5 ms·

I understand where you’re coming from, but I’d like to see some data rather than “what the actual fuck”. I believe there are some cases where safety protections

I understand where you’re coming from, but I’d like to see some data rather than “what the actual fuck”. I believe there are some cases where safety protections make people act dumber - and now I’m curious if this is or is not one them. I don’t take a position either way, but I don’t feel like shouting that you’d tell your employer to eat a bag of dicks really contributes much here.

Nextgrid 4y ago
This would make sense for situations where the main risk was the driver/operator of the machine, but when it comes to cycling on the road (especially in crazy Central London traffic) I would expect the risk to primarily come from cars.
- mbrookes 4y ago
  For which there is some evidence [1] that you are less likely to be involved in an accident doe to external causes when not wearing a helmet than when wearing one - in essence the same effect that helmet wearing has on the cyclist (taking greater risks) it also has on drivers passing cyclists. [1] https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1365/is-it-safer-to-wear-a-helmet-when-cycling https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1365/is-it-safer-to-wear-...
yellowapple 4y ago
> I believe there are some cases where safety protections make people act dumber And I don't believe that to be a justification for removing those safety protections entirely. This ain't some data science problem to be solved; this is ethics and morality, and there is precisely nothing ethical or moral about demanding that your employees make themselves less safe and then having the gall to pretend that this somehow makes them safer. > I don’t feel like shouting that you’d tell your employer to eat a bag of dicks really contributes much here. You're right: all employees telling their employers to eat an OSHA-sized bag of dicks if they try prohibiting basic safety equipment would contribute far more greatly to society than just one. But we gotta start somewhere.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  You believe that if the evidence indicates more people would die with the helmets, it would still be morally verboten even though it would be a statistical certainty your omission of action is basically causing people's deaths when we are talking about large numbers of people? Crazy. I suspect you are actually reasoning from your thought that people are more likely to die without helmets and ignoring the premise of the question, or at least I hope that is what you are doing.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    if even 1 incident occurs which was unavoidable by an unhelmeted cyclist which harms them more than they would have been harmed wearing a helmet, then the policy is unconscionable claiming you're removing safety equipment to reduce risky behavior is the tail wagging the dog. there are other ways to reduce risky behavior which do not have such tragic consequences as side effects to them.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      > then the policy is unconscionable Let's say you do an A/B test on this policy and find 15 more people die with the helmet allowed policy, but in the other side, one person died who if they had chosen a helmet they likely wouldn't have. You're saying it is unconscionable to pick the policy where the 15 wouldn't have died? Do the other things to reduce risky behavior, certainly, but if this is an uncorrelated improvement I don't see why that wouldn't be worth taking. Note, I doubt that this is actually true, but I wanted to highlight your moral apriori claims as ridiculous.
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        > Note, I doubt that this is actually true, but I wanted to highlight your moral apriori claims as ridiculous. You failed to do that: You didn’t address the agency problem where the 15 chose to engage in risky behavior while that 1 was coerced into dying — and ignoring the role of agency in the Trolley Problem is amateur hour. The helmets didn’t kill anyone, their following choices while wearing helmets did; which is in contrast to mandating no helmet, that is directly responsible for a death. What you did was make a ridiculous argument that ignored the crux of the issue and pretend that the other person was wrong.
masto 4y ago
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847818305941 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984781... “In sum, this systematic review found little to no support for the hypothesis bicycle helmet use is associated with engaging in risky behaviour.”
- darkerside 4y ago
  Maybe the problem set they are looking at, commercial riders on a schedule, is very different from the wide ranging meta study that you linked.
watwut 4y ago
I think that even bigger effect is that casual riders won't opt out cycling when helmets are mandatory. That is where helmets add least safety and comparably most unpracticality. When you are going to buy milk and some sausage in leisure pace or when you are going to work in speed guaranteed to not make you sweaty. Those are safest rides, they are good for your health and the ones that drop first.

Nextgrid 4y ago

This would make sense for situations where the main risk was the driver/operator of the machine, but when it comes to cycling on the road (especially in crazy Central London traffic) I would expect the risk to primarily come from cars.

mbrookes 4y ago
For which there is some evidence [1] that you are less likely to be involved in an accident doe to external causes when not wearing a helmet than when wearing one - in essence the same effect that helmet wearing has on the cyclist (taking greater risks) it also has on drivers passing cyclists. [1] https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1365/is-it-safer-to-wear-a-helmet-when-cycling https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1365/is-it-safer-to-wear-...

yellowapple 4y ago

> I believe there are some cases where safety protections make people act dumber And I don't believe that to be a justification for removing those safety protections entirely. This ain't some data science problem to be solved; this is ethics and morality, and there is precisely nothing ethical or moral about demanding that your employees make themselves less safe and then having the gall to pretend that this somehow makes them safer. > I don’t feel like shouting that you’d tell your employer to eat a bag of dicks really contributes much here. You're right: all employees telling their employers to eat an OSHA-sized bag of dicks if they try prohibiting basic safety equipment would contribute far more greatly to society than just one. But we gotta start somewhere.

whimsicalism 4y ago
You believe that if the evidence indicates more people would die with the helmets, it would still be morally verboten even though it would be a statistical certainty your omission of action is basically causing people's deaths when we are talking about large numbers of people? Crazy. I suspect you are actually reasoning from your thought that people are more likely to die without helmets and ignoring the premise of the question, or at least I hope that is what you are doing.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  if even 1 incident occurs which was unavoidable by an unhelmeted cyclist which harms them more than they would have been harmed wearing a helmet, then the policy is unconscionable claiming you're removing safety equipment to reduce risky behavior is the tail wagging the dog. there are other ways to reduce risky behavior which do not have such tragic consequences as side effects to them.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    > then the policy is unconscionable Let's say you do an A/B test on this policy and find 15 more people die with the helmet allowed policy, but in the other side, one person died who if they had chosen a helmet they likely wouldn't have. You're saying it is unconscionable to pick the policy where the 15 wouldn't have died? Do the other things to reduce risky behavior, certainly, but if this is an uncorrelated improvement I don't see why that wouldn't be worth taking. Note, I doubt that this is actually true, but I wanted to highlight your moral apriori claims as ridiculous.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      > Note, I doubt that this is actually true, but I wanted to highlight your moral apriori claims as ridiculous. You failed to do that: You didn’t address the agency problem where the 15 chose to engage in risky behavior while that 1 was coerced into dying — and ignoring the role of agency in the Trolley Problem is amateur hour. The helmets didn’t kill anyone, their following choices while wearing helmets did; which is in contrast to mandating no helmet, that is directly responsible for a death. What you did was make a ridiculous argument that ignored the crux of the issue and pretend that the other person was wrong.

masto 4y ago

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847818305941 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984781... “In sum, this systematic review found little to no support for the hypothesis bicycle helmet use is associated with engaging in risky behaviour.”

darkerside 4y ago
Maybe the problem set they are looking at, commercial riders on a schedule, is very different from the wide ranging meta study that you linked.

watwut 4y ago

I think that even bigger effect is that casual riders won't opt out cycling when helmets are mandatory. That is where helmets add least safety and comparably most unpracticality. When you are going to buy milk and some sausage in leisure pace or when you are going to work in speed guaranteed to not make you sweaty. Those are safest rides, they are good for your health and the ones that drop first.