Turn on thread page Beta

B1332 - Cycle helmet act (repeal) bill 2018 watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    Have you ever met someone who has and acquired/traumatic brain injury and the life changing results that can occur? Wearing a helmet decreases the severity and likelihood of this happening.

    Nay.
    Have you ever considered the knock on effects of this? The negative impact on public health is even bigger
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CatusStarbright)
    That’s pretty much the sentiment in my second paragraph.
    Not really, otherwise you would be in the Aye column rather than the uncertain column
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Because it was a) IIRC a Labour / Labour government bill and b) imposes sensible safety precautions when cycling.
    And what about the negative health impact on the public?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Have you ever considered the knock on effects of this? The negative impact on public health is even bigger
    You could alleviate that 'negative impact' by encouraging cycling and emphasising its health benefits. Also, I'm not sure it's entirely reasonable to use Australia as an example considering the different approaches to matters we might have in comparison to them, i.e. we have a national Cycling scheme and the aforementioned country doesn't appear to. Public health messages could be different too. There's also your own sources indicating that helmets might not be a barrier to cycling (and therefore not a negative impact on public health) but rather a lack of infrustucture, "... ...biggest barrier to riding a bike is the lack of bike infrastructure, not helmets... ..."
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    You could alleviate that 'negative impact' by encouraging cycling and emphasising its health benefits. Also, I'm not sure it's entirely reasonable to use Australia as an example considering the different approaches to matters we might have in comparison to them, i.e. we have a national Cycling scheme and the aforementioned country doesn't appear to. Public health messages could be different too. There's also your own sources indicating that helmets might not be a barrier to cycling (and therefore not a negative impact on public health) but rather a lack of infrustucture, "... ...biggest barrier to riding a bike is the lack of bike infrastructure, not helmets... ..."
    ^
    Also Joe, I don't know how you can say an increased risk of death or serious injury in a population isn't a health risk. Its absurd.

    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Have you ever considered the knock on effects of this? The negative impact on public health is even bigger
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Not really, otherwise you would be in the Aye column rather than the uncertain column
    I'm "uncertain" since I also have an argument for voting against the repeal.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    You could alleviate that 'negative impact' by encouraging cycling and emphasising its health benefits. Also, I'm not sure it's entirely reasonable to use Australia as an example considering the different approaches to matters we might have in comparison to them, i.e. we have a national Cycling scheme and the aforementioned country doesn't appear to. Public health messages could be different too. There's also your own sources indicating that helmets might not be a barrier to cycling (and therefore not a negative impact on public health) but rather a lack of infrustucture, "... ...biggest barrier to riding a bike is the lack of bike infrastructure, not helmets... ..."
    It’s not just Australia, I also included cycling uk who say exactly the same thing.

    The quote you use doesn’t actually say that helmets aren’t a barrier to cycling.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Mr Speaker

    I do not believe the state should force cyclist to wear helmets it's the individual choice. Aye
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    It’s not just Australia, I also included cycling uk who say exactly the same thing.
    Cycling UK also use Australia as an example, "...consistently caused substantial reductions in cycle use (e.g. 30-40% in Perth, Western Australia)."

    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The quote you use doesn’t actually say that helmets aren’t a barrier to cycling.
    It literally does.

    How can I trust you if your sources are not conclusive?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    aye
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Those who say the state should not impinge of an individual's right to choose not to wear a helmet would do well to remember that it is the state, the public, that is carrying the financial risk of that individual requiring costly medical interventions and lifelong care. Unless you wish to introduce compulsory insurance for those that do not wear helmets, of course..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Cycling UK also use Australia as an example, "...consistently caused substantial reductions in cycle use (e.g. 30-40% in Perth, Western Australia)."



    It literally does.

    How can I trust you if your sources are not conclusive?
    The quote you provided does not say that helmet laws are not a barrier, it does say they may not be the biggest but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a barrier
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CatusStarbright)
    I'm "uncertain" since I also have an argument for voting against the repeal.
    And the argument against repeal is the same argument against drug legalisation, or expanding drug prohibition to cover alcohol and tobacco and generally the argument to micromanage our lives.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The quote you provided does not say that helmet laws are not a barrier, it does say they may not be the biggest but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a barrier
    Ultimately, the same group recommend helmets and support the status quo. That leads me to believe that whatever barrier it poses, it is small. Again, why should I trust you if your sources are not conclusive?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conceited)
    Ultimately, the same group recommend helmets and support the status quo. That leads me to believe that whatever barrier it poses, it is small. Again, why should I trust you if your sources are not conclusive?
    I would say the doctors comments are pretty conclusive and cycling uk are pretty clear.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    I would say the doctors comments are pretty conclusive and cycling uk are pretty clear.
    So are the differing comments.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Voting in favour of this puts a dogmatic conception of liberty above the actual health of the public. Nay. Paternalism is a moral obligation for the state.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Aye- but I don't like the idea of cycling being encouraged either, roads aren't for them, they're an inconvenience.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Voting in favour of this puts a dogmatic conception of liberty above the actual health of the public. Nay. Paternalism is a moral obligation for the state.
    Actually voting against this is putting nanny state ideology in front of the health of the public, the negative health effects of the original bill outweigh any positives.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Actually voting against this is putting nanny state ideology in front of the health of the public, the negative health effects of the original bill outweigh any positives.
    This has already been shown to be rubbish over the course of this thread. I don't see why you don't start making the coherent argument in favour of this rather than clinging desperately to a much weaker one.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 8, 2018
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.