The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

[dualstow]

Seattle’s King County says bike helmets are racist.

No, they didn't say that. They said:

"However, data presented to the Board of Health has shown racist and discriminatory enforcement."

(italics mine)

That’s right. I stand corrected and I’m sorry for the clickbait.

I agree with Pug that if enforcement is problem, enforcement is what they should correct. Because if they throw out bike helmet requirements altogether, it almost looks like they’re saying the helmet requirement is the problem. Or that the enforcement problem is insurmountable.

[dualstow]

And is it racist if more POC are ignoring the law, resulting in more tickets being issued to the group committing the infractions?

John McWhorter and Glenn Loury have applied this to crimes more serious than these tickets. Even with statistics on their side, and even though they are themselves black, it’s dangerous territory.

[dualstow]

Got curious and found this - https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/17/ ... s-are-bad/

we believe mandatory helmet laws have the potential to not only reduce the number of people biking, but to actually make bicycling less safe rather than more safe.
…
There is a safety in numbers effect to bicycling that not only reduces the rate of crashes and fatalities for people biking, but actually reduces the number of crashes, even as the number of bicycling trips increase.

Hmm.

[dualstow]

Are they saying that wearing a helmet is fine, but requiring a helmet turns off people who fear "helmet hair"? And so they find some other mode of transportation just to avoid the helmet hair? And that reduces the number of cyclists, which in turn supposedly makes things less safer for cyclists overall -- the effect you referenced. Egad.

[Xan]

Are they saying that wearing a helmet is fine, but requiring a helmet turns off people who fear "helmet hair"? And so they find some other mode of transportation just to avoid the helmet hair? And that reduces the number of cyclists, which in turn supposedly makes things less safer for cyclists overall -- the effect you referenced. Egad.

I just ran across this abstract, and have read a couple other related articles. It seems that when numbers of walkers or cyclists increase, car drivers adjust their behavior and crash into a smaller percentage of them. That does make sense: if your city is full of cyclists, drivers are going to be more accustomed to their presence and more likely to share the road with them.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling.

Smaller percentage is a very different thing from smaller absolute numbers, which it certainly seemed like the original assertion was saying.

[dualstow]

Author of 1619 Project:

europe

hjonescont.png (68.74 KiB) Viewed 8614 times

[jalanlong]

How about don't force people to do anything that doesn't harm others? WTF, adults can decide for themselves if they want to wear a helmet or not.

But if there are no helmet mandates then people will all go without helmets, overwhelm the hospitals and then people with real illnesses will not be able to get care because of all the selfish people taking up ER beds. Next thing you know we are all locked in our homes for "14 days."

[vnatale]

How about don't force people to do anything that doesn't harm others? WTF, adults can decide for themselves if they want to wear a helmet or not.

But if there are no helmet mandates then people will all go without helmets, overwhelm the hospitals and then people with real illnesses will not be able to get care because of all the selfish people taking up ER beds. Next thing you know we are all locked in our homes for "14 days."

I always wanted to wear seat belts but never could motivate myself to do so. Once it became the law I became 100%. Now when I get out of my car to go to my mail box across from my driveway that seat belt goes right back on to just drive across the street into my driveway.

Yes, I could have already done it on my own. But I had NEVER once prior done it. The law resulted in a super great habit for my life.

[murphy_p_t]

Do you wash your hands after you use the toilet? Should that be mandated in law?

[jalanlong]

How about don't force people to do anything that doesn't harm others? WTF, adults can decide for themselves if they want to wear a helmet or not.

But if there are no helmet mandates then people will all go without helmets, overwhelm the hospitals and then people with real illnesses will not be able to get care because of all the selfish people taking up ER beds. Next thing you know we are all locked in our homes for "14 days."

I always wanted to wear seat belts but never could motivate myself to do so. Once it became the law I became 100%. Now when I get out of my car to go to my mail box across from my driveway that seat belt goes right back on to just drive across the street into my driveway.

Yes, I could have already done it on my own. But I had NEVER once prior done it. The law resulted in a super great habit for my life.

Would you be in favor of a law that mandated that you had to eat a certain amount of vegetables, fruits, fiber etc. each day? Or a limit to how much sugar you could eat? How about mandatory exercise?

I envision we all live in a world like the old Prisoner tv series where people watch us 24/7 and a voice comes thru your house speaker each day instructing you that is is time to do your daily exercises and if you slack off they yell at you thru the speaker...then they tell you the car is here to take you to the mess hall to eat the food they have prepared.

Once you agree to the thought that government has a duty to keep you safe from your own choices then you have lost the true meaning of individual freedom and you have opened a Pandora's box that has no limits. See the residents of 2 blocks in Melbourne who were forbidden to leave their apartments for 14 days after 1 resident in an apartment building tested positive for Covid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/worl ... kdown.html

[I Shrugged]

In a recent video about the Canadian threat to revoke travel privileges, Nomad Capitalist made an observation that has eluded me up till now. Namely that people in the west do not want or value freedom. Once you understand that, a lot of things make more sense.

[murphy_p_t]

Want to be treated like a child.

Try your own conclusion about what that says about their mentality.

[I Shrugged]

Want to be treated like a child.

Try your own conclusion about what that says about their mentality.

Sure but apparently it’s human nature once life becomes easy.

[Maddy]

Well, as it so happens, we have a mechanism for giving those people exactly what they want. It's called guardianship, or in some states, conservatorship.

But how many of those people clamoring for the benefits and coddling of government would even think of subjecting themselves to such a thing? Not many.

What this tells me is that these people want the best of both worlds. They want the right to live as they choose, having the safety net of government there to bail them out of their decisions go bad, and sharing in the wealth that somebody else has produced. In other words, they want the rights of a free society without any of its responsibilities.

[jalanlong]

Well, as it so happens, we have a mechanism for giving those people exactly what they want. It's called guardianship, or in some states, conservatorship.

But how many of those people clamoring for the benefits and coddling of government would even think of subjecting themselves to such a thing? Not many.

What this tells me is that these people want the best of both worlds. They want the right to live as they choose, having the safety net of government there to bail them out of their decisions go bad, and sharing in the wealth that somebody else has produced. In other words, they want the rights of a free society without any of its responsibilities.

Not only that but one of the more disturbing realities of adult life is that I have been awakened to how many people get off on controlling other people's behavior. Inherent in the notion of freedom is not just that you can make your own choices in life, but that other people can make their own choices and you have to live with that fact regardless of your personal feelings. In essence you truly need to mind your own business. I am not sure if social media has caused it or if it has always been this way and social media has just shined a light on it but the majority of people just seem to not be ok with letting others live their lives as they see fit.

[vnatale]

Do you wash your hands after you use the toilet? Should that be mandated in law?

What are the consequences to not washing your hands versus the consequences of being in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt?

[vnatale]

How about don't force people to do anything that doesn't harm others? WTF, adults can decide for themselves if they want to wear a helmet or not.

But if there are no helmet mandates then people will all go without helmets, overwhelm the hospitals and then people with real illnesses will not be able to get care because of all the selfish people taking up ER beds. Next thing you know we are all locked in our homes for "14 days."

I always wanted to wear seat belts but never could motivate myself to do so. Once it became the law I became 100%. Now when I get out of my car to go to my mail box across from my driveway that seat belt goes right back on to just drive across the street into my driveway.

Yes, I could have already done it on my own. But I had NEVER once prior done it. The law resulted in a super great habit for my life.

Would you be in favor of a law that mandated that you had to eat a certain amount of vegetables, fruits, fiber etc. each day? Or a limit to how much sugar you could eat? How about mandatory exercise?

I envision we all live in a world like the old Prisoner tv series where people watch us 24/7 and a voice comes thru your house speaker each day instructing you that is is time to do your daily exercises and if you slack off they yell at you thru the speaker...then they tell you the car is here to take you to the mess hall to eat the food they have prepared.

Once you agree to the thought that government has a duty to keep you safe from your own choices then you have lost the true meaning of individual freedom and you have opened a Pandora's box that has no limits. See the residents of 2 blocks in Melbourne who were forbidden to leave their apartments for 14 days after 1 resident in an apartment building tested positive for Covid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/worl ... kdown.html

I can play the same game that so far two of you have played. Would you be in favor of anyone of any age being able drive a car with no age limits and no licensing requirements, including passing a driving test?

[Xan]

Do you wash your hands after you use the toilet? Should that be mandated in law?

What are the consequences to not washing your hands versus the consequences of being in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt?

I'd argue there's a stronger case for the hypothetical hand-washing law: you can make other people sick with your bad choice in that department.

[vnatale]

Do you wash your hands after you use the toilet? Should that be mandated in law?

What are the consequences to not washing your hands versus the consequences of being in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt?

I'd argue there's a stronger case for the hypothetical hand-washing law: you can make other people sick with your bad choice in that department.

Again how sick compared to how much injury could be suffered by not wearing a seat belt? What about the other occupants in your car who also choose to exercise their freedom to not wear a seat belt?

[vnatale]

How about don't force people to do anything that doesn't harm others? WTF, adults can decide for themselves if they want to wear a helmet or not.

But if there are no helmet mandates then people will all go without helmets, overwhelm the hospitals and then people with real illnesses will not be able to get care because of all the selfish people taking up ER beds. Next thing you know we are all locked in our homes for "14 days."

I always wanted to wear seat belts but never could motivate myself to do so. Once it became the law I became 100%. Now when I get out of my car to go to my mail box across from my driveway that seat belt goes right back on to just drive across the street into my driveway.

Yes, I could have already done it on my own. But I had NEVER once prior done it. The law resulted in a super great habit for my life.

Would you be in favor of a law that mandated that you had to eat a certain amount of vegetables, fruits, fiber etc. each day? Or a limit to how much sugar you could eat? How about mandatory exercise?

I envision we all live in a world like the old Prisoner tv series where people watch us 24/7 and a voice comes thru your house speaker each day instructing you that is is time to do your daily exercises and if you slack off they yell at you thru the speaker...then they tell you the car is here to take you to the mess hall to eat the food they have prepared.

Once you agree to the thought that government has a duty to keep you safe from your own choices then you have lost the true meaning of individual freedom and you have opened a Pandora's box that has no limits. See the residents of 2 blocks in Melbourne who were forbidden to leave their apartments for 14 days after 1 resident in an apartment building tested positive for Covid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/worl ... kdown.html

I can play the same game that so far two of you have played. Would you be in favor of anyone of any age being able drive a car with no age limits and no licensing requirements, including passing a driving test?

Your statement does not meet my qualification.

Your qualification includes allowing all others in your car - both unrelated adults and children in their car to make their own seat belt decisions? I know you specified adults but if it is an unrelated child in your car and you are exercising your freedom to not wear a seat belt how do you rationally explain to the child why the child has to wear one?

Getting back to the adults. You'd not feel a shred of guilt if you were the driver involved in an accident wherein the other adults in your car were severely injured when they would have suffered much less if they had been wearing a seat belt?

The fact that the seat belt laws were passed so relatively quickly across the entire company without any form of mass rebellion tells me that the majority of the country believes it to be a reasonable law. The same way we have reasonable laws regarding licensing and speed limits.

I resist any attempt for the "freedom" lovers to turn this into a freedom issue.

It's just a form of having a rigid ideology and trying to fit too many things into it at too many turns.

[Xan]

Your qualification includes allowing all others in your car - both unrelated adults and children in their car to make their own seat belt decisions? I know you specified adults but if it is an unrelated child in your car and you are exercising your freedom to not wear a seat belt how do you rationally explain to the child why the child has to wear one?

Getting back to the adults. You'd not feel a shred of guilt if you were the driver involved in an accident wherein the other adults in your car were severely injured when they would have suffered much less if they had been wearing a seat belt?

The fact that the seat belt laws were passed so relatively quickly across the entire company without any form of mass rebellion tells me that the majority of the country believes it to be a reasonable law. The same way we have reasonable laws regarding licensing and speed limits.

I resist any attempt for the "freedom" lovers to turn this into a freedom issue.

It's just a form of having a rigid ideology and trying to fit too many things into it at too many turns.

I'm confused how you can defend these laws so stridently while never voluntarily buckling your own seat belt. (Which, by the way, was really stupid.)

[vnatale]

Your qualification includes allowing all others in your car - both unrelated adults and children in their car to make their own seat belt decisions? I know you specified adults but if it is an unrelated child in your car and you are exercising your freedom to not wear a seat belt how do you rationally explain to the child why the child has to wear one?

Getting back to the adults. You'd not feel a shred of guilt if you were the driver involved in an accident wherein the other adults in your car were severely injured when they would have suffered much less if they had been wearing a seat belt?

The fact that the seat belt laws were passed so relatively quickly across the entire company without any form of mass rebellion tells me that the majority of the country believes it to be a reasonable law. The same way we have reasonable laws regarding licensing and speed limits.

I resist any attempt for the "freedom" lovers to turn this into a freedom issue.

It's just a form of having a rigid ideology and trying to fit too many things into it at too many turns.

I'm confused how you can defend these laws so stridently while never voluntarily buckling your own seat belt. (Which, by the way, was really stupid.)

Because the law is a good one.

I know I am a lot older than you. At the time the laws were enacted ...almost no one ever worn one. It was far from the norm. Therefore by your characterization just about all the occupants in this country were "really stupid".

https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance

When New Seat Belt Laws Drew Fire as a Violation of Personal Freedom

The 1980s battle over safety belt laws reflected widespread ambivalence over the role and value of government regulation.

When David Hollister introduced a seat belt bill in Michigan in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not buckling up, the state representative received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.


Finally is part of the philosophy of not requiring one to wear seat belts because it harms no one but yourself include .... having NO laws governing the sale to and the use by anyone over 18 for tobacco products, alcohol, and prescription drugs?

[Xan]

Your qualification includes allowing all others in your car - both unrelated adults and children in their car to make their own seat belt decisions? I know you specified adults but if it is an unrelated child in your car and you are exercising your freedom to not wear a seat belt how do you rationally explain to the child why the child has to wear one?

Getting back to the adults. You'd not feel a shred of guilt if you were the driver involved in an accident wherein the other adults in your car were severely injured when they would have suffered much less if they had been wearing a seat belt?

The fact that the seat belt laws were passed so relatively quickly across the entire company without any form of mass rebellion tells me that the majority of the country believes it to be a reasonable law. The same way we have reasonable laws regarding licensing and speed limits.

I resist any attempt for the "freedom" lovers to turn this into a freedom issue.

It's just a form of having a rigid ideology and trying to fit too many things into it at too many turns.

I'm confused how you can defend these laws so stridently while never voluntarily buckling your own seat belt. (Which, by the way, was really stupid.)

Because the law is a good one.

I know I am a lot older than you. At the time the laws were enacted ...almost no one ever worn one. It was far from the norm. Therefore by your characterization just about all the occupants in this country were "really stupid".

https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance

When New Seat Belt Laws Drew Fire as a Violation of Personal Freedom

The 1980s battle over safety belt laws reflected widespread ambivalence over the role and value of government regulation.

When David Hollister introduced a seat belt bill in Michigan in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not buckling up, the state representative received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.


Finally is part of the philosophy of not requiring one to wear seat belts because it harms no one but yourself include .... having NO laws governing the sale to and the use by anyone over 18 for tobacco products, alcohol, and prescription drugs?

My great-uncle back in the '60s rigged an airplane harness to his car's seat so that he could have a seatbelt.

But your point is well taken: there are probably things that I do that my grandchildren will think are really stupid.

[Mountaineer]

My great-uncle back in the '60s rigged an airplane harness to his car's seat so that he could have a seatbelt.

.

Ha. That brought back a memory. I put seat belts in a 1953 Buick and a 1966 VW Beetle. I totaled the Beetle and the seat belt probably saved my life. I did not need laws to convince me seat belts were a good idea. I had an uncle who was a fighter pilot in WWII that convinced me - with a story about how a student in his flight class forgot to fasten his seat belt. When the instructor inverted the open cockpit bi-plane, the student fell out of the plane and was killed.

.

[jalanlong]

[quote=vnatale post_id=238694 time=1646841726 user_id=3123

I resist any attempt for the "freedom" lovers to turn this into a freedom issue.

[/quote]

Actually seat belts are probably the worst issue you could possibly have hung your hat on in a freedom debate as they are one of the most egregious examples of a law that only exists to protect the individual from their own choice with little to no downstream effect.

As for your statement about people not protesting it, I fail to see what popular opinion has to do with whether a law is moral or constitutional. I’m sure you can go back in history and figure out horrible laws that would have passed public consensus at the time.

Yes, I am guilty of having a strict ideological view of Freedom. I do so because inherent in the entire concept is that it does not depend on giving politicians or other citizens the choices for my life. Saying someone has a strict ideology of freedom is like saying i have a narrow view of what a tree is. It is what it is, not what others agree it is.