Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it

[cycle tramp]

'Are you old and living with a great deal of pain. Waiting for an operation which will probably never happen? Why not call the government's Fast Track team.
This was Mrs May Westford. She was living in alot of pain, and her operation was 4 years away... luckily she called the government's Fast Track Team. They arranged her funeral and her death and even gave her a nice prestigious grave so her family could visit her at any time. And in doing so Mrs Westford's sacrifice saved government taxes, saved nhs waiting times and helped the housing crisis, plus she's no longer living in pain. It's a win win' situation. Remember your government loves you. Trust your government to make all the right decisions, it's what we're here for....

..yeah I know, sledgehammer.. nut..

[Nearholmer]

so how far do we go down this road for 'the benefit of society?'

Thankfully, we live in a place where decisions about the balance between individual interests and collective interests are made through a half-decent form of democracy, so the answer to your question is: as far as we between us all decide.

[maximus meridius]

This "individual freedom" angle is nonsense.

There are umpteen things we do as a society, either through social means, or directly through the law, to stop people hurting or killing themselves. I'm baffled as to the idea that an un-helmeted cyclist dying is "just his business" (notwithstanding that the effectiveness of helmets is far from proven of course). As though friends, family and loved ones don't exist. I think it might be called "looking after each other".

We don't generally let people considering suicide "just get on with it". As a whole we attempt to discourage it. And there are laws to try to stop it. Limits to drug availability. Mental Health sectioning.

Industrial machinery has guards around, and laws about safety at work. What would "personal liberty" look like? "Yes, I know it's a dodgy machine, but you can either take the job or not. It's up to you, your choice, that's your personal freedom"

Funfair rides are inspected.

And so on.

The case for mandatory helmets as a health and safety initiative has not been proven. So I am opposed to it. If the case was proven, with certainty, I would accept the law, and not feel my "personal liberty" had been impinged to any appreciable attempt.

(The most ludicrous example of somebody refusing to accept a safety law due to the loss of "personal liberty" was a colleague of mine who thought the seatbelt laws were a draconian imposition. So used to drive with one draped over his shoulder, but not plugged in. I thought that in the event of a crash he was at least liable to have his shoulder dislocated, or worse. Still, he used to drink and drive, so not altogether a rational approach to road safety, his own or anybody else's)

I wear a helmet when cycling. Except when I forget.

[cycle tramp]

This "individual freedom" angle is nonsense.

There are umpteen things we do as a society, either through social means, or directly through the law, to stop people hurting or killing themselves. I'm baffled as to the idea that an un-helmeted cyclist dying is "just his business"

Whilst you may see it as that, I don't. Currently being able to 'ride a public on a public road dressed in a manner I feel is suitable' is a right that everyone has. It may not be one of the key fundamental rights but it is never the less a right.

I don't particularly care if you don't understand this, nor the idea of personal freedom in principle or its value. That is your business.

Certainly I enjoy and cherish this freedom. And I mean to continue to do so.
The idea that i will suddenly fall from my bike with the expectation that my head will just simply explode on impact if I don't wear a helmet, and thereby cause the western economy to collapse due to the amount of tax which would have to be paid to clear up the mess is naive and foolish.

I suspect that the reason I acknowledge and enjoy my freedoms is because I have already died. Having been made well again, those things I enjoy have been brought into sharp focus - at this point i really rather wish that you could see the world as I do - because then you would recognise that no matter what safety precautions were adopted, death will catch up with you... and at that point it's not about the quantity of life, but the quality. And the quality is based around those freedoms which can be enjoyed to their fullest.

[Nearholmer]

Something to consider in this “freedom” sub-discussion when citing examples of mandatory safety precautions: the vast majority of mandatory safety measures apply where one party has a duty of care to another and the party with the duty of care is obliged to do particular things to discharge that duty.

Examples of precautions being mandated where a person has a duty of care very largely to themselves and nobody else are pretty rare, which I think is why seatbelts and motorcycle helmets are repeatedly cited, so it’s clear that society takes a different view of “self protection” from “protection of others”. In general society seems to be of the view that if people want to expose themselves to hazards in their private lives (at work the law doesn’t allow that), then that’s their own business.

The point where society starts to take an interest in pure “self protection” seems to come when: it’s clear that naive people, youngsters particularly, are “wasting their lives” by failing to take simple precautions; and/or, the costs imposed on families and broader society by the decisions of individuals really start to rack-up.

There are plenty of examples within organised sports where the governing bodies appear at first sight to mandate “self protection” during events organised by them, an easily overlooked instance being that the FA mandates shin protection in all organised matches, right from the youngest children, but in those cases the governing body has (or perceives that it has) a duty of care, so they constitute “protection of others”. Cycling clubs mandating helmets on club rides falls into this bracket.

But, as I say, instances of mandated “self protection” seem to be rare; a high bar has to be crossed before they are introduced.

[Vorpal]

The duty of care argument is an important one.

I would like to point out that while an employer can mandate personal protective equipment, such as goggles or hardhats, HSE have specifically excluded cycle helmets from PPE at work regulations.

If an employer requires employees to wear cycle helmets, they have to include it in uniform requirements, or make it a contractual obligation.

[Stevek76]

so how far do we go down this road for 'the benefit of society?'

Thankfully, we live in a place where decisions about the balance between individual interests and collective interests are made through a half-decent form of democracy, so the answer to your question is: as far as we between us all decide.

And part of being in a democracy (though the UK is very overrated on the representation element part in my view, there is huge disparity in functional voting power by area & demographic thanks to FPTP) is discussions amongst its citizens on the matter of where the limit of government reach should be. Democracy is not just electing a few hundred people and then forgetting about it for 5 years.

But, as I say, instances of mandated “self protection” seem to be rare; a high bar has to be crossed before they are introduced.

That bar seems rather inconsistent though both for cases of harm to others (like how car use is as unrestricted given the harm potential vs controls are hugely out of whack with everything else in almost every country) and harm to self (demonstrated by the constant focus this issue generates) given ideological/philosophical/'feels' based arguments clearly aren't out of bounds for proponents then it's reasonably that those opposed to such restrictions will use them as well.

[Stevek76]

And so on.

Your examples all cover duty of care/harm to others situations.

The case for mandatory helmets as a health and safety initiative has not been proven.

Only because we allow the freedom to choose a travel mode and to not exercise. If we rank the interests of 'health and safety' above 'individual freedom' under any circumstances then we're surely back to legislating for mandatory controlled safe exercise for all? That could certainly be demonstrated fairly easily to be a net health gain. Most people, including you I suspect, put such intervention well beyond acceptable infringements of personal liberty/individual freedom.

It seems very unlikely you don't draw that line somewhere, you just put it in a different place than I do. And most people don't put it in a very evidenced place either and will always have a tendency to be judgemental about it, considering impacts on their own freedoms to be more important than impacts on things other people do. That's a major contributor to the fact that motor vehicles are allowed to get away with extensive destruction and harm that they do, a big portion of the population enjoy the freedom they provide and are willing to overlook the harm they generate as a result.

[Nearholmer]

Where the line should be drawn between individual and societal interests is one of those things that will always be up for debate, discussion, argument, and change, one of those things that each person will have a slightly different opinion about, one of those things that alters as circumstances alter (see wars and pandemics as examples), and one of those things that can differ quite markedly between different societies.

There is no absolutely “right” answer.

[Steady rider]

https://study.com/learn/lesson/on-liber ... 0protected.

Mill's main point in "On Liberty" is that individual freedoms must be protected from political, economic, and social tyranny. He believed that the complete autonomy of an individual, so long as their thoughts or actions do not harm others, must be protected.

For adults this seems a reasonable balance between the states power in laws v individual rights.
For cycle helmets, this issue also involves evidence showing they may not provide an overall safety benefit and evidence showing they can cause harm via legislation with reduced cycling/health benefits. A cycle helmet law is a harmful law.

[Mike Sales]

If we look abroad to see how other countries have dealt with cycling casualties we see a pattern.
Those countries which have gone for helmet mandation remain of the order of twice as dangerous per mile cycled as GB. They also have a lot less cycling per head. Those which have provided safe facilities are much safer per mile cycled, and have many more miles cycled by more cyclists.
Helmets do not work: good facilities do.
Helmets are a diversion from what needs to be done, and an excuse for inaction.

[Nearholmer]

For adults this seems a reasonable balance between the states power in laws v individual rights.

Very reasonable, since it sets a limit in respect of causing harm to others, which of course failing to follow a safety precaution of proven effectiveness and causing no, or only trivial, collateral negative outcomes might, by leading to avoidable injury or fatality to the individual, hence causing literal grief to others and unnecessary diversion of resources from other pressing matters.

(Remember that we all know that in the particular case of cycle helmets there do seem to be significant collateral negative outcomes from compulsion, so this sub-debate isn’t about whether or not wearing them should be made compulsory. It’s about whether a cry of “liberty” on its own clinches the argument against. I still don’t think it does; my view remains that it’s whether or not compulsion delivers a net social benefit that decides the matter)

[Steady rider]

I think liberty alone does qualify as reasonable grounds because cycling represents a form of freedom, in that no outside power, eg motors are required, it allows people to travel over large distances and enjoy their surroundings without using outside power. Removing the liberty of personal choice can impact on their personal experience and enjoyment. They can believe it is there right to cycle without a helmet, especially if they have cycled for many years without one. This liberty is part of their cycling background and tradition or belief..

[Nearholmer]

I get that being able to cycle without a hat is a freedom, and that compelling people to wear a hat when cycling would remove a little of their freedom, which is why I would only countenance doing that if it would deliver net societal benefit (which, for the avoidance of confusion, we all know studies suggest is the reverse of what it would actually do).

Traditions and beliefs, however, don’t come into it.

Mill’s test on the limits of liberty is very simply about harm to others, it doesn’t have a ‘get out clause’ around beliefs or traditions, for a very good reason: people have a nasty habit of dreaming up beliefs that self-justify harming others, and are quite capable of making traditions out of harming others.

[Mike Sales]

I get that being able to cycle without a hat is a freedom, and that compelling people to wear a hat when cycling would remove a little of their freedom, which is why I would only countenance doing that if it would deliver net societal benefit (which, for the avoidance of confusion, we all know studies suggest is the reverse of what it would actually do).

Traditions and beliefs, however, don’t come into it.

Mill’s test on the limits of liberty is very simply about harm to others, it doesn’t have a ‘get out clause’ around beliefs or traditions, for a very good reason: people have a nasty habit of dreaming up beliefs that self-justify harming others, and are quite capable of making traditions out of harming others.

We need to look at all the other ways in which people damage their brains, and even other ways in which they damage other bits, and think about why there is no movement to force drivers, drinkers, old people etc.etc. to wear a helmet. Why is this? Why are cyclists the only subjects of such a moral panic? Why is it unthinkable that drivers and their passengers could be made to wear a helmet. True that they have other obligatory 'safety measures', but these are plainly not enough. Motorists, and pedestrians too, are often found in neurology wards.