Government can make choices for everyone for a net beneficial effect.
Some people that would otherwise have made bad choices for themselves may be prevented from bad consequences.
However, this using-force-for-the-greater-good principle can affect the people who actively choose to make good choices for themselves forcing them to accept something less good than they had the right to expect.
Risk compensation, compensating for an increased perception of safety with increased risk taking, is a scientific accepted fact of human behavior. Seat belted drivers drive faster.
As a cyclist I would like nothing more than for car drivers around me to not necessarily be wearing a seat belt. It terrifies me that they forcefully have their money taken from them for not wearing a seat belt.
In effect there is a transfer of safety away from those seeking safety to people less concerned with safety in the name of a net beneficial effect.
Should I be allowed to pursue the maximum safety possible for myself without government reducing my safety by forcing someone, free to take their own risks, to modify their behaviour?
As a cyclist I am of minimal threat to anyone. Although there are cases of pedestrians being killed by cyclists these are truly exceptional unlike the effect of cars on cyclists. It's easy to explain why; if you're on a bike and you crash into a pedestrian, you're in trouble too.
Cycling is a form of transport we should be promoting as it has an impressive compromise between speed, cost, health benefits, and environmental effect.
My post questions using force to gain a net beneficial effect but in the instance of seat belt legislation it is actually questionable whether there is even a net beneficial effect at all as is explained in this study of seat belt law.
4 comments:
That study only throws up more questions than answers. If by some miracle the seat belt law is repealed if should only be in regards to the driver wearing a seat belt. All passengers should still be obliged to wear a belt. I would hate to see children dying in crashes because the driver hasn't bothered to check they are belted in. Or a passenger in the front being crushed to death by the person not wearing a belt behind them.
I would like to know if the law was repealed then how many people would actually decide against wearing a seat belt? I know I would still belt up. Surely for the stats to really work and see drivers drive more carefully you would have to make it illegal to wear a belt. Its second nature putting a belt on, I would be surprised if anyone has to consciously think about belting up every time they sit in a car.
The report doesn't just look at the innocent deaths, meaning the cyclist was at no fault. I was in London last week and saw two cyclist run red lights and in one occasion a car had to break heavily. I had to break heavily yesterday because some women was crossing the road while speaking to her mate on the other side and didn't bother to look both ways. I would take little comfort from the statistics, statistics can show anything you want them show, these things should be looked at with common sense in mind.
"That study only throws up more questions than answers"
It certainly doesn't support government/ROSPA/car manufacturer thinking.
"All passengers should still be obliged to wear a belt. I would hate to see children dying in crashes because the driver hasn't bothered to check they are belted in."
Children, yes but I can still imagine an adult passenger unjustly being penalised.
"I would like to know if the law was repealed then how many people would actually decide against wearing a seat belt?"
Well there are plenty of people getting fined for not wearing a seat belt. A person in the company I work for was fined recently. I'm sure it's happened to someone else I know of too in recent history.
The Police (South Wales force did it recently) spend a fair amount of our taxes promoting seat belt use too.
"I know I would still belt up."
That's the great thing about freedom.
"Surely for the stats to really work and see drivers drive more carefully you would have to make it illegal to wear a belt. Its second nature putting a belt on, I would be surprised if anyone has to consciously think about belting up every time they sit in a car."
People are still getting fined so it's not 2nd nature to everyone.
"The report doesn't just look at the innocent deaths, meaning the cyclist was at no fault. I was in London last week and saw two cyclist run red lights and in one occasion a car had to break heavily. I had to break heavily yesterday because some women was crossing the road while speaking to her mate on the other side and didn't bother to look both ways."
There are some crazy risk takers out there (and people use them as an excuse to abuse other cyclists) but when a pedestrian or cyclist takes a risk there is less chance of carnage other than to themselves. No man is an island - I do admit.
The key thing which you have ignored is exactly my point that the risk takers are unfairly affecting the people who act cautiously.
"statistics can show anything you want them show"
I really take issue with this claim I hear a lot. You can show anything with bad methodolgies, yes. Otherwise the field of statistics should just be made obsolete due to it's zero value.
"You can show anything with bad methodolgies, yes."
If this is your view why include a report that only tells half of the story?
It forgot to take into account -
that there are over 30 Million cars registered on the road.
In 1974 just over 50% of households in the U.K had cars that is now over 75%.
With a 15% rise in households with more than one car.
Average Brit travels over 7000 miles a year that's up 25% since 1985.
Figures show that between 1974 and 1998 period there was a 96% increase in traffic.
So since the seat belt law was introduced the amount of road users has increased dramatically. Why doesn't the report take this into account or even acknowledge this?
It is no big shock that pedestrians and cycles fatalities have gone up, but I think this is due to the huge increase of vehicles on the road. Have the fatalities gone up with the same ratio? I'm not sure and I can't be bothered to work it out, but I would guess no.
All I'm trying to say is I don't think the seat belt law had anything like the effect that report is claiming.
"Cycling is a form of transport we should be promoting" You will be please to hear I watched a report on BBC breakfast news this morning about Bristol County Council doing just that.
"If this is your view"
It is. I think the field of statistics can give a lot of value though it does have its limitations. If you don't believe in stats then why do you quote stats back to me?
"Average Brit travels over 7000 miles a year that's up 25% since 1985."
This is outside the date range of stats presented comparing before and after legislation changes.
"So since the seat belt law was introduced the amount of road users has increased dramatically. Why doesn't the report take this into account or even acknowledge this?"
Considering this change would have been gradual (I don't think there was a sudden jump in traffic around the key dates in Adams' work). The data correlates with legislation changes and rationale but not with anything to do with a gradual traffic increase over decades.
Traffic volume IS mentioned in Adams wider work. The PDF is simply an article.
"All I'm trying to say is I don't think the seat belt law had anything like the effect that report is claiming."
It's possible you could be right but we're light years away from ROSPA-stats territory here and it still ignores the effect on cyclists/pedestrians that do take care and are of little risk to anyone.
"You will be please to hear I watched a report on BBC breakfast news this morning about Bristol County Council doing just that."
I mean with respect to the exposed risk and country wide on every road.
Post a Comment