Compulsory lid legislation?

[Profpointy]

A expert in the automotive field once told me of a radical idea that he knew would improve road safety.
Instead of an airbag, his plan was to fit a six inch metal spike in the centre of steering wheel of every car pointing straight at the driver. He guaranteed that this would make most drivers moderate their driving and quickly root out anyone who decided to drive recklessly...

Sadly he is yet to find a vehicle manufacturer willing to take up this revolutionary idea for some reason

Although it's presumably a tongue in cheek though experiment it would likely save lives, especially pedestrian lives. It is a horrible injustice that those outside the car have to suffer the risk without any benefit whilst those inside are protected and get the benefit

 

[Profpointy]

I agree that any legislation has to come from evidence. If evidence does come to light that helmet wearing improves safety then I will wear mine all the time. If legislation is introduced which makes it compulsory then I will continue to ride and accept the rule.

Wearing hi viz vests on building sites aren't a problem of personal liberty, are they?

It would be good if legislation was based on evidence, but I remain cynical. So many of the pro-helmet organisations use dubious evidence and out and out lies. If you hadn't done any reading up on it you'd naturally assume helmets had a safety benefit, as did I before I looked into it a bit more. A lot of safety regulation is more about vested interest than actual safety in any case. Not all, granted, for the avoidance of doubt I am not proposing a return to pre-victorian health and safety regs

 

[NickNick]

It would be good if legislation was based on evidence, but I remain cynical. So many of the pro-helmet organisations use dubious evidence and out and out lies. If you hadn't done any reading up on it you'd naturally assume helmets had a safety benefit, as did I before I looked into it a bit more. A lot of safety regulation is more about vested interest than actual safety in any case. Not all, granted, for the avoidance of doubt I am not proposing a return to pre-victorian health and safety regs

There's a big difference between health & safety laws in the work place and those impacting people going about their day to day life imo.

There is a disproportionate level of power as things stand between the employer and the worker, so there's good reason to have strong legislation that errs on the side of caution even if its not backed up by sound evidence, as there can be such a gap in time in being able to scientifically prove some of these risks. Your employer has the ability to withdraw you pay check and by default the roof over your head and more, that can force you take all sorts of risks that you are not comfortable with, legislation gives you a stronger chance of not having to take those risks. It therefore imo increases your personal freedom.

I know some might argue "what about your freedom to take risks at work", but imo the number of people likely to be harmed by being forced to take risks they do not want to take will vastly outnumber those wanting to take those risks voluntarily.

Outside of the work context however is a very different matter, legislation directly impinges your personal freedom and should only be supported if it protects others from your actions (e.g. speed limits on cars, drink driving, rules around cycling in shared spaces with pedestrians...)

 

[Profpointy]

There's a big difference between health & safety laws in the work place and those impacting people going about their day to day life imo.

There is a disproportionate level of power as things stand between the employer and the worker, so there's good reason to have strong legislation that errs on the side of caution even if its not backed up by sound evidence, as there can be such a gap in time in being able to scientifically prove some of these risks. Your employer has the ability to withdraw you pay check and by default the roof over your head and more, that can force you take all sorts of risks that you are not comfortable with, legislation gives you a stronger chance of not having to take those risks. It therefore imo increases your personal freedom.

I know some might argue "what about your freedom to take risks at work", but imo the number of people likely to be harmed by being forced to take risks they do not want to take will vastly outnumber those wanting to take those risks voluntarily.

Outside of the work context however is a very different matter, legislation directly impinges your personal freedom and should only be supported if it protects others from your actions (e.g. speed limits on cars, drink driving, rules around cycling in shared spaces with pedestrians...)

I agree with every word of that

 

[Profpointy]

So you think that measures to protect people being injured or killed at work and home is "lefty nanny state health and safety gone mad"? Really?

Not quite sure why or what you are arguing. You seem to be making the same point as me whilst attacking me for making the opposite point

 

[Julia9054]

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/article/20171126-Chris-Boardman-0
The Sunday Times commissioned this article - and then did not print it.

 

[Hitchington]

Not quite sure why or what you are arguing. You seem to be making the same point as me whilst attacking me for making the opposite point

Not attacking, but I was questioning why you think the Tories are custodians of freedom but lefties want to spoil everyone's fun with rules and a nanny state.

 

[Moderators]

Mod note:

Please do not derail the thread into a party politics debate. Politics Debated is the place to go. Thank you.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/article/20171126-Chris-Boardman-0
The Sunday Times commissioned this article - and then did not print it.

Great piece shame it was not printed

 

[mjr]

It would be good if legislation was based on evidence, but I remain cynical. So many of the pro-helmet organisations use dubious evidence and out and out lies. If you hadn't done any reading up on it you'd naturally assume helmets had a safety benefit, as did I before I looked into it a bit more.

Most people would assume that the Highway Code was based on evidence, but this H&H shoot is already in there. Freedom of choice needs vocal support in the consultation because the forcing zealots will definitely be sowing their misinterpreted research into it.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

See https://www.freestylecyclists.org/modal-share/

What happened when compulsory helmets were introduced in Australia

 

[SteveF]

Some campaigning by someone who was run over: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng.../girl-says-cycle-helmets-should-be-compulsory

 

[mjr]

Some campaigning by someone who was run over: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-eng.../girl-says-cycle-helmets-should-be-compulsory

I don't want to jump through the hoops to play media off the BBC right now. Is it as bland as the headline, or are any of the usual suspects (Headway and co) pushing it into the news?

 

[SteveF]

I don't want to jump through the hoops to play media off the BBC right now. Is it as bland as the headline, or are any of the usual suspects (Headway and co) pushing it into the news?

12 year old girl, riding on the pavement, went over the handle bars and into the road where a car went over her and trapped her.

The girl is making the appeal, the video is quite slick and designed to tug at the heart strings, it will definitely appeal to some people.

 

[mjr]

12 year old girl, riding on the pavement, went over the handle bars and into the road where a car went over her and trapped her.

So what's the relevance of a helmet? Did the car trap her head? And does no-one mention that helmet manufacturers warn they don't protect against cars?