Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby Neoteny on Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:30 pm

I am pro-people-too-ridiculous-to-wear-a-helmet-removing-themselves-from-the-genepool. As long as they don't do it on my car, because I worry about it being contagious.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Neoteny
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Medals: 29
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (2)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:35 pm

crispybits wrote:
If I'm doing 50mph in a 60mph limit I can think of several roads within 5 miles of my house where a cyclist could come out of nowhere with no notice from a side track and I wouldn't be able to stop in time. I would have been driving perfectly reasonably and the blame for the accident would be entirely with the cyclist. Would that make everything peachy if the cyclist died? Hardly.

Also, I can think of several ways of dressing that are highly offensive to one's visual senses, and to the visual senses of everyone else. "Because I think I look like an idiot" is not a valid objection to not wearing something that could prevent your death when partaking in a risky activity on a public highway. There are good reasons for rules and regulations on the roads, and cyclists shouldn't be any more immune to that than motorcyclists having to wear a helmet, or drivers having to wear a seatbelt.



So by using an extreme particular case, you somewhat can support your stance which applies to all cases? I don't find that convincing.
Insurance (even in the form of helmets) lowers the costs of riskier behavior.

"Because I look like an idiot" isn't the only objection of the millions of people affected by the law, and that straw man fallacy fails to portray how people perceive their profit and opportunity cost. Nor have you succeeded in defending your incorrect analogy.

    Sure, I agree with you that there are good reasons for most people to use safety devices. They may improve their chances of survival even though the chance of dying--depending on an individual's skill and circumstances--varies and may be relatively low regardless of wearing a helmet.


The economist within me asks, "What's the tradeoff between various forms* of protection and various preferences defined by one's opportunity cost**?"
*(e.g. improving one's skills in cycling/driving, wearing a helmet, and/or learning to pay more attention to the road, etc.)
**(e.g. flowing hair in the wind, more comfort, 20% coolness--visually and physiologically, not worrying about the helmet being stolen, not having to risk paying for another helmet, and/or not having to lug a helmet with you throughout the day, etc).

    As "society," we don't know that answer, and neither do you because this tradeoff is subjectively perceived by millions of individuals and varies all the time. It's extremely complex, yet the one-size-fits-all laws and obtuse statistics pay no heed to this process.

So how can we discover the optimal tradeoff? By allowing people to make that tradeoff for him or herself, but of course feel free to advertise in favor of helmets. I wear mine all the time because my opportunity cost = significant loss of future profit from brain damage. (My profit = future prestige, capability to learn, write, earn money, make jokes, etc.--who knows what I may lose with the possibility of brain damage?) I won't risk it, but others may have lower or different opportunity costs. I acknowledge that I am in no position to dismiss their opportunity costs; however, some ITT (you, AAFitz) are being presumptuous by not acknowledging this.

Besides, the market has companies which will advertise--and beg--for people to buy their helmets. This is the profit motive at work. It aligns self-interest into complementing the general interest (a.k.a. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand).

And here's another thing about law and economics. Without a helmet mandate, then individual preferences for more coolness and whatever are allowed to be revealed. Entrepreneurs, who are seeking profits through helmet-production, now have the incentive to discover these preferences and then create cool-looking helmets which consumers are free to choose at a price. However, with a mandatory helmet law, those preferences are quashed*, thus the profit opportunity remains hidden or constrained.

*(Of course, those who break the law can reveal their preferences, but this is beside the point.)

    Before we jump up and support a prohibition against Not Wearing Helmets, we should really consider the capabilities of the market, the unintended consequences, the extreme limit of one's knowledge of other people's preferences, the special interest groups who may benefit from that law (police, city governments through police tickets, local Business Bureaus), the politicians, and the judges. Most importantly, we should reflect upon the opportunities that we may lose.

    Instead, some loud minority insists upon Helmet Laws, and--get this--"for the common good." And, that law gets passed. Which sounds better? To me, it's the former, cautious argument, but this latter argument--wrapped in the guise of common good--usually fails to acknowledge what it tramples underneath.

So, taken all together, plus the other objections mentioned earlier (TG's for instance), it doesn't seem you have much of an argument here--other than repeating essentially the same argument. We can choose to live in a freer society and allow others to benefit each other on a voluntary basis--free of unnecessary government intervention. Or we can overlook all these opportunities and all of those individual preferences by staunchly supporting another mindless law.

I'm in favor of a freer society, are you?

/thread
edit3: (replace key terms, apply this to other threads, and /thread those threads).
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:36 pm

Neoteny wrote:I am pro-people-too-ridiculous-to-wear-a-helmet-removing-themselves-from-the-genepool. As long as they don't do it on my car, because I worry about it being contagious.


Voluntary eugenics---with no coercive power of the state at play?

Hmm... a firm stance, but it does have its benefits!
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby Army of GOD on Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:13 pm

Frigidus wrote:Jesus, there are actually people opposed to bike helmet laws.

Edit:
crispybits wrote:Wearing a helmet while cycling is hardly an infringement on freedom any more than people having to wear clothes in shopping malls.


I was trying to think of a comparable complaint that is obviously ludicrous, but I couldn't come up with a good one. Thank you crispybits.


C'mon, even my left testicle can tell this is a terrible analogy. The reason clothes are necessary is because nobody wants to see nietzsche's schlong out in public. It's a PUBLIC protection thing...it has nothing to do with protecting the non-clothes-wearer from themself. Helmet laws are.

I would only support helmet laws if the government handed out helmets. Otherwise, no.

inb4 "HURRDURR YOURE AN IDIOT I HOPE YOU CRASH AND DIE WITHOUT A HELMET"
Image
User avatar
Captain Army of GOD
 
Posts: 6195
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Medals: 28
Most Improved Silver (1) Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Terminator Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:34 pm

Army of GOD wrote:
Frigidus wrote:Jesus, there are actually people opposed to bike helmet laws.

Edit:
crispybits wrote:Wearing a helmet while cycling is hardly an infringement on freedom any more than people having to wear clothes in shopping malls.


I was trying to think of a comparable complaint that is obviously ludicrous, but I couldn't come up with a good one. Thank you crispybits.


C'mon, even my left testicle can tell this is a terrible analogy. The reason clothes are necessary is because nobody wants to see nietzsche's schlong out in public. It's a PUBLIC protection thing...it has nothing to do with protecting the non-clothes-wearer from themself. Helmet laws are.

I would only support helmet laws if the government handed out helmets. Otherwise, no.

inb4 "HURRDURR YOURE AN IDIOT I HOPE YOU CRASH AND DIE WITHOUT A HELMET"


That's rational, but it's not a morally good stance.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:50 am

Lootifer wrote:Diet and prophylactic laws would be unenforcable;


Prophylactics maybe. Diet mandates are feasible and have been done. Think of the Communist regimes of Russia and China mid 20th century that forced people onto communes to grow staple crops. Or rationing during the world wars. It would be easy to implement over the course of years as well, just by banning the unsafe foods. To me, banning, say, high-fructose corn syrup in the public interest for reducing medical costs would be equal to enforcing helmet laws- that is, it would reduce costs as delineated in the CDC link and improve national health.

telling someone they cant have kids because their genes are a detriment to society is, for me, probably one bridge too far.


How? The greatest argument that the pro-laws have put forth is that it's in the public interest, or that I'm too stupid to decide for myself or that I may choose the wrong choice. So while deciding habits and activities for an adult in the spirit of public benefit it okay, how is it somehow less okay to allow unfit genes to be passed on? Either it's a moral question (the suffering endured by people with severe disabilities, e.g.), a financial one (reduced medical strain on the public), or some combination of the two. Let me put it another way: are you comfortable with the idea of an HIV-infected person conceiving a child, pretty much giving the child HIV? Or how about the knowing spread of STIs? Is it too uncomfortable of an idea to press charges against a person who didn't inform their partner when they knowingly were infected with a disease, which is yet a willful lack of concern?

'funny how the pro-helmet law supporters equate being anti-law with anti-helmet. I've never said any such thing. As a frequent motorcycle rider, I always and will always wear my full face helmet.

If you are in favor of helmets/seat belts simply because you think it's your civic duty to protect people you'll never meet, you need to apply this to all areas of life.

-TG
ImageEight-year olds, Dude.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:55 am

crispybits wrote:Wearing a helmet while cycling is hardly an infringement on freedom any more than people having to wear clothes in shopping malls.


fwiw I think public nudity is fine. Just a lil' ol' skin.

-TG
ImageEight-year olds, Dude.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby Army of GOD on Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:56 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
Frigidus wrote:Jesus, there are actually people opposed to bike helmet laws.

Edit:
crispybits wrote:Wearing a helmet while cycling is hardly an infringement on freedom any more than people having to wear clothes in shopping malls.


I was trying to think of a comparable complaint that is obviously ludicrous, but I couldn't come up with a good one. Thank you crispybits.


C'mon, even my left testicle can tell this is a terrible analogy. The reason clothes are necessary is because nobody wants to see nietzsche's schlong out in public. It's a PUBLIC protection thing...it has nothing to do with protecting the non-clothes-wearer from themself. Helmet laws are.

I would only support helmet laws if the government handed out helmets. Otherwise, no.

inb4 "HURRDURR YOURE AN IDIOT I HOPE YOU CRASH AND DIE WITHOUT A HELMET"


That's rational, but it's not a morally good stance.


Do I look like a moral man?

Image
Image
User avatar
Captain Army of GOD
 
Posts: 6195
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Medals: 28
Most Improved Silver (1) Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Terminator Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby Frigidus on Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:19 am

Army of GOD wrote:
Frigidus wrote:Jesus, there are actually people opposed to bike helmet laws.

Edit:
crispybits wrote:Wearing a helmet while cycling is hardly an infringement on freedom any more than people having to wear clothes in shopping malls.


I was trying to think of a comparable complaint that is obviously ludicrous, but I couldn't come up with a good one. Thank you crispybits.


C'mon, even my left testicle can tell this is a terrible analogy. The reason clothes are necessary is because nobody wants to see nietzsche's schlong out in public. It's a PUBLIC protection thing...it has nothing to do with protecting the non-clothes-wearer from themself. Helmet laws are.

I would only support helmet laws if the government handed out helmets. Otherwise, no.

inb4 "HURRDURR YOURE AN IDIOT I HOPE YOU CRASH AND DIE WITHOUT A HELMET"


It isn't the reasoning behind the ban that's comparable, it's the reasoning behind the complaint about the ban. "Stop telling me what to wear! Muh freedom!" The implementation of such a law has been shown to reduce injuries, and I'm really having trouble seeing a legitimate downside beyond 'I think this looks stupid'. They are an overall good thing.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (1)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:13 am

Army of GOD wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
Frigidus wrote:Jesus, there are actually people opposed to bike helmet laws.

Edit:
crispybits wrote:Wearing a helmet while cycling is hardly an infringement on freedom any more than people having to wear clothes in shopping malls.


I was trying to think of a comparable complaint that is obviously ludicrous, but I couldn't come up with a good one. Thank you crispybits.


C'mon, even my left testicle can tell this is a terrible analogy. The reason clothes are necessary is because nobody wants to see nietzsche's schlong out in public. It's a PUBLIC protection thing...it has nothing to do with protecting the non-clothes-wearer from themself. Helmet laws are.

I would only support helmet laws if the government handed out helmets. Otherwise, no.

inb4 "HURRDURR YOURE AN IDIOT I HOPE YOU CRASH AND DIE WITHOUT A HELMET"


That's rational, but it's not a morally good stance.


Do I look like a moral man?

Image


Image
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:15 am

Frigidus wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
Frigidus wrote:Jesus, there are actually people opposed to bike helmet laws.

Edit:
crispybits wrote:Wearing a helmet while cycling is hardly an infringement on freedom any more than people having to wear clothes in shopping malls.


I was trying to think of a comparable complaint that is obviously ludicrous, but I couldn't come up with a good one. Thank you crispybits.


C'mon, even my left testicle can tell this is a terrible analogy. The reason clothes are necessary is because nobody wants to see nietzsche's schlong out in public. It's a PUBLIC protection thing...it has nothing to do with protecting the non-clothes-wearer from themself. Helmet laws are.

I would only support helmet laws if the government handed out helmets. Otherwise, no.

inb4 "HURRDURR YOURE AN IDIOT I HOPE YOU CRASH AND DIE WITHOUT A HELMET"


It isn't the reasoning behind the ban that's comparable, it's the reasoning behind the complaint about the ban. "Stop telling me what to wear! Muh freedom!" The implementation of such a law has been shown to reduce injuries, and I'm really having trouble seeing a legitimate downside beyond 'I think this looks stupid'. They are an overall good thing.


Your stance has many flaws and overlooks many problems, which has already been explained.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby crispybits on Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:31 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
crispybits wrote:
If I'm doing 50mph in a 60mph limit I can think of several roads within 5 miles of my house where a cyclist could come out of nowhere with no notice from a side track and I wouldn't be able to stop in time. I would have been driving perfectly reasonably and the blame for the accident would be entirely with the cyclist. Would that make everything peachy if the cyclist died? Hardly.

Also, I can think of several ways of dressing that are highly offensive to one's visual senses, and to the visual senses of everyone else. "Because I think I look like an idiot" is not a valid objection to not wearing something that could prevent your death when partaking in a risky activity on a public highway. There are good reasons for rules and regulations on the roads, and cyclists shouldn't be any more immune to that than motorcyclists having to wear a helmet, or drivers having to wear a seatbelt.



So by using an extreme particular case, you somewhat can support your stance which applies to all cases? I don't find that convincing.
Insurance (even in the form of helmets) lowers the costs of riskier behavior.

No, by using an example of several individual road/track patterns that I can think of off the top of my head in a small area that's not particularly different from other small areas up and down the country both urban and rural in nature in places I can make a valid extrapolation that there are literally hundreds or thousands of places where it is possible for a car being driven perfectly reasonably for the road conditions to hit a cyclist and it be the cyclists fault entirely if that cycle is not being ridden safely. I also have eidence that even when someone is blameless, being involved in the death of another human being has a profound psychological impact that in some cases is never recovered from. By not wearing a helmet and by taking any risk at all on a public highway you are causing potential damage to other's property (their cars) and their health. As there is no such thing as totally risk free riding or driving on a public highway, then the morally correct stance for everyone using a public highway is to take appropriate measures to reduce the risk of injury in every reasonable way when doing so. Wearing a helmet is not unreasonable. If I was suggesting thousand dollar airbag suits that inflate upon impact then that would be unreasonable. A helmet that costs a small fraction of the cost of the bike, much like lights that cost a similar amount if riding in the dark, is a reasonable measure.

"Because I look like an idiot" isn't the only objection of the millions of people affected by the law, and that straw man fallacy fails to portray how people perceive their profit and opportunity cost. Nor have you succeeded in defending your incorrect analogy.

OK, apart from "because I think I look like an idiot", "because I like the feeling of wind in my hair" and "because I just don't want to" I haven't seen any argument why wearing a helmet on the public highway is unreasonable. And those objections themselves are unreasonable when compared to the proper application of minor inconvenience for a large risk reduction both of serious harm to oneself and of serious harm to others.

    Sure, I agree with you that there are good reasons for most people to use safety devices. They may improve their chances of survival even though the chance of dying--depending on an individual's skill and circumstances--varies and may be relatively low regardless of wearing a helmet.


The economist within me asks, "What's the tradeoff between various forms* of protection and various preferences defined by one's opportunity cost**?"
*(e.g. improving one's skills in cycling/driving, wearing a helmet, and/or learning to pay more attention to the road, etc.)
**(e.g. flowing hair in the wind, more comfort, 20% coolness--visually and physiologically, not worrying about the helmet being stolen, not having to risk paying for another helmet, and/or not having to lug a helmet with you throughout the day, etc).

    As "society," we don't know that answer, and neither do you because this tradeoff is subjectively perceived by millions of individuals and varies all the time. It's extremely complex, yet the one-size-fits-all laws and obtuse statistics pay no heed to this process.

So how can we discover the optimal tradeoff? By allowing people to make that tradeoff for him or herself, but of course feel free to advertise in favor of helmets. I wear mine all the time because my opportunity cost = significant loss of future profit from brain damage. (My profit = future prestige, capability to learn, write, earn money, make jokes, etc.--who knows what I may lose with the possibility of brain damage?) I won't risk it, but others may have lower or different opportunity costs. I acknowledge that I am in no position to dismiss their opportunity costs; however, some ITT (you, AAFitz) are being presumptuous by not acknowledging this.

Besides, the market has companies which will advertise--and beg--for people to buy their helmets. This is the profit motive at work. It aligns self-interest into complementing the general interest (a.k.a. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand).

And here's another thing about law and economics. Without a helmet mandate, then individual preferences for more coolness and whatever are allowed to be revealed. Entrepreneurs, who are seeking profits through helmet-production, now have the incentive to discover these preferences and then create cool-looking helmets which consumers are free to choose at a price. However, with a mandatory helmet law, those preferences are quashed*, thus the profit opportunity remains hidden or constrained.

Entreprenurs are still free to come out with any helmet design they can think of, subject to certain safety standards, with a mandate in place. They can design for any level of coolness they like so long as their product is fit for purpose, just like any other product must be fit for purpose. It doesn't restrict the economy and arguing from an economic angle makes no sense at all unless you can show somehow that the economic cost to society of the extra damage done by accidents involving riders without helmets because the rider wasn't wearing a helmet, notably brain damage and psychological trauma, is less than the economic cost to society of people who wouldn't otherwise wear one having to have helmets. As helmets are a low cost item, and brain damage patients often need lifelong care costing many many thousands, and therapy for psychological damage can also get very expensive if required long term, without proper research I believe that the cost of helmets for the objectors would be less overall.

*(Of course, those who break the law can reveal their preferences, but this is beside the point.)

    Before we jump up and support a prohibition against Not Wearing Helmets, we should really consider the capabilities of the market, the unintended consequences, the extreme limit of one's knowledge of other people's preferences, the special interest groups who may benefit from that law (police, city governments through police tickets, local Business Bureaus), the politicians, and the judges. Most importantly, we should reflect upon the opportunities that we may lose.

    Instead, some loud minority insists upon Helmet Laws, and--get this--"for the common good." And, that law gets passed. Which sounds better? To me, it's the former, cautious argument, but this latter argument--wrapped in the guise of common good--usually fails to acknowledge what it tramples underneath.

So, taken all together, plus the other objections mentioned earlier (TG's for instance), it doesn't seem you have much of an argument here--other than repeating essentially the same argument. We can choose to live in a freer society and allow others to benefit each other on a voluntary basis--free of unnecessary government intervention. Or we can overlook all these opportunities and all of those individual preferences by staunchly supporting another mindless law.

I'm in favor of a freer society, are you?

/thread
edit3: (replace key terms, apply this to other threads, and /thread those threads).


TGs arguments are "it's just an excuse for the cops to give out tickets and make money" and "if we legislate public safety for this then we should legislate it for everything which could cause self-harm". The second one fails because as can be shown there is the risk of substantially greater harm to others through no fault of their own if involved in the death of someone becaus they weren't wearing a helmet. It's not just about damage to the rider themselves. The first one fails for much the same reason. If it can be shown that you are risking the health of anyone else who has not agreed to take that risk themselves, then the law can and should be used to prevent that. When using a public highway the reasonable assumption is that all of the other users will have taken sensible precautions both in the way they use the highway, and in the protection they have adopted should this inherently risky activity go wrong for whatever reason, like wearing a seatbelt or turning on lights at night, or wearing a helmet if on a bike (motorised or not).
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:35 pm

crispybits wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
crispybits wrote:
If I'm doing 50mph in a 60mph limit I can think of several roads within 5 miles of my house where a cyclist could come out of nowhere with no notice from a side track and I wouldn't be able to stop in time. I would have been driving perfectly reasonably and the blame for the accident would be entirely with the cyclist. Would that make everything peachy if the cyclist died? Hardly.

Also, I can think of several ways of dressing that are highly offensive to one's visual senses, and to the visual senses of everyone else. "Because I think I look like an idiot" is not a valid objection to not wearing something that could prevent your death when partaking in a risky activity on a public highway. There are good reasons for rules and regulations on the roads, and cyclists shouldn't be any more immune to that than motorcyclists having to wear a helmet, or drivers having to wear a seatbelt.



So by using an extreme particular case, you somewhat can support your stance which applies to all cases? I don't find that convincing.
Insurance (even in the form of helmets) lowers the costs of riskier behavior.

No, by using an example of several individual road/track patterns that I can think of off the top of my head in a small area that's not particularly different from other small areas up and down the country both urban and rural in nature in places I can make a valid extrapolation that there are literally hundreds or thousands of places where it is possible for a car being driven perfectly reasonably for the road conditions to hit a cyclist and it be the cyclists fault entirely if that cycle is not being ridden safely. I also have eidence that even when someone is blameless, being involved in the death of another human being has a profound psychological impact that in some cases is never recovered from. By not wearing a helmet and by taking any risk at all on a public highway you are causing potential damage to other's property (their cars) and their health. As there is no such thing as totally risk free riding or driving on a public highway, then the morally correct stance for everyone using a public highway is to take appropriate measures to reduce the risk of injury in every reasonable way when doing so. Wearing a helmet is not unreasonable. If I was suggesting thousand dollar airbag suits that inflate upon impact then that would be unreasonable. A helmet that costs a small fraction of the cost of the bike, much like lights that cost a similar amount if riding in the dark, is a reasonable measure.

"Because I look like an idiot" isn't the only objection of the millions of people affected by the law, and that straw man fallacy fails to portray how people perceive their profit and opportunity cost. Nor have you succeeded in defending your incorrect analogy.

OK, apart from "because I think I look like an idiot", "because I like the feeling of wind in my hair" and "because I just don't want to" I haven't seen any argument why wearing a helmet on the public highway is unreasonable. And those objections themselves are unreasonable when compared to the proper application of minor inconvenience for a large risk reduction both of serious harm to oneself and of serious harm to others.

    Sure, I agree with you that there are good reasons for most people to use safety devices. They may improve their chances of survival even though the chance of dying--depending on an individual's skill and circumstances--varies and may be relatively low regardless of wearing a helmet.


The economist within me asks, "What's the tradeoff between various forms* of protection and various preferences defined by one's opportunity cost**?"
*(e.g. improving one's skills in cycling/driving, wearing a helmet, and/or learning to pay more attention to the road, etc.)
**(e.g. flowing hair in the wind, more comfort, 20% coolness--visually and physiologically, not worrying about the helmet being stolen, not having to risk paying for another helmet, and/or not having to lug a helmet with you throughout the day, etc).

    As "society," we don't know that answer, and neither do you because this tradeoff is subjectively perceived by millions of individuals and varies all the time. It's extremely complex, yet the one-size-fits-all laws and obtuse statistics pay no heed to this process.

So how can we discover the optimal tradeoff? By allowing people to make that tradeoff for him or herself, but of course feel free to advertise in favor of helmets. I wear mine all the time because my opportunity cost = significant loss of future profit from brain damage. (My profit = future prestige, capability to learn, write, earn money, make jokes, etc.--who knows what I may lose with the possibility of brain damage?) I won't risk it, but others may have lower or different opportunity costs. I acknowledge that I am in no position to dismiss their opportunity costs; however, some ITT (you, AAFitz) are being presumptuous by not acknowledging this.

Besides, the market has companies which will advertise--and beg--for people to buy their helmets. This is the profit motive at work. It aligns self-interest into complementing the general interest (a.k.a. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand).

And here's another thing about law and economics. Without a helmet mandate, then individual preferences for more coolness and whatever are allowed to be revealed. Entrepreneurs, who are seeking profits through helmet-production, now have the incentive to discover these preferences and then create cool-looking helmets which consumers are free to choose at a price. However, with a mandatory helmet law, those preferences are quashed*, thus the profit opportunity remains hidden or constrained.

Entreprenurs are still free to come out with any helmet design they can think of, subject to certain safety standards, with a mandate in place. They can design for any level of coolness they like so long as their product is fit for purpose, just like any other product must be fit for purpose. It doesn't restrict the economy and arguing from an economic angle makes no sense at all unless you can show somehow that the economic cost to society of the extra damage done by accidents involving riders without helmets because the rider wasn't wearing a helmet, notably brain damage and psychological trauma, is less than the economic cost to society of people who wouldn't otherwise wear one having to have helmets. As helmets are a low cost item, and brain damage patients often need lifelong care costing many many thousands, and therapy for psychological damage can also get very expensive if required long term, without proper research I believe that the cost of helmets for the objectors would be less overall.

*(Of course, those who break the law can reveal their preferences, but this is beside the point.)

    Before we jump up and support a prohibition against Not Wearing Helmets, we should really consider the capabilities of the market, the unintended consequences, the extreme limit of one's knowledge of other people's preferences, the special interest groups who may benefit from that law (police, city governments through police tickets, local Business Bureaus), the politicians, and the judges. Most importantly, we should reflect upon the opportunities that we may lose.

    Instead, some loud minority insists upon Helmet Laws, and--get this--"for the common good." And, that law gets passed. Which sounds better? To me, it's the former, cautious argument, but this latter argument--wrapped in the guise of common good--usually fails to acknowledge what it tramples underneath.

So, taken all together, plus the other objections mentioned earlier (TG's for instance), it doesn't seem you have much of an argument here--other than repeating essentially the same argument. We can choose to live in a freer society and allow others to benefit each other on a voluntary basis--free of unnecessary government intervention. Or we can overlook all these opportunities and all of those individual preferences by staunchly supporting another mindless law.

I'm in favor of a freer society, are you?

/thread
edit3: (replace key terms, apply this to other threads, and /thread those threads).


TGs arguments are "it's just an excuse for the cops to give out tickets and make money" and "if we legislate public safety for this then we should legislate it for everything which could cause self-harm". The second one fails because as can be shown there is the risk of substantially greater harm to others through no fault of their own if involved in the death of someone becaus they weren't wearing a helmet. It's not just about damage to the rider themselves. The first one fails for much the same reason. If it can be shown that you are risking the health of anyone else who has not agreed to take that risk themselves, then the law can and should be used to prevent that. When using a public highway the reasonable assumption is that all of the other users will have taken sensible precautions both in the way they use the highway, and in the protection they have adopted should this inherently risky activity go wrong for whatever reason, like wearing a seatbelt or turning on lights at night, or wearing a helmet if on a bike (motorised or not).


Nevertheless, by using an extreme particular case, you can't support your stance which applies to all cases. Therefore, this post still holds.

I've already listed more than your straw man argument and more than your other two new additions to it, so omitting relevant points isn't a good counter-argument.

RE: the entrepreneurs, sure, but that's for a particular market. After seeing so many people not wear helmets in a place which has helmet laws, then it's obvious that the price of a helmet has not sufficiently offset their benefits of not wearing one. Looks like more entrepreneurial work needs to be done, so your argument doesn't hold here.

RE: cops, business bureaus, and politicians. TG's point is still valid, and you're not really convincing anyone here by ignoring those three groups' profit-motives, so the public choice argument here holds.

RE: underlined, if we apply that argument consistently, we get unnecessary, constraining laws. Of course, if you're a state socialist, then this may be fine.

Basically, since you greatly perceive the benefits while heavily discounting the costs (and omit relevant points), then we can conclude that you oppose a freer society and favor an imagined* better, state socialist society.

    *Apparently, you believe that you know the optimal tradeoff. Very presumptuous of you and totally nonsensical, but a state socialist couldn't have done it better.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby crispybits on Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:16 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Nevertheless, by using an extreme particular case, you can't support your stance which applies to all cases. Therefore, this post still holds.

I've already listed more than your straw man argument and more than your other two new additions to it, so omitting relevant points isn't a good counter-argument.

RE: the entrepreneurs, sure, but that's for a particular market. After seeing so many people not wear helmets in a place which has helmet laws, then it's obvious that the price of a helmet has not sufficiently offset their benefits of not wearing one. Looks like more entrepreneurial work needs to be done, so your argument doesn't hold here.

RE: cops, business bureaus, and politicians. TG's point is still valid, and you're not really convincing anyone here by ignoring those three groups' profit-motives, so the public choice argument here holds.

RE: underlined, if we apply that argument consistently, we get unnecessary, constraining laws. Of course, if you're a state socialist, then this may be fine.

Basically, since you greatly perceive the benefits while heavily discounting the costs (and omit relevant points), then we can conclude that you oppose a freer society and favor an imagined* better, state socialist society.

    *Apparently, you believe that you know the optimal tradeoff. Very presumptuous of you and totally nonsensical, but a state socialist couldn't have done it better.


I've never claimed to be in favour of a completely free society with no rules whatsoever, but your strawman of saying I want a socialist state where everything is regulated to the hilt is just as much of a strawman as anything I've put forward. My position is, that when partaking of activities with inherent risk of harm to others, the morally correct decision is to take all reasonable steps to reduce that risk of harm. Wearing a helmet is a reasonable step. In the absence of people being willing to take those reasonable steps themselves, then government should legislate to enforce that reasonable step. On a public highway we already have laws, like speed limits, or turning lights on in the dark, or many others, that are based on this very philosophy. To argue that a further reasonable measure should not be imposed because it may cause minor inconvenience despite the facts showing it can have a significant impact is not a sound position.

To argue against the known facts that wearing one significantly reduces the risk of serious harm to others, you have to show that the downsides of wearing a helmet, for the average, reasonable person, is greater than the downsides of not wearing one. The downsides of not wearing one is that you risk significant harm to yourself and more importantly to others. The downsides of wearing one is a bit of minor inconvenience and cost, similar to having to buy lights for the bike if you are riding in the dark, and having to carry a very lightweight helmet with you for a small time. If the risks were only to the rider themselves and nobody else was affected then sure, let the people that don't value their brains or their lives do what they want, but when they are risking the health of others by refusing a reasonable measure like a fairly cheap helmet then that is not reasonable.

Entrepreneurial work is not the only driver in a society. To argue that because people sometimes choose not to do something despite laws to the contrary means that more entrepreneurial work needs to be done is flawed, because it could mean that more educational work needs to be done, or more correctional (as in cops/punishment) work needs to be done. Because the free market hasn't adopted something 100% does not invalidate any argument for that thing. People are still free to produce any design of helmet they like so long as it is fit for purpose, and in that way there is no restraint of freedom by enforcing a helmet law, much like the fact anyone can build any design of TV they like as long as it is fit for purpose doesn't restrict anyone's freedom to watch TV.

I would be arguing against "safety" measures that had no significant safety benefits but were income generators if the government tried to enforce them. To enforce a safety measure that is demonstrably both effective and low cost is not the government trying to generate income, it is the government enforcing public safety. Whether you like it or TG likes it or not, part of the government's current remit is to protect the population. If someone is riding on a public highway without a helmet they could cause me significant harm through no fault of my own. Just like if I drive my car with no lights I could cause significant harm to someone else. Or would you say that I should be allowed to drive at night without my lights on as a matter of my own free choice, I mean streetlights mean I can see where I'm going just fine, why should I turn those lights on and waste my battery power just to satisfy that damn nanny state?

Freedom isn't ever absolute. We all have a lot of freedom right now, but with that comes social rules and responsibilities. I am free to eat undercooked chicken if I want, or to serve undercooked chicken within my house in a private gathering, but I am not free to serve that undercooked chicken to other members of the public in a public forum. I am free to walk naked around my own house if I choose, but if I walk in the public streets I am required to wear clothes. In exactly the same way, I am free to drive any vehicle in any state I want on private ground, but if I want to drive on public highways that vehicle, and me myself, must pass certain safety standards (the vehicle must have bumpers, I must be sober, etc). Bicycles are a vehicle, therefore reasonable safety legislation for those vehicles and their riders is not socialist state meddling, but a simple and logical extension of the principles of road safety that are well established.

Your total fre market anarchic society is a flawed dream BBS, and to keep using it as the solution for everything ever is not appropriate. Society needs some rules and regulations. I am all for minimal rules and regulations, I want small government, but you can't just shout "free market forces!" whenever arguing against anything which asserts any level of control, however reasonable, and expect it to hold water.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:39 pm

crispybits wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Nevertheless, by using an extreme particular case, you can't support your stance which applies to all cases. Therefore, this post still holds.

I've already listed more than your straw man argument and more than your other two new additions to it, so omitting relevant points isn't a good counter-argument.

RE: the entrepreneurs, sure, but that's for a particular market. After seeing so many people not wear helmets in a place which has helmet laws, then it's obvious that the price of a helmet has not sufficiently offset their benefits of not wearing one. Looks like more entrepreneurial work needs to be done, so your argument doesn't hold here.

RE: cops, business bureaus, and politicians. TG's point is still valid, and you're not really convincing anyone here by ignoring those three groups' profit-motives, so the public choice argument here holds.

RE: underlined, if we apply that argument consistently, we get unnecessary, constraining laws. Of course, if you're a state socialist, then this may be fine.

Basically, since you greatly perceive the benefits while heavily discounting the costs (and omit relevant points), then we can conclude that you oppose a freer society and favor an imagined* better, state socialist society.

    *Apparently, you believe that you know the optimal tradeoff. Very presumptuous of you and totally nonsensical, but a state socialist couldn't have done it better.


I've never claimed to be in favour of a completely free society with no rules whatsoever, but your strawman of saying I want a socialist state where everything is regulated to the hilt is just as much of a strawman as anything I've put forward. My position is, that when partaking of activities with inherent risk of harm to others, the morally correct decision is to take all reasonable steps to reduce that risk of harm. Wearing a helmet is a reasonable step. In the absence of people being willing to take those reasonable steps themselves, then government should legislate to enforce that reasonable step. On a public highway we already have laws, like speed limits, or turning lights on in the dark, or many others, that are based on this very philosophy. To argue that a further reasonable measure should not be imposed because it may cause minor inconvenience despite the facts showing it can have a significant impact is not a sound position.

To argue against the known facts that wearing one significantly reduces the risk of serious harm to others, you have to show that the downsides of wearing a helmet, for the average, reasonable person, is greater than the downsides of not wearing one. The downsides of not wearing one is that you risk significant harm to yourself and more importantly to others. The downsides of wearing one is a bit of minor inconvenience and cost, similar to having to buy lights for the bike if you are riding in the dark, and having to carry a very lightweight helmet with you for a small time. If the risks were only to the rider themselves and nobody else was affected then sure, let the people that don't value their brains or their lives do what they want, but when they are risking the health of others by refusing a reasonable measure like a fairly cheap helmet then that is not reasonable.

Entrepreneurial work is not the only driver in a society. To argue that because people sometimes choose not to do something despite laws to the contrary means that more entrepreneurial work needs to be done is flawed, because it could mean that more educational work needs to be done, or more correctional (as in cops/punishment) work needs to be done. Because the free market hasn't adopted something 100% does not invalidate any argument for that thing. People are still free to produce any design of helmet they like so long as it is fit for purpose, and in that way there is no restraint of freedom by enforcing a helmet law, much like the fact anyone can build any design of TV they like as long as it is fit for purpose doesn't restrict anyone's freedom to watch TV.

I would be arguing against "safety" measures that had no significant safety benefits but were income generators if the government tried to enforce them. To enforce a safety measure that is demonstrably both effective and low cost is not the government trying to generate income, it is the government enforcing public safety. Whether you like it or TG likes it or not, part of the government's current remit is to protect the population. If someone is riding on a public highway without a helmet they could cause me significant harm through no fault of my own. Just like if I drive my car with no lights I could cause significant harm to someone else. Or would you say that I should be allowed to drive at night without my lights on as a matter of my own free choice, I mean streetlights mean I can see where I'm going just fine, why should I turn those lights on and waste my battery power just to satisfy that damn nanny state?

Freedom isn't ever absolute. We all have a lot of freedom right now, but with that comes social rules and responsibilities. I am free to eat undercooked chicken if I want, or to serve undercooked chicken within my house in a private gathering, but I am not free to serve that undercooked chicken to other members of the public in a public forum. I am free to walk naked around my own house if I choose, but if I walk in the public streets I am required to wear clothes. In exactly the same way, I am free to drive any vehicle in any state I want on private ground, but if I want to drive on public highways that vehicle, and me myself, must pass certain safety standards (the vehicle must have bumpers, I must be sober, etc). Bicycles are a vehicle, therefore reasonable safety legislation for those vehicles and their riders is not socialist state meddling, but a simple and logical extension of the principles of road safety that are well established.

Your total fre market anarchic society is a flawed dream BBS, and to keep using it as the solution for everything ever is not appropriate. Society needs some rules and regulations. I am all for minimal rules and regulations, I want small government, but you can't just shout "free market forces!" whenever arguing against anything which asserts any level of control, however reasonable, and expect it to hold water.


Earlier you were berating TGD about not having a sound defense for some ideal position, but you've completely failed to hold yourself up to your own standard. I'm just sayin that you need to recognize the limits of your position, we have already mentioned the problems with the statistics, and you need to recognize the actual process through which your ideal laws are crafted and enforced.

If you neglect this, then you'll keep running into poor outcomes. That line of reasoning simply reinforces the ever-expanding nation-states and in no way does it limit government. You're not going to get your supposed goal of small government if you fail to hold yourself to your own standards of defending your ideal while neglecting the limits of your ability to know what is best for everyone and to recognize the actual, social processes at play.

RE: the rest. Rules and regulation do not only originate from the state.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby AAFitz on Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:42 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
crispybits wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
crispybits wrote:
If I'm doing 50mph in a 60mph limit I can think of several roads within 5 miles of my house where a cyclist could come out of nowhere with no notice from a side track and I wouldn't be able to stop in time. I would have been driving perfectly reasonably and the blame for the accident would be entirely with the cyclist. Would that make everything peachy if the cyclist died? Hardly.

Also, I can think of several ways of dressing that are highly offensive to one's visual senses, and to the visual senses of everyone else. "Because I think I look like an idiot" is not a valid objection to not wearing something that could prevent your death when partaking in a risky activity on a public highway. There are good reasons for rules and regulations on the roads, and cyclists shouldn't be any more immune to that than motorcyclists having to wear a helmet, or drivers having to wear a seatbelt.



So by using an extreme particular case, you somewhat can support your stance which applies to all cases? I don't find that convincing.
Insurance (even in the form of helmets) lowers the costs of riskier behavior.

No, by using an example of several individual road/track patterns that I can think of off the top of my head in a small area that's not particularly different from other small areas up and down the country both urban and rural in nature in places I can make a valid extrapolation that there are literally hundreds or thousands of places where it is possible for a car being driven perfectly reasonably for the road conditions to hit a cyclist and it be the cyclists fault entirely if that cycle is not being ridden safely. I also have eidence that even when someone is blameless, being involved in the death of another human being has a profound psychological impact that in some cases is never recovered from. By not wearing a helmet and by taking any risk at all on a public highway you are causing potential damage to other's property (their cars) and their health. As there is no such thing as totally risk free riding or driving on a public highway, then the morally correct stance for everyone using a public highway is to take appropriate measures to reduce the risk of injury in every reasonable way when doing so. Wearing a helmet is not unreasonable. If I was suggesting thousand dollar airbag suits that inflate upon impact then that would be unreasonable. A helmet that costs a small fraction of the cost of the bike, much like lights that cost a similar amount if riding in the dark, is a reasonable measure.

"Because I look like an idiot" isn't the only objection of the millions of people affected by the law, and that straw man fallacy fails to portray how people perceive their profit and opportunity cost. Nor have you succeeded in defending your incorrect analogy.

OK, apart from "because I think I look like an idiot", "because I like the feeling of wind in my hair" and "because I just don't want to" I haven't seen any argument why wearing a helmet on the public highway is unreasonable. And those objections themselves are unreasonable when compared to the proper application of minor inconvenience for a large risk reduction both of serious harm to oneself and of serious harm to others.

    Sure, I agree with you that there are good reasons for most people to use safety devices. They may improve their chances of survival even though the chance of dying--depending on an individual's skill and circumstances--varies and may be relatively low regardless of wearing a helmet.


The economist within me asks, "What's the tradeoff between various forms* of protection and various preferences defined by one's opportunity cost**?"
*(e.g. improving one's skills in cycling/driving, wearing a helmet, and/or learning to pay more attention to the road, etc.)
**(e.g. flowing hair in the wind, more comfort, 20% coolness--visually and physiologically, not worrying about the helmet being stolen, not having to risk paying for another helmet, and/or not having to lug a helmet with you throughout the day, etc).

    As "society," we don't know that answer, and neither do you because this tradeoff is subjectively perceived by millions of individuals and varies all the time. It's extremely complex, yet the one-size-fits-all laws and obtuse statistics pay no heed to this process.

So how can we discover the optimal tradeoff? By allowing people to make that tradeoff for him or herself, but of course feel free to advertise in favor of helmets. I wear mine all the time because my opportunity cost = significant loss of future profit from brain damage. (My profit = future prestige, capability to learn, write, earn money, make jokes, etc.--who knows what I may lose with the possibility of brain damage?) I won't risk it, but others may have lower or different opportunity costs. I acknowledge that I am in no position to dismiss their opportunity costs; however, some ITT (you, AAFitz) are being presumptuous by not acknowledging this.

Besides, the market has companies which will advertise--and beg--for people to buy their helmets. This is the profit motive at work. It aligns self-interest into complementing the general interest (a.k.a. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand).

And here's another thing about law and economics. Without a helmet mandate, then individual preferences for more coolness and whatever are allowed to be revealed. Entrepreneurs, who are seeking profits through helmet-production, now have the incentive to discover these preferences and then create cool-looking helmets which consumers are free to choose at a price. However, with a mandatory helmet law, those preferences are quashed*, thus the profit opportunity remains hidden or constrained.

Entreprenurs are still free to come out with any helmet design they can think of, subject to certain safety standards, with a mandate in place. They can design for any level of coolness they like so long as their product is fit for purpose, just like any other product must be fit for purpose. It doesn't restrict the economy and arguing from an economic angle makes no sense at all unless you can show somehow that the economic cost to society of the extra damage done by accidents involving riders without helmets because the rider wasn't wearing a helmet, notably brain damage and psychological trauma, is less than the economic cost to society of people who wouldn't otherwise wear one having to have helmets. As helmets are a low cost item, and brain damage patients often need lifelong care costing many many thousands, and therapy for psychological damage can also get very expensive if required long term, without proper research I believe that the cost of helmets for the objectors would be less overall.

*(Of course, those who break the law can reveal their preferences, but this is beside the point.)

    Before we jump up and support a prohibition against Not Wearing Helmets, we should really consider the capabilities of the market, the unintended consequences, the extreme limit of one's knowledge of other people's preferences, the special interest groups who may benefit from that law (police, city governments through police tickets, local Business Bureaus), the politicians, and the judges. Most importantly, we should reflect upon the opportunities that we may lose.

    Instead, some loud minority insists upon Helmet Laws, and--get this--"for the common good." And, that law gets passed. Which sounds better? To me, it's the former, cautious argument, but this latter argument--wrapped in the guise of common good--usually fails to acknowledge what it tramples underneath.

So, taken all together, plus the other objections mentioned earlier (TG's for instance), it doesn't seem you have much of an argument here--other than repeating essentially the same argument. We can choose to live in a freer society and allow others to benefit each other on a voluntary basis--free of unnecessary government intervention. Or we can overlook all these opportunities and all of those individual preferences by staunchly supporting another mindless law.

I'm in favor of a freer society, are you?

/thread
edit3: (replace key terms, apply this to other threads, and /thread those threads).


TGs arguments are "it's just an excuse for the cops to give out tickets and make money" and "if we legislate public safety for this then we should legislate it for everything which could cause self-harm". The second one fails because as can be shown there is the risk of substantially greater harm to others through no fault of their own if involved in the death of someone becaus they weren't wearing a helmet. It's not just about damage to the rider themselves. The first one fails for much the same reason. If it can be shown that you are risking the health of anyone else who has not agreed to take that risk themselves, then the law can and should be used to prevent that. When using a public highway the reasonable assumption is that all of the other users will have taken sensible precautions both in the way they use the highway, and in the protection they have adopted should this inherently risky activity go wrong for whatever reason, like wearing a seatbelt or turning on lights at night, or wearing a helmet if on a bike (motorised or not).


Nevertheless, by using an extreme particular case, you can't support your stance which applies to all cases. Therefore, this post still holds.

I've already listed more than your straw man argument and more than your other two new additions to it, so omitting relevant points isn't a good counter-argument.

RE: the entrepreneurs, sure, but that's for a particular market. After seeing so many people not wear helmets in a place which has helmet laws, then it's obvious that the price of a helmet has not sufficiently offset their benefits of not wearing one. Looks like more entrepreneurial work needs to be done, so your argument doesn't hold here.

RE: cops, business bureaus, and politicians. TG's point is still valid, and you're not really convincing anyone here by ignoring those three groups' profit-motives, so the public choice argument here holds.

RE: underlined, if we apply that argument consistently, we get unnecessary, constraining laws. Of course, if you're a state socialist, then this may be fine.

Basically, since you greatly perceive the benefits while heavily discounting the costs (and omit relevant points), then we can conclude that you oppose a freer society and favor an imagined* better, state socialist society.

    *Apparently, you believe that you know the optimal tradeoff. Very presumptuous of you and totally nonsensical, but a state socialist couldn't have done it better.


Nah...you're the one ignoring the details of the situation and just creating some perfect entrepreneurial fantasy land, not the other way around.
john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

http://i.imgur.com/zU8yLiU.gif
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7259
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1
Medals: 85
Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (3)
Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (2)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (3) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (8) General Achievement (2)
Clan Achievement (8) Tournament Contribution (8) General Contribution (2)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby Frigidus on Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:48 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
Frigidus wrote:Jesus, there are actually people opposed to bike helmet laws.

Edit:
crispybits wrote:Wearing a helmet while cycling is hardly an infringement on freedom any more than people having to wear clothes in shopping malls.


I was trying to think of a comparable complaint that is obviously ludicrous, but I couldn't come up with a good one. Thank you crispybits.


C'mon, even my left testicle can tell this is a terrible analogy. The reason clothes are necessary is because nobody wants to see nietzsche's schlong out in public. It's a PUBLIC protection thing...it has nothing to do with protecting the non-clothes-wearer from themself. Helmet laws are.

I would only support helmet laws if the government handed out helmets. Otherwise, no.

inb4 "HURRDURR YOURE AN IDIOT I HOPE YOU CRASH AND DIE WITHOUT A HELMET"


It isn't the reasoning behind the ban that's comparable, it's the reasoning behind the complaint about the ban. "Stop telling me what to wear! Muh freedom!" The implementation of such a law has been shown to reduce injuries, and I'm really having trouble seeing a legitimate downside beyond 'I think this looks stupid'. They are an overall good thing.


Your stance has many flaws and overlooks many problems, which has already been explained.


I wouldn't say that it overlooks anything, although I would certainly say that we use a different metric to judge a situation. I judge a law by the measurable pros and cons of the end result, not by society's or various individual's perceptions. I also don't try to fit market forces into every political or philosophical situations. The biking law results in less injuries and deaths to bikers, biking becomes slightly more inconvenient overall, and some bikers are annoyed. For me, the pros far outweigh the cons.

As for TG's stance, I agree that punishment outside of a monetary fine is warranted. Flat monetary fines are inherently flawed, as they tend to punish the poor more than the rich. I'd much prefer we use a different system of punishment (public service and eventual revoking of privileges would be ideal). The flawed implementation of a law by a corrupt government does not reflect poorly on the law itself.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA
Medals: 7
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (1)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:49 pm

crispy wrote:TGs arguments are "it's just an excuse for the cops to give out tickets and make money" and "if we legislate public safety for this then we should legislate it for everything which could cause self-harm". The second one fails because as can be shown there is the risk of substantially greater harm to others through no fault of their own if involved in the death of someone becaus they weren't wearing a helmet. It's not just about damage to the rider themselves. The first one fails for much the same reason. If it can be shown that you are risking the health of anyone else who has not agreed to take that risk themselves, then the law can and should be used to prevent that. When using a public highway the reasonable assumption is that all of the other users will have taken sensible precautions both in the way they use the highway, and in the protection they have adopted should this inherently risky activity go wrong for whatever reason, like wearing a seatbelt or turning on lights at night, or wearing a helmet if on a bike (motorised or not).


What do you mean by this? Like, if the bicyclist crashes because a car didn't see him? That would be a risk that you take every time you take your bike out. Indeed, as motorcycle rider, I recognize that the greatest threat to my safety is the lessened visibility I have and the greater chance that somebody's going to hit me rather than operator failure on my part.

Again, maybe I'm missing something, but if I'm not wearing a helmet and decide to do the ragdoll routine, wearing a helmet isn't going to protect anybody but me.

-TG
ImageEight-year olds, Dude.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Medals: 5
Standard Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:58 pm

Frigidus wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
Frigidus wrote:Jesus, there are actually people opposed to bike helmet laws.

Edit:
crispybits wrote:Wearing a helmet while cycling is hardly an infringement on freedom any more than people having to wear clothes in shopping malls.


I was trying to think of a comparable complaint that is obviously ludicrous, but I couldn't come up with a good one. Thank you crispybits.


C'mon, even my left testicle can tell this is a terrible analogy. The reason clothes are necessary is because nobody wants to see nietzsche's schlong out in public. It's a PUBLIC protection thing...it has nothing to do with protecting the non-clothes-wearer from themself. Helmet laws are.

I would only support helmet laws if the government handed out helmets. Otherwise, no.

inb4 "HURRDURR YOURE AN IDIOT I HOPE YOU CRASH AND DIE WITHOUT A HELMET"


It isn't the reasoning behind the ban that's comparable, it's the reasoning behind the complaint about the ban. "Stop telling me what to wear! Muh freedom!" The implementation of such a law has been shown to reduce injuries, and I'm really having trouble seeing a legitimate downside beyond 'I think this looks stupid'. They are an overall good thing.


Your stance has many flaws and overlooks many problems, which has already been explained.


I wouldn't say that it overlooks anything, although I would certainly say that we use a different metric to judge a situation. I judge a law by the measurable pros and cons of the end result, not by society's or various individual's perceptions. I also don't try to fit market forces into every political or philosophical situations. The biking law results in less injuries and deaths to bikers, biking becomes slightly more inconvenient overall, and some bikers are annoyed. For me, the pros far outweigh the cons.

As for TG's stance, I agree that punishment outside of a monetary fine is warranted. Flat monetary fines are inherently flawed, as they tend to punish the poor more than the rich. I'd much prefer we use a different system of punishment (public service and eventual revoking of privileges would be ideal). The flawed implementation of a law by a corrupt government does not reflect poorly on the law itself.


So, subsidize that corrupt government by supporting the laws which feed it? Makes sense!

RE: underlined, oh, then you'll continue have problems with your position, which you're not bothering to defend (e.g. overlooking problems with the statistics which Haggis has already mentioned). Given this, you don't have an argument here.

Why can't people recognize the limits of their presumptuous positions? We have already mentioned the problems with the statistics, and you need to recognize the actual process through which your ideal laws are crafted and enforced.

The flawed implementation of a law by a corrupt government does not reflect poorly on the law itself.
The law itself shall remain perfect within your imagination. The rest of us would rather not feed the corrupt government to begin with. Makes more sense than supporting an ideal law and running it through a corrupted system--while expecting good outcomes.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby crispybits on Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:20 pm

BBS wrote:Earlier you were berating TGD about not having a sound defense for some ideal position, but you've completely failed to hold yourself up to your own standard. I'm just sayin that you need to recognize the limits of your position, we have already mentioned the problems with the statistics, and you need to recognize the actual process through which your ideal laws are crafted and enforced.

If you neglect this, then you'll keep running into poor outcomes. That line of reasoning simply reinforces the ever-expanding nation-states and in no way does it limit government. You're not going to get your supposed goal of small government if you fail to hold yourself to your own standards of defending your ideal while neglecting the limits of your ability to know what is best for everyone and to recognize the actual, social processes at play.

RE: the rest. Rules and regulation do not only originate from the state.


No, earlier I criticised the fact that TGD was proposing an idea, but seemed unwilling to back that idea up with further explanation, clarification and such like. I'm trying to expand on my ideas in as far as I understand any of the criticisms or objections. Sometimes I still haven't understood the ciriticism correctly, but you cannot claim that I'm throwing out one liners here.

Re: the one liner, rules of government built, maintained and regulated public highways do. There are other optional informal conventions and courtesies, but the actual rules all come from the state, and in the event of an incident it is these that are considered, not the informal social conventions and courtesies.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby crispybits on Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:24 pm

And BBS, your presumption is that an anarcho-free market would be better in all cases. You don't seem to recognise the blatant problms with that position in any of your posts.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby crispybits on Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:28 pm

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
crispy wrote:TGs arguments are "it's just an excuse for the cops to give out tickets and make money" and "if we legislate public safety for this then we should legislate it for everything which could cause self-harm". The second one fails because as can be shown there is the risk of substantially greater harm to others through no fault of their own if involved in the death of someone becaus they weren't wearing a helmet. It's not just about damage to the rider themselves. The first one fails for much the same reason. If it can be shown that you are risking the health of anyone else who has not agreed to take that risk themselves, then the law can and should be used to prevent that. When using a public highway the reasonable assumption is that all of the other users will have taken sensible precautions both in the way they use the highway, and in the protection they have adopted should this inherently risky activity go wrong for whatever reason, like wearing a seatbelt or turning on lights at night, or wearing a helmet if on a bike (motorised or not).


What do you mean by this? Like, if the bicyclist crashes because a car didn't see him? That would be a risk that you take every time you take your bike out. Indeed, as motorcycle rider, I recognize that the greatest threat to my safety is the lessened visibility I have and the greater chance that somebody's going to hit me rather than operator failure on my part.

Again, maybe I'm missing something, but if I'm not wearing a helmet and decide to do the ragdoll routine, wearing a helmet isn't going to protect anybody but me.

-TG


As I've said, if I, as a driver, hit and kill a cyclist because the cyclist was not wearing a helmet and the cyclist does something compeltely stupid that I could not reasonabloy be expected to predict or expect, then I am not at fault for the accident. But would that make the psychological damage of knowing that I have played a part in killing another human being disappear? Would I just shrug and go "well it was his own fault" and carry on as before, or would I maybe suffer from doubt and trauma myself knowing that I've been involved in the death of another person? Our actions have consequences on others, intentional or not, and refusing reasonable and minor inconvenience that puts other people at risk of significant damage (however unlikely) is unreasonable, selfish and should be enforced against. Just like I have to have lights in the dark.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:30 pm

crispybits wrote:
BBS wrote:No, earlier I criticised the fact that TGD was proposing an idea, but seemed unwilling to back that idea up with further explanation, clarification and such like. I'm trying to expand on my ideas in as far as I understand any of the criticisms or objections. Sometimes I still haven't understood the ciriticism correctly, but you cannot claim that I'm throwing out one liners here.

Re: the one liner, rules of government built, maintained and regulated public highways do. There are other optional informal conventions and courtesies, but the actual rules all come from the state, and in the event of an incident it is these that are considered, not the informal social conventions and courtesies.


No, they don't.

Here's a reading list:

Ellickson - Order without Law
Ostrom - Governing the Commons
Bamyeh - Anarchy as Order
Scott - The Art of Not Being Governed
Anderson and Hill - The Not So Wild Wild West
Stringham - Anarchy and the Law

And, here's more on rules, law, and order (whether it be centrally planned, i.e. statist, or not):
Hayek - Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order
North - Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance


@TGD: I've read 4/8 of them. Currently working on Order without Law.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby crispybits on Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:33 pm

Can you give an example of a rule of a public highway that is enforcable that does not come from legislation? (note, not one that started as something other than legislation, but something that can be enforced by someone without there being any legislation)
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm
Medals: 33
Standard Achievement (1) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (9)

Re: Bike helmet laws shown to reduce number of injuries

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:38 pm

crispybits wrote:And BBS, your presumption is that an anarcho-free market would be better in all cases. You don't seem to recognise the blatant problms with that position in any of your posts.


Actually, I don't, but I know which areas to look at and how to examine them. You, AAFitz, and Frigidus (Mets, Sym, JB, etc.) do not--or sometimes outright refuse to, which is funny but sad.

I'll keep highlighting all the holes in your argument, and point how your position at times is counterproductive to your goals of having a smaller government.

RE: italicized, I'm very cognizant of the problems with market anarchy, but I hardly ever have that conversation with people on here--Usually because I have to start with the basics and get people to understand what are markets exactly, why they should appreciate them, what's wrong with the political process, what's wrong with imagining the "common good" and assuming certain problems away, etc. etc. etc.

Some people aren't ready for a freer society because critical thinking is costly and rhetoric/unchallenged beliefs are cheaper.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

PreviousNext

Return to Troll Forest

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mrswdk

Login