• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Helmet and Sea belt Law and my affinity for Libertarians

NobleSavage

NobleSavage

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
3,079
Location
127.0.0.1
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
* Correction in the title, should read Seat Belt.*

I don't really have a point to make, just thinking out loud.

I wear a seat belt in my car and a helmet when I ride my bicycle. However, it really pissed me off that I can get a ticket for not wearing them. I hate the government playing nanny. If I want to take a risk it's should be my choice. If I want to buy a 200oz soda that should be my choice. If I want to snort coke or shoot up heroin it shoulld be my choice.

Now I understand that if I go flying through the windshield or crack my head on the side walk there is a chance that I'll end up costing society a bunch of money i.e. disability payments because I'm in a wheel chair sucking food through a straw. If I get fat, smoke, or do drugs I'm more likely to be a burden on the medical system. I know sin taxes work, but I don't like them.

I favor single payer insurance conceptually. However, I'm afraid it will lead to a bigger nanny state.

Yet, I was born in Europe, have traveled in Europe, and spent time an extended time in Southern France. I have no stats to back this up but my general impression is that Europeans smoke more, drink more, and fuck more. In France there wasn't the cultural expectation that you need to wear a helmet -- things may have changed; its been a while since I have been there.

Thoughts?
 
If you've ever seen anybody with a brain injury because they fell off their bike you would realize what a huge cost could be avoided so easily.

The person who falls from their bike without a helmet and suffers a brain injury puts an easily avoidable burden on society.

Society has a right to protect itself from such costs.

There may be limits, but this crosses no line beyond which society can't exert it's collective will.

It just so happens insurance corporations love this too. Fewer kids with brain injuries makes them very happy.
 
Yes, a few out of the tens of thousands of municipalities in the US. Of course, I'm in a state that has motorcycle helmet laws.
 
untermensche said:
If you've ever seen anybody with a brain injury because they fell off their bike you would realize what a huge cost could be avoided so easily.

The person who falls from their bike without a helmet and suffers a brain injury puts an easily avoidable burden on society.
Click to expand...
I said as much.
Society has a right to protect itself from such costs.


There may be limits, but this crosses no line beyond which society can't exert it's collective will.
Click to expand...

That's subjective. Society doesn't have to take care of people that get fucked up because of their own stupidity.

family_on_motorcycle_india.jpg
 
NobleSavage said:
That's subjective. Society doesn't have to take care of people that get fucked up because of their own stupidity.
Click to expand...
A decent society takes care of people with brain injuries.

Who do you think provides most of the care for people with brain injuries in the US?

The answer is Medicare.
 
A decent society takes care of people with brain injuries.
Click to expand...

I'd probably agree with you, but still the concept of "decent" is subjective. Some people would consider their freedom more important.
Who do you think provides most of the care for people with brain injuries in the US?

The answer is Medicare.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. If you read my first post I said society would have to pay for me "to sit in a wheel chair and suck my meals through a straw." Maybe Medicare shouldn't pay for cases where people are injured do to gross stupidity.

Should we outlaw BASE jumping? 1 in 60 attempts results in death. http://bjsportmed.com/content/42/6/431.abstract
 
untermensche said:
If you've ever seen anybody with a brain injury because they fell off their bike you would realize what a huge cost could be avoided so easily.

The person who falls from their bike without a helmet and suffers a brain injury puts an easily avoidable burden on society.

Society has a right to protect itself from such costs.

There may be limits, but this crosses no line beyond which society can't exert it's collective will.

It just so happens insurance corporations love this too. Fewer kids with brain injuries makes them very happy.
Click to expand...

There is good reason to believe that wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle has no positive influence on injury rates - and may have a negative impact, perhaps because people wearing helmets are more likely to take risks while riding.

In Great Britain, there was no detectable improvement in fatalities, serious injuries or the average severity of injuries to cyclists over the period 1985 to 2001, during which helmet use rose from close to zero to approx 22%. Injury severity increased as helmet use became more common (BHRF, 1071). A study of road traffic casualties has found no association between differing patterns of helmet wearing rates and casualty rates for adults and children. Similarly, boys and girls have identical percent head injury rates but markedly different levels of helmet use (Hewson, 2005; Hewson, 2005b).

In Greater London, cyclist injuries became more serious as helmet use increased in the mid 1990s (BHRF, 1072). In 2001, although about half of cyclists wore helmets, the severity of injuries was significantly higher than in 1981 and fatalities were highest since 1989. In Edinburgh, also with approx 50% helmet wearing, casualties have become more serious as helmet use has increased (BHRF, 1247). In the Lothian region (close to Edinburgh), wearing a helmet has made no significant difference to outcome in the case of the more serious head injuries measured by need of follow-up or hospital admission (Scottish Exec, 2005).
Click to expand...
Source.

In the absence of strong evidence of any benefit at all, mandating the wearing of cycle helmets is a retrograde step, and I strongly oppose it; the benefits of not having such a law are non-trivial, and the evidence is that the benefits of having such a law are at best zero, and possibly negative, in terms of injuries and deaths.

By requiring the wearing of helmets, particularly in warm climates, governments simply reduce the amount of cycling that is done - with a direct increase in car use, and reduction in exercise as a result.

from the same source quoted above:
In Australia, helmet laws caused head injuries to fall by 11% to 21%. But cycle use fell by 30% to 60%, suggesting that those who continued to cycle were more at risk (BHRF, 1096).
Click to expand...
I myself would certainly use my bicycle for short trips - eg nipping to the shop for a loaf of bread or bottle of milk - if I didn't have to wear an esky on my head. Instead, I drive my car, as it is too far to walk in the time available to me. Wearing a cycle helmet on a 30o+ day is torture.

The assumption that wearing a helmet improves safety is unfounded, and is not supported by research. Flawed assumptions should not be used as a basis for legislation, no matter how plausible they seem to the uninformed.
 
While I understand that it's technically a reduction of my freedoms if a law is passed forbidding me from sticking my dick in a paper shredder, I just can't make myself care
 
bilby said:
There is good reason to believe that wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle has no positive influence on injury rates - and may have a negative impact, perhaps because people wearing helmets are more likely to take risks while riding.

In Great Britain, there was no detectable improvement in fatalities, serious injuries or the average severity of injuries to cyclists over the period 1985 to 2001, during which helmet use rose from close to zero to approx 22%. Injury severity increased as helmet use became more common (BHRF, 1071). A study of road traffic casualties has found no association between differing patterns of helmet wearing rates and casualty rates for adults and children. Similarly, boys and girls have identical percent head injury rates but markedly different levels of helmet use (Hewson, 2005; Hewson, 2005b).

In Greater London, cyclist injuries became more serious as helmet use increased in the mid 1990s (BHRF, 1072). In 2001, although about half of cyclists wore helmets, the severity of injuries was significantly higher than in 1981 and fatalities were highest since 1989. In Edinburgh, also with approx 50% helmet wearing, casualties have become more serious as helmet use has increased (BHRF, 1247). In the Lothian region (close to Edinburgh), wearing a helmet has made no significant difference to outcome in the case of the more serious head injuries measured by need of follow-up or hospital admission (Scottish Exec, 2005).
Click to expand...
Source.

In the absence of strong evidence of any benefit at all, mandating the wearing of cycle helmets is a retrograde step, and I strongly oppose it; the benefits of not having such a law are non-trivial, and the evidence is that the benefits of having such a law are at best zero, and possibly negative, in terms of injuries and deaths.

By requiring the wearing of helmets, particularly in warm climates, governments simply reduce the amount of cycling that is done - with a direct increase in car use, and reduction in exercise as a result.

from the same source quoted above:
In Australia, helmet laws caused head injuries to fall by 11% to 21%. But cycle use fell by 30% to 60%, suggesting that those who continued to cycle were more at risk (BHRF, 1096).
Click to expand...
I myself would certainly use my bicycle for short trips - eg nipping to the shop for a loaf of bread or bottle of milk - if I didn't have to wear an esky on my head. Instead, I drive my car, as it is too far to walk in the time available to me. Wearing a cycle helmet on a 30o+ day is torture.

The assumption that wearing a helmet improves safety is unfounded, and is not supported by research. Flawed assumptions should not be used as a basis for legislation, no matter how plausible they seem to the uninformed.
Click to expand...

I've read a similar article http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to-wear-bike-helmets
 
The steps to rational safety legislation are:

1) Identify a potential problem
2) Propose a solution to that problem
3) Demonstrate that the proposed solution is effective
4) Legislate to require the solution.

Laws requiring bicyclists to wear helmets have fudged step 3, by saying 'It's obvious' or 'It stands to reason' or 'It's common sense', instead of actually doing the research. The resulting laws are stupid and harmful, and they should be repealed. But that would involve a loss of face for the dumb politicians who implemented them to begin with.
 
bilby said:
The steps to rational safety legislation are:

1) Identify a potential problem
2) Propose a solution to that problem
3) Demonstrate that the proposed solution is effective
4) Legislate to require the solution.

Laws requiring bicyclists to wear helmets have fudged step 3, by saying 'It's obvious' or 'It stands to reason' or 'It's common sense', instead of actually doing the research. The resulting laws are stupid and harmful, and they should be repealed. But that would involve a loss of face for the dumb politicians who implemented them to begin with.
Click to expand...

Bloomberg's soda law passed with exactly that kind of thinking. Thankfully, the court had enough sense to declare it unconstitutional.
 
Nice Squirrel said:
Yes, a few out of the tens of thousands of municipalities in the US. Of course, I'm in a state that has motorcycle helmet laws.
Click to expand...

I'm in a state that just last year repealed its helmet laws for motorcyclists.
 
NobleSavage said:
I'd probably agree with you, but still the concept of "decent" is subjective. Some people would consider their freedom more important.
Click to expand...
There is nothing subjective about it. People with brain injuries cannot care for themselves. If they are not taken care of they will die.

No definition of a decent society includes a society that lets the most vulnerable die miserable deaths due to neglect.
Should we outlaw BASE jumping? 1 in 60 attempts results in death.
Click to expand...
Again I'm talking about easily avoidable injuries. I'm not advocating outlawing bike riding or any other dangerous activity.
 
ZiprHead said:
Nice Squirrel said:
Yes, a few out of the tens of thousands of municipalities in the US. Of course, I'm in a state that has motorcycle helmet laws.
Click to expand...

I'm in a state that just last year repealed its helmet laws for motorcyclists.
Click to expand...

Which is great for the rest of us, since we really could use more organ donors. Helmets don't cause fewer motorcycle wrecks, they just mean less selective pressure on the more-testosterone-than-brains sort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom