do not have to pay for their health care (although removal of medicare would fix this).....and if I die on the road, they will close the road slowing you down

 

[violentdelights]

just put a fuckin helmet on

+1

I don't see how it's burdensome in any way, maybe besides a little bit of discomfort. I agree that cyclists should wear helmets as it reduces the chances of fatal accidents on our roads (the doctor said that my cousin's close friend would have lived if he was wearing his helmet a few years back). It's better to be safer than sorry, and take those extra measures as not to end up six feet underground simply because you didn't wear protective headgear.

 

[pman]

Helmets should be legaly required fpr skateboards and shit as well

 

[loquasagacious]

If people are not injured, you and I do not have to pay for their health care (although removal of medicare would fix this).....and if I die on the road, they will close the road slowing you down

If you go down the utilitarian road (and accept public healthcare) then you must also weigh other considerations. For example you are saying that:

Cost of healthcare for injuries > cost to society of complying with laws

However while the healthcare cost is quantifiable the compliance cost is harder to quantify. If for example not complying would save 100,000 people 6 minutes of time then that is 1.6 years of productivity, and then you keep adding on all the other costs of compliance (environmental impact, cost of helmets/seatbelts/whatever, etc etc).

And of course you also need to give more thought to the healthcare cost. You need to consider the value of human life (assuming that the intervention will prevent deaths). And then you need to look at the expected value. Which means the probability of the event actually occuring multiplied by the cost. For example:

Injury costs $50k however is expected to occur only 1% of the time, this means a $500 expected value.

Once all of these calculations are done and only then, could you actually compare the compliance cost to the healthcare cost.

 

[loquasagacious]

+1

I don't see how it's burdensome in any way, maybe besides a little bit of discomfort. I agree that cyclists should wear helmets as it reduces the chances of fatal accidents on our roads (the doctor said that my cousin's close friend would have lived if he was wearing his helmet a few years back). It's better to be safer than sorry, and take those extra measures as not to end up six feet underground simply because you didn't wear protective headgear.

If helmets are so great then surely cyclists would voluntarily wear them and there is no need for fines?

 

[pman]

If helmets are so great then surely cyclists would voluntarily wear them and there is no need for fines?

but many don't, in the next school week, stand near a school where many people ride to school, count how many people have helmets on their handlebars!

 

[loquasagacious]

but many don't, in the next school week, stand near a school where many people ride to school, count how many people have helmets on their handlebars!

If people chose not to wear them then maybe they aren't so great?

 

[Planck]

Lap belts for children safer than Child Seats

Source: Superfreakonomics [yay]

 

[violentdelights]

If people chose not to wear them then maybe they aren't so great?

Because people are incredibly shallow sometimes under these circumstances (like myself at times) and do not want to mess their hair, or look dorky. For aesthetic reasons, they are not so great. For living, not having a dent in your head, not having the misfortune of being strapped to a wheelchair...maybe, just maybe, wearing a helmet isn't that bad? I would wear one because frankly I value my life.

 

[Planck]

Because people are incredibly shallow sometimes under these circumstances (like myself at times) and do not want to mess their hair, or look dorky. For aesthetic reasons, they are not so great. For living, not having a dent in your head, not having the misfortune of being strapped to a wheelchair...maybe, just maybe, wearing a helmet isn't that bad? I would wear one because frankly I value my life.

Wow you've gotten to the crux of the argument! You have every right to value your life and make intelligent decisions.

Why should this be mandated?

 

[violentdelights]

Because generally, society values life, and laws reflect the values of society.
People don't need to needlessly die when the risks can be reduced, even slightly.

If you were a cyclist who survived an accident because of your helmet (which you would not normally wear), you'd be kissing legislation documents.

 

[loquasagacious]

Because generally, society values life, and laws reflect the values of society.
People don't need to needlessly die when the risks can be reduced, even slightly.

If you were a cyclist who survived an accident because of your helmet (which you would not normally wear), you'd be kissing legislation documents.

Why should society force it's views on people who disagree?

 

[violentdelights]

Generally, implementing laws that society wants, values, and are in the people's best interests will get the votes (and it's not always fair in some cases - democratic, yes...fair, no). However, that's not the only reason. Believe it or not, horror shock, there are Australian politicians who aren't heartless and do want people to be safe. There's no point making helmets a big headline issue here. It's just as futile and silly as that American journalist deeming Avatar racist. It's not as if there's a law stating that we are obliged to ride our bicycles with condoms over our heads.

 

[Planck]

You really need to understand this:

Unintended consequence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[violentdelights]

Yes, and? Obviously not every helmet is a miraculous guarantee of lives.
Lol, but seriously, it's not going anywhere. Start a lobby group against helmets if you perceive it to be problematic. We might have a referendum. Lol.

 

[loquasagacious]

Generally, implementing laws that society wants, values, and are in the people's best interests will get the votes (and it's not always fair in some cases - democratic, yes...fair, no).

You are essentially saying that it is democratic and right for the majority to be able to pass laws which violate the rights of a minority group....

It's not as if there's a law stating that we are obliged to ride our bicycles with condoms over our heads.

Requiring cyclists to wear helmets is really no different to requiring them to wear condoms.

Yes, and? Obviously not every helmet is a miraculous guarantee of lives.
Lol, but seriously, it's not going anywhere. Start a lobby group against helmets if you perceive it to be problematic. We might have a referendum. Lol.

Cyclists Rights Action Group (CRAG)

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

It seems like a stupid issue for libertarians to get angry about anyway. It's like the idiots that are angry about wearing seat belts. They are fairly unintrusive laws and private road operators would have similar regulations.

I don't see it as use of force, because no one is forcing you to use the roads in the first place. Obviously getting around without using the roads would be hard, but the problem here is not helmet laws, its the government's monopoly over the roads.

When the government stops stealing 40 - 50% of the nation's wealth and squandering it, then maybe libertarians should be concerned with stuff like this.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Requiring cyclists to wear helmets is really no different to requiring them to wear condoms.

It is totally different.

If you have sex in your own home, you can go bareback all night.

If you have sex in a brothel or swingers party (even if it's a GOVERNMENT BROTHEL), the brothel owners can legitimately make you wear a condom.

 

[violentdelights]

You are essentially saying that it is democratic and right for the majority to be able to pass laws which violate the rights of a minority group....

Did I not say a democratic process is not neccesarily fair?

Think back to the White Australia policy. Democracy...not fair, unjust, cruel.