Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it

[mattheus]

Anyone fancy a pint?

[Jdsk]

If the objective is to predict what the effects would be in a given jurisdiction (eg the UK) at a given time (eg 2024) then it would be necessary to assess all of the available evidence and then take into account the differences between the conditions in the studies and in those conditions.

That paper from Clarke about Australia is totally defective for this purpose: it doesn't have anything resembling a competent Methods section describing which data sets were selected and why. it has no statistical hypothesis testing, and it doesn't discuss possible confounders or biasses. The last of these is unforgivable in any study of real world effects, and even more so when the study design is so weak.

These deficiencies remain no matter how many times it's cited.

It's an important subject and it deserves better. (As previously I recommend the author to sit down with some people who are familiar with evidence-based methodology: some of the collected data might be usable in a systematic study.)

Jonathan

[Nearholmer]

So most of the following text was a waste of time:

Maybe, but I hope not.

The title of this thread includes the words “…. and reasons to oppose it”, and personally two things that I don’t think make good reasons to oppose it are:

- simple cries of “liberty”; and,

- papers that make greater claims than the facts that they present support.

There are better planks to stand on than either of those, and relying on either of those courts ridicule from a well briefed ‘compulsionist’, are my contentions.

[mattheus]

If the objective is to predict what the effects would be in a given jurisdiction (eg the UK) at a given time (eg 2024)
<snip>
It's an important subject and it deserves better.

Why don't you try a simple analysis? Tell me what problem compulsion is trying to solve. After all, that is a fixed upper bound on the possible effectiveness.

Meanwhile, have a look at the non-Clark studies into compulsion - tell me what's wrong with those.

Then explain to me the benefits of analysing a "public health" measure which so clearly seems pretty doomed!

[cycle tramp]

So most of the following text was a waste of time:

Maybe, but I hope not.

The title of this thread includes the words “…. and reasons to oppose it”, and personally two things that I don’t think make good reasons to oppose it are:

- simple cries of “liberty”; and,

There are better planks to stand on than either of those.

You have made that clear in your previous posts. However that is your view. There's nothing wrong in arguing to continue to enjoy a right or freedom that you held yesterday in order to continue to enjoy it tomorrow...

...in regards to the compulsory helmet law, we know from experience that the Sikh community will successfully argue for an exemption. If its okay for members of the Sikh community to ride without a helmet, then why isn't it right for me also not to wear a helmet? (If at this point someone provides evidence that a turban will protect a brain from any damage from a collision at 30 mph, not only will I buy you a coke, I will infact start to wear one when i'm cycling)

Here's the flip side of freedom of choice. I've been teetotal now for some ten, twelve years... I don't think alcohol is very good for you I'm pretty sure that in even clouds clarity of thought. Am I campaigning to ban the sell of alcohol... ? No because on the provision you're not driving, operating heavy machinery or flying - what you put into your body is not my concern at all, in any way..

..Here's another one. I'm not a fan of organised religion. In fact we'd probably have less wars if we banned religion altogether. A massive world wide ban. Tear down every church, every place of worship, remove all the religious texts. All gone All gone for good. However I'm not going to argue for it. Its not my concern if you worship or not... and yes you have the freedom to try and save my soul or whatever...

...the very fact we have a group of people who make decisions on our behalf and who may not be affected by them or may have interests other than the public good should concerning to everyone...

On the plus side, it's almost Nov 5 th - Guy Fawkes the only honest man to walk into parliament....

[Nearholmer]

I’m not campaigning for cycle helmet compulsion, I’m not even in favour of it, I think it’s a bad idea; this sub-debate is about whether individual liberty trumps collective benefits bought through sacrifices of individual liberty.

I don’t think it does, because the only way to achieve civil society is to swap some liberty for the benefits it brings.

If you, or anyone else can describe a way to achieve civil society without the individual members sacrificing some liberty to do as they please in order to achieve it, I’m all ears.

[Mike Sales]

I’m not campaigning for cycle helmet compulsion, I’m not even in favour of it, I think it’s a bad idea; this sub-debate is about whether individual liberty trumps collective benefits bought through sacrifices of individual liberty.

I don’t think it does, because the only way to achieve civil society is to swap some liberty for the benefits it brings.

If you, or anyone else can describe a way to achieve civil society without the individual members sacrificing some liberty to do as they please in order to achieve it, I’m all ears.

Fair enough, but we do need to think about where the danger we are trying to avert comes from, and the most effective way of removing it.

[Nearholmer]

Maybe best to take the general individual liberty vs collective benefit debate to its own thread.

[Steady rider]

Probably not.
A

the general individual liberty

could entail considering how the individual is affected, the pros and cons for them and their beliefs and values
B

collective benefit

would consider the overall effects on society, if positive or negative, and how to evaluate any outcome and what level of individual risk is allowed compared with other risks in general living.

I think cycle helmet laws provide a negative outcome in both elements, Part A by over riding the individual circumstances and in part B a negative outcome for society.

[Nearholmer]

and their beliefs and values

As I pointed out before, individual beliefs and values aren’t valid weights in the balance. Mill gave no get out clause around them.

Why? Because people use beliefs as excuses to harm others, and because people can and will concoct beliefs on the spur of the moment to suit themselves.

[cycle tramp]

and their beliefs and values

As I pointed out before, individual beliefs and values aren’t valid weights in the balance. Mill gave no get out clause around them.

Why? Because people use beliefs as excuses to harm others, and because people can and will concoct beliefs on the spur of the moment to suit themselves.

Whether or not Mill gave no get out clause around them, they have been shown to exist, the very fact that Sikhs are not legally compelled to wear helmets whilst riding motorcycles is evidence that individual values (a) exist (b) are respected in law.
In regards to the latter that 'people will concoct beliefs on the spur of the moment to suit themselves' - again this is not so when arguing for freedom to not to wear a helmet while cycling - there is more than ample evidence that people in the past enjoyed cycling without wearing a helmet as evidenced by photographs of that time. To wish to continue to enjoy this freedom is not a concocted belief, by rather a continued maintenance and protection of our rights.

[cycle tramp]

Maybe best to take the general individual liberty vs collective benefit debate to its own thread.

No, because the maintenance of our freedom is a reason to oppose the helmet bill. The fact that you fail to validate this reason due to your own beliefs is not our problem. Certainly I am not the only person to believe this argument, and it was certainly believed by Enoch Powell. There has to be a limit to which the state, or government should interfere with the life of its citizens- without this limit our society will slide towards that of China or Russia. Where we draw the line in the sand is down to us, either as individuals or collectively.

[Nearholmer]

Where we draw the line in the sand is down to us, either as individuals or collectively.

I agree that a line has to be drawn, and it’s crystal clear that different societies and cultures draw it in different places, but it can only be down to us collectively where it should be drawn.

If it’s possible for each person to draw the line where they individually decide, then society breaks down, and all the benefits it delivers evaporate.

I also “get” that cycle helmet compulsion would be an inappropriate trespass on liberty by pretty much any measure, because it seems to deliver net societal harm in terms of health and well-being …….. interesting question as to whether that’s a cultural effect though, whether the “puts people off cycling” business applies equally in all cultures, or whether it becomes more of a thing the more stress the society puts on individual liberty.

As a footnote, the reason I get so exercised about all this is that I regard specious appeals of “liberty”, together with the elevation of whatever irrational beliefs people dream up from moment to moment, as being really serious threats to the benefits we enjoy as a result of living in a civil society at the moment. Civil society keeps us all free from a lot of really hefty unpleasantry, and watching it erode at the edges and begin to fracture under the pressures of rampant individualism and irrational beliefs is a very scary prospect.

[cycle tramp]

Still one of my favourite quotes;

"Some people think that evil can only be held back by a great power. But that is not what I found. I found it is the everyday acts of ordinary folks that keep the darkness at bay. Simple acts of love and kindness"

We can't legislate for a better, stronger society or a more robust way of living free from the worst of market forces. But we can foster it. We can encourage people to better, kinder, more thoughtful. We can encourage creativity, hope and a purpose beyond our own satisfactions and needs. And we also need to start trusting more..
..if you trust me to make my own decisions about my safety, not only in regards to cycling, but also driving and hazardous chemical use.... then I trust you to make equally important decisions about your safety, too.

[Nearholmer]

I wouldn’t argue with most of that, and my view is that very good education, teaching children and adults how to think, rather than what to think, is about the only thing that could ever truly save us from ourselves, but I’m afraid I don’t think that anything like everyone can be trusted right now ….. too many “base impulses” about the place.