Safe Speed Forums

At the risk of becoming increasing esoteric and philosophical, I'd say that Rigger's overriding argument was about 'net harm' to society from injured persons. That is what seemed to me to lead to a biker-ban. Benefit doesn't come into it, when there's a net rise in expensive injuries.

But for clarity, I more-or-less support the seat belt laws and would apply no changes, while I would fight tooth and nail against a biker-ban.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Where would the line be drawn? Should we never leave our bungalows and spend everyday tending to our veggies grown from our own composted poop?
Some people need something in their lives to remind them they are alive, motorbiking is one of life's pleasures (not for me), so I can appreciate how that additional risk is worth it for many.
To give a little perspective (just a little): there are nearly twice as many suicides than road deaths here in the UK, even with all these risky bikers.


Agreed. I would also welcome a review of the usefulness of seatbelts, even if only to help those unconvinced understand why they should belt up.

Not quite. My argument is that all things considered the seatbelt law makes sense because there is a net benefit to society. And one of those things BTW is the need to override the principles of anyone who thinks they should be given the choice over whether to wear one or not.

All things considered there is a net benefit from the consumption of alcohol, even though it is a lead factor in turning some of our town centres into scenes from a war zone.

All things considered there is a net benefit from motorcycles even though a good number of motorcyclists lose their lives to the machines each year.

As I said, anyone can argue by comparison. A robust case should stand on its own two feet; the argument against seatbelts doesn't.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Well, that's not what you said in the bit I responded to.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Is there?

But then you have not read John Adams 'Risk' yet, have you?

That is only valid when the individual consider only themselves.
When I'm driving, cycling or walking I consider all other road users. Driving a car with intertial dampers and warp engines (a la Star Trek) will not tempt me to drive around town at warp type speeds.

Why Paul? Your statement about banning bikes made some sense to me. I didn't like it and wouldn't want to ban them but I was struggling to fault the logic!

It's something I've heard about many times in the past. The first time I remember it being mentioned to me, someone called it "risk homeostasis" - which I thought was a good term!

There are plenty of studies on the 'net suggesting that ABS makes people take more risks but there are also studies that show the opposite IF it is combined with knowledge of how the system works and its limitations. Back in 2000, our own DfT commissioned a study by TRL (I only have the abstract) in which 80,000 owners of "P" registered cars were sent questionnaires and 21,000 responded (so a reasonable sample size)!

The results showed that driving an ABS car was associated with:

16% fewer accidents amongst men up to 55 years old
18% fewer accidents amongst women
10% MORE accidents amongst older men.

There were also statements like:

"amongst men up to 55 years old, drivers ignorant of ABS reported the same number of accidents as drivers of non-ABS vehicles i.e. knowledge reduced accidents".

Now what I DON'T know is how they compensated for confounding factors - for instance, in the mid 1990s, it might have been fair to assume that the higher performance cars were most likely to have ABS and be driven by men - faster. It would also be fair to assume that those who knew about ABS probably also knew more about driving in general and how cars work and took more interest in what (and how) they drove -therefore having fewer accidents.

I haven't quoted all this to try and prove that ABS makes things better - merely to agree with you about how complex this sort of study is and how carefully the data needs to be sifted to weed out the confounding factors!

Paul, what do you drive? Is it all cars that you find the belts restrictive and uncomfortable in or just certain cars? A well-designed modern 3-point belt installation should be almost imperceptible to all but the oddest wearers. Certainly I barely notice mine when I'm wearing it!

that would indeed be terribly irresponsible.... to engage warp drive so close to a planet could cause a serious temporal distortion in the fabric of space and time

(but so long as you don't break the speed limit it's probably ok)

always use the impulse engines when in built up areas.

No, but I qualified it in between by stating that each case has to be taken on its own merits and cannot simply be held up against another issue that, on the face of it, appears to be similar didn't I?

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Correct I haven't, but I am aware of the concepts it postulates e.g. if car manufacturers stuck a spike rather than an airbag in the centre of the steering wheel then people would probably drive a damned sight more carefully than they do now.
As such books like this give another dimension to a debate, but the considerations or points it makes are often outweighed by other factors....all things considered

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

When I got my first car fitted with ABS, on the same day I picked it up I tested the brakes just to see if it works and how well. My girl friends car also has ABS but she has never used it or tested it. Her driving has remained the same; slow and careful. It wouldn't matter if to her is she had ABS, warp drive or a passenger eject seat, she just wants to get from A to B in a reliable car in a safe manner. My point is not everyone 'ups' their driving because the vehicle they're in is better. She has no desire to push the limits, however, this may be more of a female trait.

I think some are being a little hard on Paul_1966. Putting the issue of belts being a valuable safety measure aside, in principal we should all be very concerned with our right to be wrong or to put it better - to do something which may not be in our own best interest.

If I want to hang from a tree 100ft up in the air just to get a thrill that should be my right. It felt like that a month back going up Snowdon but I'm allowed to do it, (so far).

I don't stand to hurt anyone else and, like has already been said, part of feeling alive sometimes is to take a risk, a risk which should be my inalienable right! Not all of us want to spend our lives in front of the TV eating popcorn.

The argument that we should all conform because if you don't you are a financial burden to me is fallacious simply because we don't legislate against all the things which are bad for us, we just choose certain ones. You are getting into very dodgy ground indeed if you start to argue that all things which are a potential hazard or pecunary drain on society should be restricted therefore 'we' will tell you how to behave.

It's beginning to sound a bit like the Python sketch about my right, as a male, to have a womb

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

My logic says that banning motorbikes is a route to madness. It would significantly impinge on the individual's right to choose. We'd go on to ban mountain climing, hill walking and rugby (to name but a few).

We fought two world wars in the name of 'freedom'. That essential societal freedom includes the right of the individual to undertake risky pursuits in a responsible way.

Taking risks is important to humans. Without risk-takers nothing of any importance would be achieved, because all important achievements have involved significant risk.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Ah, no. I support the taking of risk if it provides some sort of benefit, even if only an emotional one (a thrill as you say), even if I have to subsidise the subsequent consequences.
What I object to is needless risk which achieves absolutely nothing, except to exercise one’s freedom, when I have to subsidise the subsequent consequences.

So is the activity worth the risk? Comparing the pros of climbing trees against not belting up:

Climbing trees:
- physical exercise
- increased eye-body co-ordination
- tuning of knowledge of one’s own limits
- increased understanding of structures
- sense of accomplishment
- better/unique view of an area
- an adrenalin rush or thrill (excitement)
- social bonding (with peers)
- ... it's simply great fun

Not belting up:
- potential distraction (so far unsubstantiated)

So why are we are given the choice to wear a helmet on a cycle?

Why are we given the freedom to drink as much as we want?

Why are we given the freedom to smoke our heads off?

Why am I allowed to swim in lake Windermere even though I'm a useless swimmer?

Why are we not given the choice not to wear a seatbelt? Why do they see fit to interfere in that one but not the others?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Addendum...

"Why do they see fit to interfere in that one but not the others?"

Because they can!

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

So why are we are given the choice to wear a helmet on a cycle?
We were very close to having this one forced upon us.
This example is a good parallel, except that helmets genuinely can be uncomfortable (the sweat ) and make you look silly (actually it's probably a valid point because some may be deterred from cycling due to it – cycling is an obvious health benefit).
Also, you have to take it with you when you leave the bike in a public place otherwise it’ll get nicked.

Why are we given the freedom to drink as much as we want?
Why are we given the freedom to smoke our heads off?
These were ingrained into society before their effects were properly researched. Besides, the users of these drugs substantially make up for their burden with the enormous tax/duty they pay which is (indirectly) used for their care.

Why am I allowed to swim in lake Windermere even though I'm a useless swimmer?
Who is to know you are a useless swimmer? How would that be policed? Besides, useless swimmers generally don’t take large risks by swimming in such lakes, unless they are trying to become better swimmers - a benefit for many reasons.

Because nobody in their right mind sits down with all these parallel arguments and tries to align one against the other. It is fallaceous thinking to try and 'justify by comparison' particularly if that forms the main basis for an argument in its own right.
Each has to be taken on its own merits, Smeggy has done an excellent job in pointing out at great length and with some patience, the rationale behind support for the seatbelt law and the irrationale behind the comparisons.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.