4 ms·

Are you making the argument that bicycle helmets are ineffective or that people should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take? The

Are you making the argument that bicycle helmets are ineffective or that people should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take? The former is a dubious claim and the latter is likely a fringe position. Given that, suggesting that helmet laws are a plot to reduce cycling puts you firmly in conspiracy theory territory in my book.

ghaff 8y ago
I don’t think it’s at all a fringe position that adults should have considerable latitude about personal safety choices. That said not everyone agrees with that and that, rather than reducing cycling, is the impetus behind helmet laws.
- madeofpalk 8y ago
  There's also the part of the equation that while decided to wear a helmet is a personal choice, the negative impacts affect the taxpayer in Australia due to having a reasonably good public health system.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    There are certainly externalities to individual health and safety decisions. I find prohibiting “dangerous” activities (how about rock climbing? Say) a pretty slippery slope.
    - ponyfleisch 8y ago
      Wouldn't it follow then that all drugs, even the potent opiates, should be legal to produce, sell and consume? I know some people think that way, but it's a fringe position.
jessaustin 8y ago
In any particular collision, a helmeted brain is more protected than a non-helmeted brain, although because of factors like risk compensation and the effect of overall cycling frequency on road safety that is completely beside the point. Of course adults should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take. The relevant populations are at so much lower risk for any number of misfortunes than their ancestors that helmet fans' pearl-clutching on their behalf is completely misplaced. But this too is beside the point. Try reading my two sentences again, this time without your "conspiracy everywhere" glasses. The following propositions, which comprise the entirety of that post, are all literally true: "cycling doesn't require helmets", "helmet laws reduce cycling", "those who write helmet laws know that helmet laws reduce cycling". Every study of the effect of helmet laws shows that they reduce cycling. There might be some dangerously uninformed people writing cycling regulations, but most will have seen the relevant studies.
- ponyfleisch 8y ago
  > Of course adults should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take. It's not universally the case though (see: drugs, seatbelts), and if you think it should be, you're in a small minority with that opinion. I think it's fair to consider externalities and then make laws that strike a nice balance between individual and collective interests. Bicycle helmets are a very small inconvenience, so i find it entirely appropriate to make them mandatory. > "those who write helmet laws know that helmet laws reduce cycling" Right, but that doesn't mean it's their motivation. That assumption, given that there are other prohibitions on dangerous behaviour, is a conspiracy theory.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    ...you're in a small minority with that opinion. Maybe in your community I would be? Where I live, it would be hard to find anyone who didn't feel adults should take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. I really don't understand this compulsion to measure oneself against the herd, however. "Oh no some randoms I've never met might disagree with me!" Why would I care about that? Perhaps you're not so experienced with reasoned discussion, but "that's fringe" and "that's conspiracy" are not really arguments. By focusing on these propositions you've conceded the factual claims I've made, which by themselves really settle the question of whether helmets ought to be mandatory for cycling. That assumption... is a conspiracy theory. I haven't made such an assumption. I would still question the opposite assumption, however. Are you certain that no one values the primacy of the automobile in traffic?
    - ponyfleisch 8y ago
      > Where I live, it would be hard to find anyone who didn't feel adults should take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. This is a very general statement and probably won't hold up in a number of specific cases, such as the total legalisation of the drug trade. But i do believe that "people" (as in: the majority) draw that line in a culture specific way and it appears that the US leans more towards personal freedom than the rest of "the west". However, this discussion was about laws in Australia. I think it's reasonable to assume that the laws reflect the majority opinion. Now i'm not discounting fringe opinions in general and i certainly don't think the majority is always right. But in this case it's relevant because it offers a much simpler explanation for why helmet laws exist: because people living in those jurisdictions overwhelmingly want them. Let me turn the argument around to illustrate: Not wearing helmets increases head injuries, and the people in power know that. Having a pro-helmet-law stance, it would make sense to see a conspiracy between lawmakers and health care providers (more brain damaged people, more revenue!). It seems much more reasonable to assume that places without helmet laws don't have them because people living there draw the line between personal freedoms and collective interests differently. > I haven't made such an assumption. Well, you wrote "Imposing helmets by law is a way to reduce cycling" and i really can't parse it any other way than to mean that the sole (or at least main) motivation for helmet laws is to reduce cycling. I stand by my words.

ghaff 8y ago

I don’t think it’s at all a fringe position that adults should have considerable latitude about personal safety choices. That said not everyone agrees with that and that, rather than reducing cycling, is the impetus behind helmet laws.

madeofpalk 8y ago
There's also the part of the equation that while decided to wear a helmet is a personal choice, the negative impacts affect the taxpayer in Australia due to having a reasonably good public health system.
- ghaff 8y ago
  There are certainly externalities to individual health and safety decisions. I find prohibiting “dangerous” activities (how about rock climbing? Say) a pretty slippery slope.
  - ponyfleisch 8y ago
    Wouldn't it follow then that all drugs, even the potent opiates, should be legal to produce, sell and consume? I know some people think that way, but it's a fringe position.

jessaustin 8y ago

In any particular collision, a helmeted brain is more protected than a non-helmeted brain, although because of factors like risk compensation and the effect of overall cycling frequency on road safety that is completely beside the point. Of course adults should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take. The relevant populations are at so much lower risk for any number of misfortunes than their ancestors that helmet fans' pearl-clutching on their behalf is completely misplaced. But this too is beside the point. Try reading my two sentences again, this time without your "conspiracy everywhere" glasses. The following propositions, which comprise the entirety of that post, are all literally true: "cycling doesn't require helmets", "helmet laws reduce cycling", "those who write helmet laws know that helmet laws reduce cycling". Every study of the effect of helmet laws shows that they reduce cycling. There might be some dangerously uninformed people writing cycling regulations, but most will have seen the relevant studies.

ponyfleisch 8y ago
> Of course adults should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take. It's not universally the case though (see: drugs, seatbelts), and if you think it should be, you're in a small minority with that opinion. I think it's fair to consider externalities and then make laws that strike a nice balance between individual and collective interests. Bicycle helmets are a very small inconvenience, so i find it entirely appropriate to make them mandatory. > "those who write helmet laws know that helmet laws reduce cycling" Right, but that doesn't mean it's their motivation. That assumption, given that there are other prohibitions on dangerous behaviour, is a conspiracy theory.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  ...you're in a small minority with that opinion. Maybe in your community I would be? Where I live, it would be hard to find anyone who didn't feel adults should take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. I really don't understand this compulsion to measure oneself against the herd, however. "Oh no some randoms I've never met might disagree with me!" Why would I care about that? Perhaps you're not so experienced with reasoned discussion, but "that's fringe" and "that's conspiracy" are not really arguments. By focusing on these propositions you've conceded the factual claims I've made, which by themselves really settle the question of whether helmets ought to be mandatory for cycling. That assumption... is a conspiracy theory. I haven't made such an assumption. I would still question the opposite assumption, however. Are you certain that no one values the primacy of the automobile in traffic?
  - ponyfleisch 8y ago
    > Where I live, it would be hard to find anyone who didn't feel adults should take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. This is a very general statement and probably won't hold up in a number of specific cases, such as the total legalisation of the drug trade. But i do believe that "people" (as in: the majority) draw that line in a culture specific way and it appears that the US leans more towards personal freedom than the rest of "the west". However, this discussion was about laws in Australia. I think it's reasonable to assume that the laws reflect the majority opinion. Now i'm not discounting fringe opinions in general and i certainly don't think the majority is always right. But in this case it's relevant because it offers a much simpler explanation for why helmet laws exist: because people living in those jurisdictions overwhelmingly want them. Let me turn the argument around to illustrate: Not wearing helmets increases head injuries, and the people in power know that. Having a pro-helmet-law stance, it would make sense to see a conspiracy between lawmakers and health care providers (more brain damaged people, more revenue!). It seems much more reasonable to assume that places without helmet laws don't have them because people living there draw the line between personal freedoms and collective interests differently. > I haven't made such an assumption. Well, you wrote "Imposing helmets by law is a way to reduce cycling" and i really can't parse it any other way than to mean that the sole (or at least main) motivation for helmet laws is to reduce cycling. I stand by my words.