Compulsary bike helmets?

[EternalOptimist]

It's all about statistical control of populations isn't it ?

Seatbelts will infringe your freedom and cost you money, but we know statistically that they will save 20 lives per year. Not neccessarily YOUR life, but A life.

And it worked. Same with drink driving and motorbike helmets. You can see in the figures when certain measures were introduced.

Of course if the aim were to prevent deaths of cyclists, then bikes would be banned. No one would ever be injured riding a bike again. People would save money but it's a massive intrusion on freedom.

Thats the balance that I can see. a triangle . freedom vs cost vs benefit


you could reduce burglary in this country to near zero by introducing a 9 oclock curfew with a shoot on sight policy. impact on freedom - massive, cost - not much, benefit - middling

etc

[Ticktock]

Should a child wear a helmet when cycling in the park? Should they be banned from playing Rugby incase they break bones? What about kids climbing trees? Rope swings over water? ALL SHOULD BE BANNED.... someone might die!

I'm not arguing over whether they should. You said "You can't force someone" and I'm saying you can.

[d000hg]

Should a child wear a helmet when cycling in the park? Should they be banned from playing Rugby incase they break bones? What about kids climbing trees? Rope swings over water? ALL SHOULD BE BANNED.... someone might die!

Presumably drink-driving should be allowed too, after all not every drunk driver crashes.

This is a crap troll.

[SueEllen]

It's all about statistical control of populations isn't it ?

Seatbelts will infringe your freedom and cost you money, but we know statistically that they will save 20 lives per year. Not neccessarily YOUR life, but A life.

And it worked. Same with drink driving and motorbike helmets. You can see in the figures when certain measures were introduced.

Of course if the aim were to prevent deaths of cyclists, then bikes would be banned. No one would ever be injured riding a bike again. People would save money but it's a massive intrusion on freedom.

Thats the balance that I can see. a triangle . freedom vs cost vs benefit

The cyclists would then die of health related diseases so your theory is wrong there.

Remember the lycra and helmet brigade do it for sport.

you could reduce burglary in this country to near zero by introducing a 9 oclock curfew with a shoot on sight policy. impact on freedom - massive, cost - not much, benefit - middling

etc

Plenty of burglaries happen during the working day so again your theory fails.

[AtW]

Plenty of burglaries happen during the working day so again your theory fails.

You think burglars would rob during working hours instead if they run real risk of being shot dead during night time?

[SueEllen]

You think burglars would rob during working hours instead if they run real risk of being shot dead during night time?

Burglars aren't the brighest bunch which I learnt from personal experience.

[EternalOptimist]

Plenty of burglaries happen during the working day so again your theory fails.

Thats like saying you dont need to turn the lights on when you drive at night because the lights dont need to know what they are coming from


I am sorry. but I have been drinking.