6 ms·

> Why is it okay for you to set the acceptable risk bar and steal boards from anyone that doesn't agree? For the same reason we enforce seatbelts in cars: Enou

> Why is it okay for you to set the acceptable risk bar and steal boards from anyone that doesn't agree? For the same reason we enforce seatbelts in cars: Enough people died. Then those who saw them die decided on these rules so we don't need to go through the same pain. The fact that you don't get this shows that the rules work.

blfr 4y ago
OK but longboarding is not essential like general transportation. Why ban helmet-less longboarding instead of the whole thing?
- celticninja 4y ago
  Cars aren't essential by that measure.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    I think most people in the world -- even outside car-heavy US -- would disagree with that, even if they are not drivers or car owners themselves.
  - thayne 4y ago
    That really depends on where you live. In many parts of the US, public transit is non-existent, and there isn't much within walking distance.
- aspenmayer 4y ago
  You ruin the roadway for responsible users by maligning the good name and reputation of your fellow riders when you do so. I mean to say, riders overwhelmingly want to be safe and it seems to be both self-selecting and self-reinforcing. Outlaw riders are free to ride alone.
aeternum 4y ago
The seatbelt thing is somewhat illogical. Like if that's the level of risk we deem acceptable for society then things like wingsuit diving and probably even motorcycles, longboarding and bicycling on city streets should also be illegal. Especially if measured by any objective metric like fatality risk per passenger mile.
- ghaff 4y ago
  It's certainly a slippery slope. You will find people who object to "their taxes" being used to do search and rescue, provide wilderness medical treatment, etc. for activities that they consider unreasonably dangerous, e.g. winter hiking up even fairly moderate mountains.
- kelnos 4y ago
  This is an imperfect process, and there's a balance to be made. Sure, we can be too paternalistic, and putting too many onerous restrictions on things (or on banning things outright that people have a reasonable desire to do). I think banning motorcycles would fall under that. Sure, riding a motorcycles is far more likely to get you injured or killed than riding in a car, but I think most people would consider banning motorcycles to be too extreme. It's not fully objective. We're emotional humans, and that's ok. We're going to do things that are risky, and some people are going to get hurt or killed doing them. But that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up. We can still make it less likely people will get hurt doing those activities by requiring some safety measures must be taken.
  - spurgu 4y ago
    Alternatively the control could be given to insurance companies. For example you get a lower deductible in an accident if you're wearing a seatbelt (or bike helmet or whatever) compared to if you're not. Insurance companies actually calculate the risks/costs, as opposed to governments cramming something resembling moral judgement (or just blindly perceived risk reduction) as law.
thayne 4y ago
Interesting you should bring that up. That was used as an example of unintended side effects of policy in my economics class, because when people started wearing seat belts, they drove faster and more recklessly, so while the seatbelts protected people inside the cars, the number of pedestrians hit by cars went up. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
- mcguire 4y ago
  Hmm. Most states brought on mandatory seat belt laws in the mid-1980s--mid-1990s. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_laws_in_the_United_S...) 1981 was the last year with motor vehicle fatalities over 3.0 per billion miles. By 2000 it was 1.53 and 2019 it was 1.10. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...) I can only find pedestrian fatality numbers from 1994. (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/pedestrians/data-details/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/pedestr...) It decreased from 5584 in 1995 to 4109 in 2009 and increased to 6272 in 2019. In 1995, there were 2,423 billion vehicle miles traveled; in 2009, 2,957; in 2019, 3,248. Doing the division, that works out to 2.3 pedestrian deaths / BVMT in 1995; 1.4 in 2009, and 1.9 in 2019. Interesting.
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    Regarding pedestrian death: Size/weight of car have also dramatically increased.
- ted_dunning 4y ago
  I take it you didn't actually read that wikipedia page. It says that the supposed Peltzman effect for seat belts didn't pan out.

blfr 4y ago

OK but longboarding is not essential like general transportation. Why ban helmet-less longboarding instead of the whole thing?

celticninja 4y ago
Cars aren't essential by that measure.
- kelnos 4y ago
  I think most people in the world -- even outside car-heavy US -- would disagree with that, even if they are not drivers or car owners themselves.
- thayne 4y ago
  That really depends on where you live. In many parts of the US, public transit is non-existent, and there isn't much within walking distance.
aspenmayer 4y ago
You ruin the roadway for responsible users by maligning the good name and reputation of your fellow riders when you do so. I mean to say, riders overwhelmingly want to be safe and it seems to be both self-selecting and self-reinforcing. Outlaw riders are free to ride alone.

aeternum 4y ago

The seatbelt thing is somewhat illogical. Like if that's the level of risk we deem acceptable for society then things like wingsuit diving and probably even motorcycles, longboarding and bicycling on city streets should also be illegal. Especially if measured by any objective metric like fatality risk per passenger mile.

ghaff 4y ago
It's certainly a slippery slope. You will find people who object to "their taxes" being used to do search and rescue, provide wilderness medical treatment, etc. for activities that they consider unreasonably dangerous, e.g. winter hiking up even fairly moderate mountains.
kelnos 4y ago
This is an imperfect process, and there's a balance to be made. Sure, we can be too paternalistic, and putting too many onerous restrictions on things (or on banning things outright that people have a reasonable desire to do). I think banning motorcycles would fall under that. Sure, riding a motorcycles is far more likely to get you injured or killed than riding in a car, but I think most people would consider banning motorcycles to be too extreme. It's not fully objective. We're emotional humans, and that's ok. We're going to do things that are risky, and some people are going to get hurt or killed doing them. But that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up. We can still make it less likely people will get hurt doing those activities by requiring some safety measures must be taken.
- spurgu 4y ago
  Alternatively the control could be given to insurance companies. For example you get a lower deductible in an accident if you're wearing a seatbelt (or bike helmet or whatever) compared to if you're not. Insurance companies actually calculate the risks/costs, as opposed to governments cramming something resembling moral judgement (or just blindly perceived risk reduction) as law.

thayne 4y ago

Interesting you should bring that up. That was used as an example of unintended side effects of policy in my economics class, because when people started wearing seat belts, they drove faster and more recklessly, so while the seatbelts protected people inside the cars, the number of pedestrians hit by cars went up. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

mcguire 4y ago
Hmm. Most states brought on mandatory seat belt laws in the mid-1980s--mid-1990s. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_laws_in_the_United_S...) 1981 was the last year with motor vehicle fatalities over 3.0 per billion miles. By 2000 it was 1.53 and 2019 it was 1.10. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...) I can only find pedestrian fatality numbers from 1994. (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/pedestrians/data-details/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/pedestr...) It decreased from 5584 in 1995 to 4109 in 2009 and increased to 6272 in 2019. In 1995, there were 2,423 billion vehicle miles traveled; in 2009, 2,957; in 2019, 3,248. Doing the division, that works out to 2.3 pedestrian deaths / BVMT in 1995; 1.4 in 2009, and 1.9 in 2019. Interesting.
- jeromegv 4y ago
  Regarding pedestrian death: Size/weight of car have also dramatically increased.
ted_dunning 4y ago
I take it you didn't actually read that wikipedia page. It says that the supposed Peltzman effect for seat belts didn't pan out.