3 ms·

When it comes to authoritarianism Australians are either extremely apathetic or they are generally in favour of more government intervention in private life. Tr

by mdoms 5y ago

When it comes to authoritarianism Australians are either extremely apathetic or they are generally in favour of more government intervention in private life. Try having a calm and balanced discussion with an Australian about bicycle helmet laws for a wonderful example.

bradrn 5y ago
> Try having a calm and balanced discussion with an Australian about bicycle helmet laws for a wonderful example. As an Australian I’d be curious to know what the argument against them is? (Keeping in mind that most Australians don’t see ‘freedom’ as a terminal goal.)
- zmmmmm 5y ago
  there's some research suggesting that bicycle helmets are harmful. In part because they are pretty useless at protecting against the type of accidents that actually cause severe head trauma, and then also because they seem to induce risky behaviour from both cyclists and cars around them. And then finally because they significantly reduce uptake of cycling which means people are doing other unhealthy things instead. (I'm not actually arguing a position here, just saying that this is not as clear cut as you might think).
- astrange 5y ago
  They're actively harmful because they make it harder to ride a bike, so people don't adopt biking. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2014-5-september-october/green-life/why-danes-dont-need-bicycle-helmets https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2014-5-september-october/g...
trainsplanes 5y ago
Not Australian and never been to the continent, but... are bike helmet laws an actual example of authoritarianism? Like, I don't hear about the existence motorcyle helmet laws or seatbelt laws as proof of authoritarianism, aside from fringe groups of protestors (with several of them ironically dying from accidents that would've been survivable with proper safety measures).
potatochup 5y ago
It's a little different when you consider that the taxpayer funds everyones healthcare. Most people taking the side of requiring bicycle helmet laws are probably thinking "I don't want my taxes going towards looking after some numpty who was too stubborn to wear a helmet and crashed". People arguing this position are assuming that requiring helmets will decrease the risk of injury, which I am well aware there is conflicting evidence around.
- Lio 5y ago
  I guess but I don't think it's as rational as that. I mean you generally don't see people arguing compulsory helmets for car passengers. Even though the number of people requiring medical treatment head injuries caused by cars is orders of magnitude higher than it is for cyclists.

by mdoms 5y ago

bradrn 5y ago

> Try having a calm and balanced discussion with an Australian about bicycle helmet laws for a wonderful example. As an Australian I’d be curious to know what the argument against them is? (Keeping in mind that most Australians don’t see ‘freedom’ as a terminal goal.)

zmmmmm 5y ago
there's some research suggesting that bicycle helmets are harmful. In part because they are pretty useless at protecting against the type of accidents that actually cause severe head trauma, and then also because they seem to induce risky behaviour from both cyclists and cars around them. And then finally because they significantly reduce uptake of cycling which means people are doing other unhealthy things instead. (I'm not actually arguing a position here, just saying that this is not as clear cut as you might think).
astrange 5y ago
They're actively harmful because they make it harder to ride a bike, so people don't adopt biking. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2014-5-september-october/green-life/why-danes-dont-need-bicycle-helmets https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2014-5-september-october/g...

trainsplanes 5y ago

Not Australian and never been to the continent, but... are bike helmet laws an actual example of authoritarianism? Like, I don't hear about the existence motorcyle helmet laws or seatbelt laws as proof of authoritarianism, aside from fringe groups of protestors (with several of them ironically dying from accidents that would've been survivable with proper safety measures).

potatochup 5y ago

It's a little different when you consider that the taxpayer funds everyones healthcare. Most people taking the side of requiring bicycle helmet laws are probably thinking "I don't want my taxes going towards looking after some numpty who was too stubborn to wear a helmet and crashed". People arguing this position are assuming that requiring helmets will decrease the risk of injury, which I am well aware there is conflicting evidence around.

Lio 5y ago
I guess but I don't think it's as rational as that. I mean you generally don't see people arguing compulsory helmets for car passengers. Even though the number of people requiring medical treatment head injuries caused by cars is orders of magnitude higher than it is for cyclists.