3 ms·

Not wearing a helmet does not affect people around you.

cratermoon 5y ago
True, but the potential for needing medical care, hospitalization, or funeral services which could result in someone else being unable to receive care is similar.
- phonypc 5y ago
  Ah yes, the famous bike crash pandemic of 1954.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    It's a thought experiment, not a statement of fact.
    - phonypc 5y ago
      "the potential for needing medical care, hospitalization, or funeral services which could result in someone else being unable to receive care is similar" reads as a (patently false) supposed fact. There is no plausible future in which medical care needs to be rationed due to an overwhelming number of bicycle accidents.
      - cratermoon 5y ago
        The best thought experiments start with what may appear to be, or are in fact, false premises.
- Delk 5y ago
  If you include indirect effects, lots and lots of our actions and choices become morally charged. It's a good thing to include that in one's thinking, at least if you want to get higher than average in terms of ethical thinking, but it quickly becomes untenable if taken as an absolute. Opting for not taking the stairs and using an elevator instead probably has some kind of a statistical relationship to needing hospital care. Choosing a sport or physical activity that includes a greater risk if injury is, in some sense, ethically worse than choosing one that gives the same benefits with a lower statistical risk of causing strain on the healthcare system. Technically, if you live in an area where snow and ice are present in winter, wearing wrist braces (or maybe even a helmet) while walking would reduce your risk of needing medical care in case of a fall. (The need for medical care for injuries to limbs due to falls is an actual thing.) It turns out most of these are actually social or personal choices. You can analyse the statistical risk and the expected cost to healthcare and end up with different costs for various activities, but just the fact that there is a statistical or potential cost matters little.
rajin444 5y ago
To extend it to covid, the vaccine doesn’t fully prevent transmission either. It reduces it (likely, I don’t think we’ve seen a robust study in this department), but since it’s not enough to reach herd immunity this point is moot The argument has now become you’re taking up hospital beds because you didn’t get the vaccine. The same logic applies to not wearing a helmet. And to take it further: are we ok with unvaccinated covid patients taking resources from those not wearing safety helmets, or vice versa?
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
  The rate at which people catch covid and get hospitalized is incomparably higher to the rate that people are getting brain injuries from riding a bike. You can use the same "philosophical experiment" to ban being fat or drinking alcohol.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    > to ban being fat or drinking alcohol. No, you can't. At least not unless you ignore research and still believe that weight gain and addiction are purely choices and can be morally condemned. See e.g. Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters: Leshner, A. I. (1997). Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science (New York, N.Y.), 278(5335), 45–47. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5335.45 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5335.45
    - bradlys 5y ago
      Your amount of social interaction is also a choice that will dictate your ability to get Covid. Should be obvious that this is comparable to your example from the lockdowns that have been ineffective.
      - cratermoon 5y ago
        > the lockdowns that have been ineffective In the US they were ineffective half-measures with little to no real teeth. In other countries they mitigated the pandemic within weeks by having lockdowns that sustained the people and organizations affected and were strict enough to mean something. Saying "amount of social interaction is also a choice" is only true when the lockdowns were performative and the choice was given. And now the US, which is less than 5% of the world population, accounts 14% of all deaths due to COVID-19, not counting excess deaths.
thinkingemote 5y ago
Others can see you.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  To the extent you mean "others will see your behavior and possibly emulate it as part of a social norm", you're correct. If a critical mass of bicyclists wears helmets, the social pressure to conform to helmet-wearing would result in higher rates. Conversely, saying, "I don't see anyone else wearing a helmet, why should I?" is also a consequence of social norms; norms can override rational risk/reward choices.

True, but the potential for needing medical care, hospitalization, or funeral services which could result in someone else being unable to receive care is similar.

phonypc 5y ago
Ah yes, the famous bike crash pandemic of 1954.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  It's a thought experiment, not a statement of fact.
  - phonypc 5y ago
    "the potential for needing medical care, hospitalization, or funeral services which could result in someone else being unable to receive care is similar" reads as a (patently false) supposed fact. There is no plausible future in which medical care needs to be rationed due to an overwhelming number of bicycle accidents.
    - cratermoon 5y ago
      The best thought experiments start with what may appear to be, or are in fact, false premises.
Delk 5y ago
If you include indirect effects, lots and lots of our actions and choices become morally charged. It's a good thing to include that in one's thinking, at least if you want to get higher than average in terms of ethical thinking, but it quickly becomes untenable if taken as an absolute. Opting for not taking the stairs and using an elevator instead probably has some kind of a statistical relationship to needing hospital care. Choosing a sport or physical activity that includes a greater risk if injury is, in some sense, ethically worse than choosing one that gives the same benefits with a lower statistical risk of causing strain on the healthcare system. Technically, if you live in an area where snow and ice are present in winter, wearing wrist braces (or maybe even a helmet) while walking would reduce your risk of needing medical care in case of a fall. (The need for medical care for injuries to limbs due to falls is an actual thing.) It turns out most of these are actually social or personal choices. You can analyse the statistical risk and the expected cost to healthcare and end up with different costs for various activities, but just the fact that there is a statistical or potential cost matters little.

rajin444 5y ago

To extend it to covid, the vaccine doesn’t fully prevent transmission either. It reduces it (likely, I don’t think we’ve seen a robust study in this department), but since it’s not enough to reach herd immunity this point is moot The argument has now become you’re taking up hospital beds because you didn’t get the vaccine. The same logic applies to not wearing a helmet. And to take it further: are we ok with unvaccinated covid patients taking resources from those not wearing safety helmets, or vice versa?

isbvhodnvemrwvn 5y ago
The rate at which people catch covid and get hospitalized is incomparably higher to the rate that people are getting brain injuries from riding a bike. You can use the same "philosophical experiment" to ban being fat or drinking alcohol.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  > to ban being fat or drinking alcohol. No, you can't. At least not unless you ignore research and still believe that weight gain and addiction are purely choices and can be morally condemned. See e.g. Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters: Leshner, A. I. (1997). Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science (New York, N.Y.), 278(5335), 45–47. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5335.45 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5335.45
  - bradlys 5y ago
    Your amount of social interaction is also a choice that will dictate your ability to get Covid. Should be obvious that this is comparable to your example from the lockdowns that have been ineffective.
    - cratermoon 5y ago
      > the lockdowns that have been ineffective In the US they were ineffective half-measures with little to no real teeth. In other countries they mitigated the pandemic within weeks by having lockdowns that sustained the people and organizations affected and were strict enough to mean something. Saying "amount of social interaction is also a choice" is only true when the lockdowns were performative and the choice was given. And now the US, which is less than 5% of the world population, accounts 14% of all deaths due to COVID-19, not counting excess deaths.

thinkingemote 5y ago

Others can see you.

cratermoon 5y ago
To the extent you mean "others will see your behavior and possibly emulate it as part of a social norm", you're correct. If a critical mass of bicyclists wears helmets, the social pressure to conform to helmet-wearing would result in higher rates. Conversely, saying, "I don't see anyone else wearing a helmet, why should I?" is also a consequence of social norms; norms can override rational risk/reward choices.