3 ms·
In almost every other context in which risk of physical harm comes up the overwhelmingly dominant opinion is that forgoing any means of reducing that risk is a
by dsfyu404ed 7y ago
In almost every other context in which risk of physical harm comes up the overwhelmingly dominant opinion is that forgoing any means of reducing that risk is a non-starter more or less regardless of cost. Anyone suggesting that risk and cost/benefit need to be assessed is received about as well as someone proclaiming god doesn't exist in the middle of a church circa 1500.
As a safety heretic I fully agree with you that people can make their own decisions on helmet use but why should cycling get special treatment here? On every other issue of physical safety the HN gods have ruled the other way.
- vkou 7y agoAnd yet, drivers and passengers of automobiles are not required to wear racing helmets, or five-point safety belts - nor are all cars factory-equipped with breathalyzer ignition interlocks - or speed governors which limit a vehicle's sustained maximum speed to 63 mph.
- marcoseliziario 7y agoThis single thing, breathalyzer interlocks, probably would save a huge portion of the lives that would be saved by fully autonomous driving, but for a fraction of the cost, and basically right now. It could even be installed on existing cars, and probably insurance companies would help you cover the cost.