3 ms·
One reason people might disagree is that you're pushing the externality of your own safety onto others. An example of an externality: those who don't wear helme
by bradlys 8y ago
One reason people might disagree is that you're pushing the externality of your own safety onto others. An example of an externality: those who don't wear helmets and crash are much more likely to have a brain injury (or death). This means that we all have to pay for your care now. In death (lack of taxes) or in financial damage. And in some cases like safety standards, people will also argue for emotional safety as well. Your death or injury could have a severe affect on those surrounding you even if you don't care but that's less measurable.
Freedom is complicated when you don't live in a silo.
- Reedx 8y agoRight, but isn't that also the case for people in cars? They get head injuries in car crashes that may have been prevented by wearing a helmet. As for helmet laws, they have unintended consequences, such as fewer people riding bikes. Resulting in more cars/pollution and less exercise, less healthy population.
- bsder 8y ago> Right, but isn't that also the case for people in cars? They get head injuries in car crashes that may have been prevented by wearing a helmet. A car driver has insurance to some level--a bicyclist or scooter user probably doesn't. The issue is that in the US, we don't have universal healthcare which would make this discussion moot.
- bradlys 8y agoIncorrect - universal healthcare would make this discussion even more relevant. As we're all going to be paying for his head injury rather than whoever decides to go with that particular company or insurer.
- gruez 8y ago>This means that we all have to pay for your care now I'm not convinced. By that logic, we should also ban unhealthy foods, limit how many calories each person can eat, and mandate them to exercise for n hours per week. I'm sure that some of those will have a higher ROI than putting on helmets. >In death (lack of taxes) so we should ban emigration then? it has the exact same effects from a tax perspective.
- NamTaf 8y agoWhy are you not convinced? That's precisely the logic used by a sugar tax, and is the same logic used in tobacco taxes. In countries where there's public healthcare, the burden of it on the public purse is a very real consideration where trade-offs must be made in varying ways. One of these ways is to tax things that contribute to higher loads on the spending of those public policies. Australia's tobacco laws are a key example of this.
- stef25 8y agoUnhealthy lifestyle = cumulative effects. You don't get a heart attack from one big mac but you can need decades of life support from one outing on a motorbike without helmet. To make it worse, people who don't wear a helmet aren't the best riders either and thus more likely to be involved in an accident.
- baroffoos 8y agoThe risk of crashing and getting brain damage is real but small. The risk of not riding a bike because of helmet laws and then getting fat is real and common. One of these issues costs a whole lot more to the public.
- scarejunba 8y agoDrinking half a liter of wine exposes you to as much risk as a bicyclist traveling twenty miles. Are you ready to have drinking regulated? We might need to register you with our central database to ensure that you do not exceed your government-mandated allowance of alcohol consumption for the day.
- CalRobert 8y agoWhich is why car drivers should wear helmets. Head trauma happens to people inside cars too.