Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:17 pm

wurtulla wabbit wrote:
simonn wrote:
wurtulla wabbit wrote:I use stats for my golf, not much more as I know their mine and unbias, I don't trust people using stats to aide a cause or agenda.


I think you are wise for not trusting other peoples agendas.

However, I think we need to get something straight. Statistics are statistics. Data is data. They are neutral as far as interpretation goes. It is their collection and interpretation that is the problem and should be scrutinized.

Again though, I have to ask, do you have an alternative?

The way in which they are collected by the individuals have a bias one way or the other, they must have an opinion on the matter and therefore (in my view) be tainted.


Which is why such things as the scientific method, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_blind#Double-blind_trials]double blind testing[/url] and other methods to account for the well known and studied phenomenon of human bias exist.

wurtulla wabbit wrote:Alternative ?
Self regulation.
We are after all, an autonomous race ?? Or are we not allowed to free think and make judgements ?


IOW, making stuff up on the spot? The "I reckon" method?

The problem with that is that it requires everyone to become an expert in everything. It would certainly be a bit chaotic on the roads, to say the least.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

by BNA » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:17 pm

BNA
 

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:17 pm

Not an expert, just make a judgement and be Allowed a civil liberty Known as free will !
Like most people, your conscience and common sense drives your awareness to what you should and shouldn't do( generally speaking).

There should be no life guard on the gene pool.

;)
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:36 am

wurtulla wabbit wrote:Not an expert, just make a judgement and be Allowed a civil liberty Known as free will !
Like most people, your conscience and common sense drives your awareness to what you should and shouldn't do( generally speaking).

There should be no life guard on the gene pool.


And you judgement would be based on...?
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:55 am

Personal freedom to determine my own appearance.

Responsibility for my own personal safety.

Education and awareness of the risks.

Development of suitable cycling road skills.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17462
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:22 am

simonn wrote:And you judgement would be based on...?


The government is RARELY a better judge of an individual's needs than the individual themselves. Many terrible and horrible things have occur by a government who thinks otherwise.


Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C. S. Lewis
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Wed Mar 06, 2013 7:58 am

simonn wrote:
wurtulla wabbit wrote:Not an expert, just make a judgement and be Allowed a civil liberty Known as free will !
Like most people, your conscience and common sense drives your awareness to what you should and shouldn't do( generally speaking).

There should be no life guard on the gene pool.


And you judgement would be based on...?


Personal experience.
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:09 am

wurtulla wabbit wrote:
simonn wrote:
wurtulla wabbit wrote:Not an expert, just make a judgement and be Allowed a civil liberty Known as free will !
Like most people, your conscience and common sense drives your awareness to what you should and shouldn't do( generally speaking).

There should be no life guard on the gene pool.


And you judgement would be based on...?


Personal experience.


And when you have no personal experience of something?
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:09 am

human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:And you judgement would be based on...?


The government is RARELY a better judge of an individual's needs than the individual themselves. Many terrible and horrible things have occur by a government who thinks otherwise.


Where did I mention government?
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:47 am

Long long way from the merits(or otherwise) of MHLs right now. As far as all the ranting about freedom goes, I don't have a pithy CS Lewis quote, but another couple of noted English philosophers :shock: remarked that "part-time love just brings me down". I think that's about the size of it.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:02 am

simonn wrote:And when you have no personal experience of something?

Develop it through some appropriately graduated training and activity. It's how we all learn, and a mandated helmet is no substitute for this.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17462
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:13 am

simonn wrote:And when you have no personal experience of something?

simonn wrote:Where did I mention government?


Stop trolling simon. If you want to make a point the make it.

If a person is not capable of making largely sensible personal safety decisions they will barely make it to adulthood unless they are in near continuous care. Some people are like that and unfortunately they do need continuous car throughout their life.

Those without severe mental incapacitation are usually in a position to make sensible personal safety decisions. The government or the authority is NOT in a better position to make these decision than an individual.


Oh. You didn't mention government? So are we talking about a nanny then? My mum? :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:17 am

human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:And when you have no personal experience of something?

simonn wrote:Where did I mention government?


Stop trolling simon. If you want to make a point the make it.

If a person is not capable of making largely sensible personal safety decisions they will barely make it to adulthood unless they are in near continuous care. Some people are like that and unfortunately they do need continuous car throughout their life.

Those without severe mental incapacitation are usually in a position to make sensible personal safety decisions. The government or the authority is NOT in a better position to make these decision than an individual.


Oh. You didn't mention government? So are we talking about a nanny then? My mum? :roll:


We are talking about using evidence on which to base decisions and policy.

Are you suggesting that people should just make up their own road rules?
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:30 am

simonn wrote:We are talking about using evidence on which to base decisions and policy.

Are you suggesting that people should just make up their own road rules?

Bejeebus, we are going around the maypole here :roll:

Who makes up the road rules? Answer - the government.

Who are the government? Answer - in our democratic society, the people (by free will).

Do the road rules cover what you must wear when driving? Why is flame-proof clothing not mandatory? Certain things are required of us for the safety of the society in general. Other things are simply left up to the individual's free will, even though it has great personal (not societal) risk (eg. rock fishing).
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17462
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wizdofaus » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:35 am

human909 wrote:Those without severe mental incapacitation are usually in a position to make sensible personal safety decisions. The government or the authority is NOT in a better position to make these decision than an individual.


I personally wouldn't accept that as a good argument against MHL - it's just a much an argument against compulsory seat belts, speed limits, blood alcohol limits, food & drug regulations etc. etc. And yes, the justification for some of these is that they go beyond personal safety, but the fact is as individuals we're not always realistically able to judge what's best for our own safety, whereas good government policy can be based on dispassionate scientific research that shows clear benefits vs costs of restricting/regulating certain activities. With MHL there isn't such a clear benefit, or at least, the costs are too hard to weigh against the benefits, so there's not a good case for maintaining it as a strictly-enforced finable offence with no exceptions. That MHL (and perhaps the prohibition against using certain recreational drugs) is one of the few policies that people can point to as being questionable policy governing personal safety if anything indicates that we can for the most part trust governments to get things right in this regard.
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:10 am

wizdofaus wrote:it's just a much an argument against compulsory seat belts, speed limits, blood alcohol limits, food & drug regulations etc. etc.

No it isn't. You are continuing to confuse the difference between protecting people from the actions of others and protecting people from the actions of themselves.

wizdofaus wrote: but the fact is as individuals we're not always realistically able to judge what's best for our own safety, whereas good government policy can be based on dispassionate scientific research that shows clear benefits vs costs of restricting/regulating certain activities.

That is a joke right? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

wizdofaus wrote:That MHL (and perhaps the prohibition against using certain recreational drugs) is one of the few policies that people can point to as being questionable policy governing personal safety if anything indicates that we can for the most part trust governments to get things right in this regard.

You are REALLY being quite hilarious now.
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Howzat » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:22 am

human909 wrote: You are continuing to confuse the difference between protecting people from the actions of others and protecting people from the actions of themselves.

It's not only you at risk if you fall off and flatten your pumpkin on the pavement.

The law is there to protect others - eg. families and friends - from the actions of those lacking enough of a sense of personal responsibility to wear a helmet.
User avatar
Howzat
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:36 am

Howzat wrote:The law is there to protect others - eg. families and friends - from the actions of those lacking enough of a sense of personal responsibility to wear a helmet.

Umm... no, you are cofusing things here. That is an aspect of personal risk (consequences of an incident), not what might be termed societal risk.

http://www.sieso.org.uk/2010_presentati ... ch2010.pdf
Societal risk is....

.....concerned with the estimation of the chances of more than one individual being harmed simultaneously by an incident.


Family and friends might suffer, but they have not been directly physically harmed by the incident.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17462
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Howzat » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:49 am

I didn't mention any terms.

But some here mistakenly think helmet laws are about trying to people from themselves. That's wrong. They're about trying to protect others from the actions of those lacking enough of a sense of personal responsibility to wear a helmet.
User avatar
Howzat
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:56 am

Howzat wrote:But some here mistakenly think helmet laws are about trying to people from themselves. That's wrong. They're about trying to protect others from the actions of those lacking enough of a sense of personal responsibility to wear a helmet.

Such a misguided view I am not sure where to begin :shock:

It sits right up there with the "logic" of incarcerating people on Nauru because this will protect others from drowning at sea :roll:

I hope you are going to apply this logic to drinkers at the pub, smokers, gamblers, anyone who eats lots of junk food, drivers who race cars in their spare time, sunbathers.................. Just about any activity has risk of horrendous harm to others on this standard.
Last edited by il padrone on Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17462
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wizdofaus » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:44 pm

human909 wrote:
wizdofaus wrote:it's just a much an argument against compulsory seat belts, speed limits, blood alcohol limits, food & drug regulations etc. etc.

No it isn't. You are continuing to confuse the difference between protecting people from the actions of others and protecting people from the actions of themselves.


Please explain the difference then. How do seat belt laws and food & drug regulations protect me from the actions of others?

human909 wrote:
wizdofaus wrote:That MHL (and perhaps the prohibition against using certain recreational drugs) is one of the few policies that people can point to as being questionable policy governing personal safety if anything indicates that we can for the most part trust governments to get things right in this regard.

You are REALLY being quite hilarious now.


Then again maybe don't bother, you appear to be living in libertarian la-la-land.
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:15 pm

wizdofaus wrote:How do seat belt laws and food & drug regulations protect me from the actions of others?

I never said anything (recently) about seat belts laws and drug laws. The are both laws attempting to protect individuals from their own choices.

But certainly food regulation ensure the actions of others don't poison you or make you sick.


wizdofaus wrote:Then again maybe don't bother, you appear to be living in libertarian la-la-land.

I didn't know that having the opinion that the government frequently doesn't get things right is such a bizarre concept. It is certainly one I would have thought MOST adults would agreed with.
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:23 pm

wizdofaus wrote:How do seat belt laws and food & drug regulations protect me from the actions of others?

Seat belt laws were introduced at a time when it was pretty widely accepted that 95% of people would drive or travel in cars. It is an individual restriction that has minimal societal benefit (apart from the indirect saving of lives and reduced health costs), but has proven to be a) very successful in increasing road safety; and b) relatively innocuous in its impact upon individuals. Thus the wider community has accepted it. People have not chosen not to drive because of it.

Food & drug regulations are a law with significant societal benefits*. They control the actions of drug manufacturers and food producers to ensure the consumer is able to consume these products safely. In other words the law restricts some people to protect others.


* Same can be said for speed limits, BAC laws and most other road rules.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17462
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Percrime » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:28 pm

wizdofaus wrote:That MHL (and perhaps the prohibition against using certain recreational drugs) is one of the few policies that people can point to as being questionable policy governing personal safety if anything indicates that we can for the most part trust governments to get things right in this regard.


Seriously? In what ways have prohibiting recreational drugs been something governments have got right? Something like half of all murders are connected with the drug trade, and probably more than half of all crime.
Percrime
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Howzat » Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:07 pm

il padrone wrote:
Howzat wrote:But some here mistakenly think helmet laws are about trying to people from themselves. That's wrong. They're about trying to protect others from the actions of those lacking enough of a sense of personal responsibility to wear a helmet.

Such a misguided view I am not sure where to begin :shock:

Yep - an irrefutable argument stumps a lot of punters. :wink:

il padrone wrote:I hope you are going to apply this logic to drinkers at the pub, smokers, gamblers, anyone who eats lots of junk food, drivers who race cars in their spare time, sunbathers.................. Just about any activity has risk of horrendous harm to others on this standard.

Perhaps in some cases, maybe not in others. But in this case, the wearing of helmets is a minimum level of personal responsibility we require of cyclists. Because it's not only you that stands to lose something when your melon hits the main drag.
User avatar
Howzat
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:19 pm

Howzat wrote:But in this case, the wearing of helmets is a minimum level of personal responsibility we require of cyclists. Because it's not only you that stands to lose something when your melon hits the main drag.

You are treading well outside the bounds of justifiable reasons for a law being introduced. I would outlaw divorce on this basis as it also causes immeasurable distress to your loved ones. :roll:

The helmet law was introduced simply because of a desire to reduce the number of deaths and severe injuries from head injuries - nothing more. Any other suggestion is kicking up a spurious smoke-screen.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17462
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Support BNA
Click for online shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Cycling Express Cycling Express
Ebay Ebay AU
ProBikeKit ProBikeKit UK
Evans Cycles Evans Cycles UK
JensonUSA Jenson USA
JensonUSA Competitive Cyclist