3 ms·

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 polic

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.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    They were not coerced into dying. I prefer fewer people dying personally, your mileage might vary. All I can say is I am glad that the actual people making decisions seem to also prefer fewer people dying over non-coercion.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      >They were not coerced into dying Despite this bare denial, I believe "coerced into dying" to be an accurate description of someone coerced into not wearing a helmet dying of head injuries from an unavoidable accident sorry, that's not a coercion I'm willing to make. First, do no harm. Come back when you've tried safer ways to reduce risky behavior.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  I pretty clearly articulated exactly what was unconscionable: > 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 if you can think of a scenario in which what I described as unconscionable happens, then I would find that scenario unconscionable. > 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. whereas I DO see why such a helmet ban would be a risk not worth taking, it is at the top of this post.

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.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  They were not coerced into dying. I prefer fewer people dying personally, your mileage might vary. All I can say is I am glad that the actual people making decisions seem to also prefer fewer people dying over non-coercion.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    >They were not coerced into dying Despite this bare denial, I believe "coerced into dying" to be an accurate description of someone coerced into not wearing a helmet dying of head injuries from an unavoidable accident sorry, that's not a coercion I'm willing to make. First, do no harm. Come back when you've tried safer ways to reduce risky behavior.
ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
I pretty clearly articulated exactly what was unconscionable: > 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 if you can think of a scenario in which what I described as unconscionable happens, then I would find that scenario unconscionable. > 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. whereas I DO see why such a helmet ban would be a risk not worth taking, it is at the top of this post.