7 ms·

I've been fascinated for a long time by how people get angry at others for taking risks. Ride my mountain bike slowly on a side walk without a helmet? It invok

I've been fascinated for a long time by how people get angry at others for taking risks. Ride my mountain bike slowly on a side walk without a helmet? It invokes ANGER in others. Why? Is it an evolutionary trait built into pack animals perhaps? That would make sense. But still, leave me alone! =) Also, yes internet I understand that falling from a mountain bike at a slow speed can impact your head just as hard as falling from a high speed, that isn't the point, or even entirely true.

aikinai 7y ago
Because in the real world the consequences of your actions aren’t confined to yourself. Reckless behavior increases the impact on anyone involved in an accident with you, mentally impacts anyone that might see your brains splatter, increases insurance premiums, uses hospital resources, etc.
- gameswithgo 7y ago
  None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. Eating junk food, drinking a beer, driving a sports car, doesn't evoke the same emotional reaction in people, which has the same sorts of consequences if you did some sort of long term impact analysis, which normal people don't do on the spot. As well, insurance and hospital costs are likely reduced since I'm more often just dead rather than maimed. Plus I'll have less diabetes and heart disease since I'm not sitting inside watching CNN and Fox news all day getting fat and being "safe"
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Should people really be eating junk food? I do kind of think it's unfair that in a world with universal healthcare I'm going to have to be paying for their diabetes in 50 years. If I'm going to be paying for the consequences then you bet I'm going to want to make your decisions. Likewise I wouldn't mind it if you went climbing, but then I would demand that you pay for your own solo climbers insurance.
  - reroute1 7y ago
    > None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. How do you know this? Have you interviewed everyone ever on why they got angry? There are a variety of reasons and it's very highly unlikely that you are correct.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    "None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. Eating junk food, drinking a beer, driving a sports car, doesn't evoke the same emotional reaction in people" I'm sorry, I can't agree with this. There's plenty of anger and disdain for all those things. There's plenty of "fuck fatties", "fuck rich fat cats", and "fuck drunks" sentiment, and I don't go out of my way to engage in communities I know to be hateful or particularly negative. (Unless HN counts??)
  - everdev 7y ago
    A few ideas on why people get angry: 1. Public health campaigns - They don't get outraged by junk food, sports cars, etc. because there isn't advertising telling them it's unequivocally bad. Government will tell you that not wearing a helmet, smoking a cigarette, etc. is universally bad so it's easier for people to see someone "doing a bad thing". People get angry when other people "break the rules". 2. They know someone who was affected. I'm guessing if your cousin got hurt because they weren't wearing a helmet, you might carry some emotions that could be released when you see someone else taking the same risk. 3. Human nature. Back in tribes, if our Uncle was trying to scale giant cliff faces for fun, we'd be at greater risk of less food / losing a war if the tribe let him risk his life for little to no tribal gain. Especially if the young kids thought it was cool and wanted to try it too. People are persuadable and can be influenced. It's not unreasonable to think that glorifying death defying sports or financially rewarding them will result in more people risking their lives. 4. Bullying. If you see someone doing something different or not fitting in, some humans feel compelled to yell at that person to increase conformity and cohesion. 5. Low self confidence. They might be highly critical of themselves and see an opportunity to criticize others. For me, #3 is the most common answer. People in strong, healthy communities feel safer so they probably don't want what they consider a "risky" behavior to spread.
    - OutBriefCandle 7y ago
      I had a negative reaction to his free solo, but I wouldn't say I'm angry about it. I agree with the idea that he is his own person and can ultimately make his own decisions, but there are a couple things that bother me about the free solo that aren't covered here. While Alex may not have been known by the general public before this event he was pretty well known in the climbing community, and is obviously still well known. Therefore he wields an influence over others and particularly kids. Kids do stupid and risky things, because their brains aren't developed enough to judge the consequences of their actions. They want to emulate the pros, which in this case, climbing unroped, could be deadly. Another thing that bothers me about it is the sort of stigma it puts on the sport. Now, free soloing like what Alex did is what a lot of people think climbing is. I've been climbing for the past 12 years, 10 of those outside and on a good day it's nearly a spiritual experience. I love this sport and I find it incredibly rewarding. It is a dangerous sport, but there is a lot you can do to mitigate those dangers. I think when a lot people see the spectacle of 'free solo' they are awed by it, but may also think "I could never do something like that" and so never try to climb. This is why I think I have a negative reaction to the film.
  - ken 7y ago
    > As well, insurance and hospital costs are likely reduced since I'm more often just dead rather than maimed. No, please stop. This canard has been repeated by the anti-helmet crowd for decades, despite having been disproven countless times. Even if you're a number-crunching robot and care for nothing except how much cash it will cost today, helmets are a huge win. > Also, yes internet I understand that falling from a mountain bike at a slow speed can impact your head just as hard as falling from a high speed, that isn't the point, or even entirely true. You're riding so slowly that a fall won't impact your head much, but merely kill you?
whatshisface 7y ago
In order for it to be fair to risk your own health, you would have to be in a society with zero social safety net (no mechanism where other people end up paying for your healthcare, and forget about charity for the disabled), as well as no emotional investment from any relationships (good luck getting this to happen on a planet with humans). An octopus could probably get away with solo climbing.
mnm1 7y ago
Riding your bike that way in Amsterdam (or really any place in Europe and I imagine most of the rest of the world) wouldn't turn one head, let alone invoke anger. That's definitely an American thing. I guess some people get off on the righteousness and they attempt to control other people in the most minuscule of ways. I think this is because they have little freedom and control over their own lives and feel helpless themselves. This part is not limited to America, but in America it's a big part of the culture. Someone else having fun while you're not? Be angry and try to stop them, often using laws. Someone else doing things you don't like? Same thing. Control coupled with a puritan mindset leads to these bizarre reactions.
- smt88 7y ago
  American culture is more individualistic than most Western European countries, not less. There is no connection between puritanism and frustration at people not wearing a helmet. In fact, my bike-loving, safety-loving friends never say they're angry at someone riding without a helmet. Usually someone just calls them an idiot. But as others have said, in any country with a social safety net, someone's injury/death ends up taking resources away from others (hospital bills, loss of productivity, loss of repaying the cost of your childhood, not taking care of parents or kids, etc.) There's nothing bizarre about seeing someone who abuses their safety net as selfish or irresponsible.
  - mnm1 7y ago
    I think you missed my point which is that riding without a helmet is not dangerous. Americans think it's dangerous because of the way the culture treats everyone as if they are children who need a nanny because they don't know any better. If indeed it was true that "There's nothing bizarre about seeing someone who abuses their safety net as selfish or irresponsible," then why don't people in Amsterdam and Europe in general have this reaction? They actually have a safety net unlike America.
    - smt88 7y ago
      Your point was buried in the other misinformation in your post, but it's also wrong. First of all, helmets dramatically reduce risk of injury[1]. Why do American football players wear them if they aren't protective? Second, much of the bike riding done in the US is on roads shared with cars, and most of our accidents involve cars. We likely have more accidents per mile here than any place with dedicated bike infrastructure. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle...
cauthon 7y ago
> Ride my mountain bike slowly on a side walk without a helmet? It invokes ANGER in others. Why? People aren’t angry at you for riding without a helmet, they’re angry at you for riding on the sidewalk
- benrbray 7y ago
  Until my city installs a sufficient number of separated bike lanes, I'll continue to ride on the sidewalk rather than risk my life in traffic, even if it hurts your feelings.

aikinai 7y ago

Because in the real world the consequences of your actions aren’t confined to yourself. Reckless behavior increases the impact on anyone involved in an accident with you, mentally impacts anyone that might see your brains splatter, increases insurance premiums, uses hospital resources, etc.

gameswithgo 7y ago
None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. Eating junk food, drinking a beer, driving a sports car, doesn't evoke the same emotional reaction in people, which has the same sorts of consequences if you did some sort of long term impact analysis, which normal people don't do on the spot. As well, insurance and hospital costs are likely reduced since I'm more often just dead rather than maimed. Plus I'll have less diabetes and heart disease since I'm not sitting inside watching CNN and Fox news all day getting fat and being "safe"
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Should people really be eating junk food? I do kind of think it's unfair that in a world with universal healthcare I'm going to have to be paying for their diabetes in 50 years. If I'm going to be paying for the consequences then you bet I'm going to want to make your decisions. Likewise I wouldn't mind it if you went climbing, but then I would demand that you pay for your own solo climbers insurance.
- reroute1 7y ago
  > None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. How do you know this? Have you interviewed everyone ever on why they got angry? There are a variety of reasons and it's very highly unlikely that you are correct.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "None of that is what actually causes people to be angry. Eating junk food, drinking a beer, driving a sports car, doesn't evoke the same emotional reaction in people" I'm sorry, I can't agree with this. There's plenty of anger and disdain for all those things. There's plenty of "fuck fatties", "fuck rich fat cats", and "fuck drunks" sentiment, and I don't go out of my way to engage in communities I know to be hateful or particularly negative. (Unless HN counts??)
- everdev 7y ago
  A few ideas on why people get angry: 1. Public health campaigns - They don't get outraged by junk food, sports cars, etc. because there isn't advertising telling them it's unequivocally bad. Government will tell you that not wearing a helmet, smoking a cigarette, etc. is universally bad so it's easier for people to see someone "doing a bad thing". People get angry when other people "break the rules". 2. They know someone who was affected. I'm guessing if your cousin got hurt because they weren't wearing a helmet, you might carry some emotions that could be released when you see someone else taking the same risk. 3. Human nature. Back in tribes, if our Uncle was trying to scale giant cliff faces for fun, we'd be at greater risk of less food / losing a war if the tribe let him risk his life for little to no tribal gain. Especially if the young kids thought it was cool and wanted to try it too. People are persuadable and can be influenced. It's not unreasonable to think that glorifying death defying sports or financially rewarding them will result in more people risking their lives. 4. Bullying. If you see someone doing something different or not fitting in, some humans feel compelled to yell at that person to increase conformity and cohesion. 5. Low self confidence. They might be highly critical of themselves and see an opportunity to criticize others. For me, #3 is the most common answer. People in strong, healthy communities feel safer so they probably don't want what they consider a "risky" behavior to spread.
  - OutBriefCandle 7y ago
    I had a negative reaction to his free solo, but I wouldn't say I'm angry about it. I agree with the idea that he is his own person and can ultimately make his own decisions, but there are a couple things that bother me about the free solo that aren't covered here. While Alex may not have been known by the general public before this event he was pretty well known in the climbing community, and is obviously still well known. Therefore he wields an influence over others and particularly kids. Kids do stupid and risky things, because their brains aren't developed enough to judge the consequences of their actions. They want to emulate the pros, which in this case, climbing unroped, could be deadly. Another thing that bothers me about it is the sort of stigma it puts on the sport. Now, free soloing like what Alex did is what a lot of people think climbing is. I've been climbing for the past 12 years, 10 of those outside and on a good day it's nearly a spiritual experience. I love this sport and I find it incredibly rewarding. It is a dangerous sport, but there is a lot you can do to mitigate those dangers. I think when a lot people see the spectacle of 'free solo' they are awed by it, but may also think "I could never do something like that" and so never try to climb. This is why I think I have a negative reaction to the film.
- ken 7y ago
  > As well, insurance and hospital costs are likely reduced since I'm more often just dead rather than maimed. No, please stop. This canard has been repeated by the anti-helmet crowd for decades, despite having been disproven countless times. Even if you're a number-crunching robot and care for nothing except how much cash it will cost today, helmets are a huge win. > Also, yes internet I understand that falling from a mountain bike at a slow speed can impact your head just as hard as falling from a high speed, that isn't the point, or even entirely true. You're riding so slowly that a fall won't impact your head much, but merely kill you?

whatshisface 7y ago

In order for it to be fair to risk your own health, you would have to be in a society with zero social safety net (no mechanism where other people end up paying for your healthcare, and forget about charity for the disabled), as well as no emotional investment from any relationships (good luck getting this to happen on a planet with humans). An octopus could probably get away with solo climbing.

mnm1 7y ago

Riding your bike that way in Amsterdam (or really any place in Europe and I imagine most of the rest of the world) wouldn't turn one head, let alone invoke anger. That's definitely an American thing. I guess some people get off on the righteousness and they attempt to control other people in the most minuscule of ways. I think this is because they have little freedom and control over their own lives and feel helpless themselves. This part is not limited to America, but in America it's a big part of the culture. Someone else having fun while you're not? Be angry and try to stop them, often using laws. Someone else doing things you don't like? Same thing. Control coupled with a puritan mindset leads to these bizarre reactions.

smt88 7y ago
American culture is more individualistic than most Western European countries, not less. There is no connection between puritanism and frustration at people not wearing a helmet. In fact, my bike-loving, safety-loving friends never say they're angry at someone riding without a helmet. Usually someone just calls them an idiot. But as others have said, in any country with a social safety net, someone's injury/death ends up taking resources away from others (hospital bills, loss of productivity, loss of repaying the cost of your childhood, not taking care of parents or kids, etc.) There's nothing bizarre about seeing someone who abuses their safety net as selfish or irresponsible.
- mnm1 7y ago
  I think you missed my point which is that riding without a helmet is not dangerous. Americans think it's dangerous because of the way the culture treats everyone as if they are children who need a nanny because they don't know any better. If indeed it was true that "There's nothing bizarre about seeing someone who abuses their safety net as selfish or irresponsible," then why don't people in Amsterdam and Europe in general have this reaction? They actually have a safety net unlike America.
  - smt88 7y ago
    Your point was buried in the other misinformation in your post, but it's also wrong. First of all, helmets dramatically reduce risk of injury[1]. Why do American football players wear them if they aren't protective? Second, much of the bike riding done in the US is on roads shared with cars, and most of our accidents involve cars. We likely have more accidents per mile here than any place with dedicated bike infrastructure. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle...

cauthon 7y ago

> Ride my mountain bike slowly on a side walk without a helmet? It invokes ANGER in others. Why? People aren’t angry at you for riding without a helmet, they’re angry at you for riding on the sidewalk

benrbray 7y ago
Until my city installs a sufficient number of separated bike lanes, I'll continue to ride on the sidewalk rather than risk my life in traffic, even if it hurts your feelings.