3 ms·

This is a libertarian talking point. I strongly disagree but I doubt I can change your mind here (or vice versa). The reasons for requiring this for the "great

This is a libertarian talking point. I strongly disagree but I doubt I can change your mind here (or vice versa). The reasons for requiring this for the "greater good" are: * Younger people are easily influenced and without such a law wouldn't use a helmet, seatbelt, etc. * Costs of healthcare after a bad crash can be serious. Yes, my country like pretty much everyone outside the US, has single payer. We would foot the bill, regardless. * It's proven that regulation and legislation can help. Regulation for seat-belts, airbags, crash testing, etc. has saved many lives. IMO this is what government is about, saving people. Sometimes from their stupidity and ignorance.

marssaxman 4y ago
It's not a libertarian talking point; it is a summary of the research presented in the article that we are nominally discussing. It may be proven that regulation can help, in general, but it has also been proven that this specific type of regulation does more harm than good.
- invalidname 4y ago
  It shows correlation not causation and not "research". There's no such proof. The key sentence in the article is: " Financial struggle for popular bike sharing systems"... That's where the money is and that's who made up that nonsense. Lots of people die because of those terrible motorized bikes and scooters. They're trying to get cyclists to fight their regulatory requirements by making up fake science.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    Good eye. I bet you're right about the PR origins of this specific article, and I can see why that would make you skeptical. For me, however, this idea is old news. People have been investigating this issue for years and the results seem to be generally consistent. I have been reading reports about the link between helmet laws, reduced cycling rates, and reduced overall safety for at least five years now. I live in Seattle, where the surrounding county passed a mandatory helmet law back in 1993. After decades of experience, this law was seen to do more harm than good, and the Board of Health decided earlier this year to repeal it.
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    > That's where the money is and that's who made up that nonsense. Lots of people die because of those terrible motorized bikes and scooters. They're trying to get cyclists to fight their regulatory requirements by making up fake science. I think it's entirely plausible that the article was written by a PR company, and that is one possible reason (though not the only) they were paid to do it. I'll quibble with you on a few points though: Much research only find correlation. Just because it's not conclusive about causation doesn't mean it's not research. As much "those terrible motorized bikes and scooters" might have lead to people dying (I've heard the anecdotal horror stories, I've just not looked at the data, so I'm ignorant to the overall effect), there have been plenty of attempts (some successful) at non-motorized bike sharing systems. One could reasonably imagine that when those systems are successful, it is likely there's a net increase in cycling within the community, thereby increasing overall safety of cycling via the "safety In Numbers" effect cited in the article, not to mention a possible reduction in the amount of driving. It therefore follows that one could make an argument that improving the success rate of such systems helps improve bike riding safety (though I'd like to see THAT data). It might even be true (and again, I have not seen any data on this) that for all the terrible deaths from motorized bikes & scooters, that adoption of them still increases the safety for cyclists, because if the alternative is the same person being in a car/truck/SUV, then a cyclist being hit by a motorized bike or scooter, even if they get hit more often, might be far less dangerous. I think we shouldn't presume any particular PR motive for the article necessarily means it is not in line with the interests of cyclists. Ad hominems aren't don't really undermine the arguments presented in the article.
ddeck 4y ago
All of those arguments would also support mandating the use of helmets for all passengers in a car. So why not do that too?
- invalidname 4y ago
  No they won't. You can argue they would do that for walking around everywhere but there's a cost/benefit ratio that's recommended by experts and backed by statistics. You can take anything to an extreme and I agree that some regulation does.
- maxsilver 4y ago
  > would also support mandating the use of helmets for all passengers in a car. We do also do that too. Every car is built with a fancy headrests and seatbelts and airbags -- the entire car is literally a helmet, and we require this on every new vehicle sold for decades. (And we require the seatbelt be worn too, legally enforceable by law in most areas) We even check every single car sold to make sure the Helmet-worthiness of it is safe for the general public (see https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2019/CHEVROLET/VOLT/5%252520HB/FWD#safety-ratings-frontal https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2019/CHEVROLET/VOLT/5%252520HB... as an example of a vehicle results) When an occupant of the car is small enough such that the built-in helmet-worthiness of the car might be rendered insufficient, we also require they get extra helmet-like protections wrapped around their head/neck/body - see https://www.dmv.com/car-seats https://www.dmv.com/car-seats for specifics -- and even these are also legally enforceable by law in most areas
  - ddeck 4y ago
    I understand the point being made and certainly there are very many safety devices mandated for cars, but the fact remains, that the vast majority of cars do not have airbags for rear seat passengers for example, and given the volume of auto accidents, it would be hard to imagine that mandating helmet usage would not significantly reduce injuries and fatalities. Of course all of this is simply to say, that there is a line, where the marginal safety gain is outweighed by the cost, both economic and otherwise. Different people and organizations are going to have differing opinions on where this line should be, but arguing purely on the side of harm reduction misses a great deal. This is aside from personal responsibility, liberty, etc.
cbsmith 4y ago
> Younger people are easily influenced and without such a law wouldn't use a helmet, seatbelt, etc. I did feel this aspect of the effect of regulation was not well addressed in the article at least. I think there's an implication that the effect of regulation has been to reduce cycling, and therefore the effect on youth has been more to discourage cycling altogether than to encourage cycling with helmets, but I don't think that's well established. IIRC, the positive effects of seat belt laws are generally much more pronounced after a generation or two. > It's proven that regulation and legislation can help. Regulation for seat-belts, airbags, crash testing, etc. has saved many lives. IMO this is what government is about, saving people. Sometimes from their stupidity and ignorance. There's also plenty of evidence of cases where regulation and legislation has harmed, or had no effect. Arguments that regulation & legislation intrinsically help or harm are, at best, specious. Regulation & legislation are tools that obviously can be helpful; the debate should always be about whether a particular regulatory/legislative approach is helpful.
musk_micropenis 4y ago
[dead]

marssaxman 4y ago

It's not a libertarian talking point; it is a summary of the research presented in the article that we are nominally discussing. It may be proven that regulation can help, in general, but it has also been proven that this specific type of regulation does more harm than good.

invalidname 4y ago
It shows correlation not causation and not "research". There's no such proof. The key sentence in the article is: " Financial struggle for popular bike sharing systems"... That's where the money is and that's who made up that nonsense. Lots of people die because of those terrible motorized bikes and scooters. They're trying to get cyclists to fight their regulatory requirements by making up fake science.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  Good eye. I bet you're right about the PR origins of this specific article, and I can see why that would make you skeptical. For me, however, this idea is old news. People have been investigating this issue for years and the results seem to be generally consistent. I have been reading reports about the link between helmet laws, reduced cycling rates, and reduced overall safety for at least five years now. I live in Seattle, where the surrounding county passed a mandatory helmet law back in 1993. After decades of experience, this law was seen to do more harm than good, and the Board of Health decided earlier this year to repeal it.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  > That's where the money is and that's who made up that nonsense. Lots of people die because of those terrible motorized bikes and scooters. They're trying to get cyclists to fight their regulatory requirements by making up fake science. I think it's entirely plausible that the article was written by a PR company, and that is one possible reason (though not the only) they were paid to do it. I'll quibble with you on a few points though: Much research only find correlation. Just because it's not conclusive about causation doesn't mean it's not research. As much "those terrible motorized bikes and scooters" might have lead to people dying (I've heard the anecdotal horror stories, I've just not looked at the data, so I'm ignorant to the overall effect), there have been plenty of attempts (some successful) at non-motorized bike sharing systems. One could reasonably imagine that when those systems are successful, it is likely there's a net increase in cycling within the community, thereby increasing overall safety of cycling via the "safety In Numbers" effect cited in the article, not to mention a possible reduction in the amount of driving. It therefore follows that one could make an argument that improving the success rate of such systems helps improve bike riding safety (though I'd like to see THAT data). It might even be true (and again, I have not seen any data on this) that for all the terrible deaths from motorized bikes & scooters, that adoption of them still increases the safety for cyclists, because if the alternative is the same person being in a car/truck/SUV, then a cyclist being hit by a motorized bike or scooter, even if they get hit more often, might be far less dangerous. I think we shouldn't presume any particular PR motive for the article necessarily means it is not in line with the interests of cyclists. Ad hominems aren't don't really undermine the arguments presented in the article.

ddeck 4y ago

All of those arguments would also support mandating the use of helmets for all passengers in a car. So why not do that too?

invalidname 4y ago
No they won't. You can argue they would do that for walking around everywhere but there's a cost/benefit ratio that's recommended by experts and backed by statistics. You can take anything to an extreme and I agree that some regulation does.
maxsilver 4y ago
> would also support mandating the use of helmets for all passengers in a car. We do also do that too. Every car is built with a fancy headrests and seatbelts and airbags -- the entire car is literally a helmet, and we require this on every new vehicle sold for decades. (And we require the seatbelt be worn too, legally enforceable by law in most areas) We even check every single car sold to make sure the Helmet-worthiness of it is safe for the general public (see https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2019/CHEVROLET/VOLT/5%252520HB/FWD#safety-ratings-frontal https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2019/CHEVROLET/VOLT/5%252520HB... as an example of a vehicle results) When an occupant of the car is small enough such that the built-in helmet-worthiness of the car might be rendered insufficient, we also require they get extra helmet-like protections wrapped around their head/neck/body - see https://www.dmv.com/car-seats https://www.dmv.com/car-seats for specifics -- and even these are also legally enforceable by law in most areas
- ddeck 4y ago
  I understand the point being made and certainly there are very many safety devices mandated for cars, but the fact remains, that the vast majority of cars do not have airbags for rear seat passengers for example, and given the volume of auto accidents, it would be hard to imagine that mandating helmet usage would not significantly reduce injuries and fatalities. Of course all of this is simply to say, that there is a line, where the marginal safety gain is outweighed by the cost, both economic and otherwise. Different people and organizations are going to have differing opinions on where this line should be, but arguing purely on the side of harm reduction misses a great deal. This is aside from personal responsibility, liberty, etc.

cbsmith 4y ago

> Younger people are easily influenced and without such a law wouldn't use a helmet, seatbelt, etc. I did feel this aspect of the effect of regulation was not well addressed in the article at least. I think there's an implication that the effect of regulation has been to reduce cycling, and therefore the effect on youth has been more to discourage cycling altogether than to encourage cycling with helmets, but I don't think that's well established. IIRC, the positive effects of seat belt laws are generally much more pronounced after a generation or two. > It's proven that regulation and legislation can help. Regulation for seat-belts, airbags, crash testing, etc. has saved many lives. IMO this is what government is about, saving people. Sometimes from their stupidity and ignorance. There's also plenty of evidence of cases where regulation and legislation has harmed, or had no effect. Arguments that regulation & legislation intrinsically help or harm are, at best, specious. Regulation & legislation are tools that obviously can be helpful; the debate should always be about whether a particular regulatory/legislative approach is helpful.

musk_micropenis 4y ago

[dead]