Imagine a helmet strapped on a human skull— forever (2 Viewers)

[Graney]

Straw-man, That goes to a parents duty of care for their children. Unrelated to seatbelts.

mmm, yeah I was just wondering if you acknowledged the duty of care, which should be legislated, or had an alternate theory on how things could fly.

It was less of straw man and more of a question.

 

[loquasagacious]

mmm, yeah I was just wondering if you acknowledged the duty of care, which should be legislated, or had an alternate theory on how things could fly.

It was less of straw man and more of a question.

Yes I accept duty of care arguments, I'm cautious about the need to legislate though, could it be covered by contract/tort law?

 

[sinophile]

imagine a helmut strapped on a human skull- forever.

 

[brunx]

Why does the law have a right to stop us harming ourselves?



I would have enormous reservations about removing the seat-belts from my car or about driving a car without seatbelts.

However I have no reservations about removing any legal requirement (ADRs) which require seat-belts. I think that even if it wasn't a legal requirement that manufacturers will still make and people will still buy cars with seatbelts.

And even if they didn't then why should I care?

Are you seriously asking this??
isnt it obvious to you that its beneficial to society that people not to be injured or killed in situations that could be easily prevented/minimised through the use of a helmet?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Regrettably I have to take the side of the GOVERNMENT here.

While they should have no right to force people to wear helmets on PRIVATE roads, on public roads it is perfectly legitimately (once you overlook the illegitimacy of public ownership itself, which is unlikely to be resolved in the near future).

The government is merely emulating what 99% of private road and sidewalk owners would do anyway since the overwhelming majority of people want to wear helmets, and since road companies would want to reduce injuries on their property as much as possible. Even with no liability clauses ect, having people die on your roads is terrible press, and not worth it to appeal to a few fools who don't want to wear helmets.

 

[sinophile]

I know one thing that is for certain. If you force people to wear a fucking stupid helmet every time they want to ride a bike, expect people not to ride it.

 

[loquasagacious]

Are you seriously asking this??
isnt it obvious to you that its beneficial to society that people not to be injured or killed in situations that could be easily prevented/minimised through the use of a helmet?

How is it beneficial to society?

Why shouldn't the individual have the right to chose whether or not to undertake a risky activity? Should legislation prohibit all risky activities? Should legislation require that safety procedures be followed? Should the govt ban unprotected sex?

Regrettably I have to take the side of the GOVERNMENT here.

While they should have no right to force people to wear helmets on PRIVATE roads, on public roads it is perfectly legitimately (once you overlook the illegitimacy of public ownership itself, which is unlikely to be resolved in the near future).

The government is merely emulating what 99% of private road and sidewalk owners would do anyway since the overwhelming majority of people want to wear helmets, and since road companies would want to reduce injuries on their property as much as possible. Even with no liability clauses ect, having people die on your roads is terrible press, and not worth it to appeal to a few fools who don't want to wear helmets.

I must admit that I am shocked. So much so that I suspect you are playing devils advocate.

I also can play devils advocate:

The central problem with the European example is that even if helmet laws were repealed in Australia there is no reason to believe that more people would ride bikes and therefore no safety gain. A helmet is a very low barrier to entry whereas the distances which australian commuter cyclists would need to travel are quite a high barrier to entry.

A $50 helmet and some inconvenience is not a deciding factor for a 50km bike ride.

 

[philphie]

How is it beneficial to society?

Why shouldn't the individual have the right to chose whether or not to undertake a risky activity? Should legislation prohibit all risky activities? Should legislation require that safety procedures be followed? Should the govt ban unprotected sex?



I must admit that I am shocked. So much so that I suspect you are playing devils advocate.

I also can play devils advocate:

The central problem with the European example is that even if helmet laws were repealed in Australia there is no reason to believe that more people would ride bikes and therefore no safety gain. A helmet is a very low barrier to entry whereas the distances which australian commuter cyclists would need to travel are quite a high barrier to entry.

A $50 helmet and some inconvenience is not a deciding factor for a 50km bike ride.

so are you saying you prefer a society with absolutely no legislation on safety? including those manufacturers that have to comply with, whatever products they make?

 

[loquasagacious]

so are you saying you prefer a society with absolutely no legislation on society? including those manufacturers that have to comply with, whatever products they make?

I would prefer a society involving (comparatively) very few laws and regulations.

Your post is not particularly clear so I will answer both possible interpretations:

1. Do I think that manufacturers should be required to produce products which have safety features (seatbelts)? Or similarly are made from safe materials (asbestos)?

No I do not. If people want the features then manufacturers will make them, there is no need to legislate to bring this about.

2. Do I think that if a manufacturer produces a product (of their own free will) that has a safety feature of some sort (seatbelts) that aforementioned safety feature should comply with some standards?

Yes I do. But this is not particularly an area for legislation. Any product should do what it says on the box. Contract law covers this and on top of which we have the Trade Practices Act, probably could be streamlined but not high on my list of government interventions to roll back.

If you care for some examples of this in practice then look no further than your computer. No government legislates the hundreds of technical standards which it complies with and yet it works. When you buy a usb cable it works because manufacturers agreed on a standard, not because government created one.

 

[brunx]

How is it beneficial to society?

Why shouldn't the individual have the right to chose whether or not to undertake a risky activity? Should legislation prohibit all risky activities? Should legislation require that safety procedures be followed? Should the govt ban unprotected sex?



I must admit that I am shocked. So much so that I suspect you are playing devils advocate.

I also can play devils advocate:

The central problem with the European example is that even if helmet laws were repealed in Australia there is no reason to believe that more people would ride bikes and therefore no safety gain. A helmet is a very low barrier to entry whereas the distances which australian commuter cyclists would need to travel are quite a high barrier to entry.

A $50 helmet and some inconvenience is not a deciding factor for a 50km bike ride.

its beneficial to society because people who are injured or dead are not productive.
secondly, there is legislation regulating pretty much all risky activities: ie drinking, smoking, driving, cycling.

now quit sounding like a libertine

 

[philphie]

you seem to forget however about the group of people who aren't aware what makes a product safe and what makes it unsafe, in consideration to certain specifications that aren't known amongst the general consumer

 

[loquasagacious]

its beneficial to society because people who are injured or dead are not productive.
secondly, there is legislation regulating pretty much all risky activities: ie drinking, smoking, driving, cycling.

now quit sounding like a libertine

By far the greatest impact of injury or death is on the individual which it befalls though. They are the ones who are dead or injured. They are the ones who lose income. In comparison the impact of society could be said to be quite low.

you seem to forget however about the group of people who aren't aware what makes a product safe and what makes it unsafe, in consideration to certain specifications that aren't known amongst the general consumer

How many people know the technical specifications for USB? How about SATA, VGA or HDMI? How is this different?

 

[philphie]

granted you have me there.





discuss further later.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

How is it beneficial to society?

Why shouldn't the individual have the right to chose whether or not to undertake a risky activity? Should legislation prohibit all risky activities? Should legislation require that safety procedures be followed? Should the govt ban unprotected sex?



I must admit that I am shocked. So much so that I suspect you are playing devils advocate.

I also can play devils advocate:

The central problem with the European example is that even if helmet laws were repealed in Australia there is no reason to believe that more people would ride bikes and therefore no safety gain. A helmet is a very low barrier to entry whereas the distances which australian commuter cyclists would need to travel are quite a high barrier to entry.

A $50 helmet and some inconvenience is not a deciding factor for a 50km bike ride.

I'm not playing devils advocate. Obviously I do think roads (along with everything) should be privatized, but given that they are not, the helmet laws make sense.

However, if people want to ride bikes without a helmet on their own property, then obviously I don't think the government should interfere.

It's consistent with my position on gun laws and drugs. People should have the right to own rocket launchers and cocaine on their property for all I care. But if public property must exist, then the community can ban those things in public spaces.

A key tenant of libertarianism is that all potential property should be privately owned wherever possible. Obviously public property is a terrible idea, but if it exists it is better to regulate it through the democratic process than to allow everyone carte blanche to do whatever they want on public property. Having unrestricted use of public property only makes it more "public."

You are right about the European example. The main reason bikes are popular in Europe is because high population density makes it viable. For most Australians it is simply not a practical form of transport.

 

[brunx]

By far the greatest impact of injury or death is on the individual which it befalls though. They are the ones who are dead or injured. They are the ones who lose income. In comparison the impact of society could be said to be quite low.



How many people know the technical specifications for USB? How about SATA, VGA or HDMI? How is this different?

ok so lets create a system in which everyone is vulnerable to risky behaviours (either their own or from others). civil liberties do not reign surpreme ya know.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

its beneficial to society because people who are injured or dead are not productive.

This is a disturbing view. People are not slaves owned by the government or by "society." They have no duty to be productive.

 

[brunx]

This is a disturbing view. People are not slaves owned by the government or by "society." They have no duty to be productive.

ok i accept ur view. my wording may have been poor. but my point was that its better for ppl to be healthy and alive rather than be injured or dead...for many reasons.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

ok i accept ur view. my wording may have been poor. but my point was that its better for ppl to be healthy and alive rather than be injured or dead...for many reasons.

Sure. But life is fraught with risks. If we always took the course of action that minimizes risk of injury or death would never do any of the things that make life worth living.

Where to draw the line, and to balance the trade off between risk and pleasure is a choice that every individual should be free to make for themselves.

 

[SylviaB]

its beneficial to society because people who are injured or dead are not productive.

So? There's no legislation forcing people to be productive while they're alive.
heck, there's legislation that enables them to be unproductive.

 

[megaman]

This actually turned out to be quite an interesting topic. First we must establish the ground rules....If there are too many laws then it restricts the freedom of the populace, however if there are too few then something akin to anarchy could occur. The trick is to find the right balance, and personally I think our society in general has become to safety prone, many people growing up now are often mothered/protected from situations that they need to experience to help them deal with future issues. For example isnt it now illegal to smack a child with a rolled up magazine?

Such laws are pointless because it begs the point someone who is genuinely punishing there child might take notice of the law and thus the child wont necessarily have pain as a punishment and one must admit pain is effective. But the other point it people who actually abuse their children will continue to do so. I feel its the same with bike helmets the law is pointless, those who want to feel safer wear the helmets and the ones who dont well Im sure we all know Darwins law.

Also I must raise another point that nearly all vehicles have to get a green slip in case of an accident so the medical bills are covered, but if a bicycle rider causes the accident where does the money come from? They didnt have a green slip.