[HWR_14]

What if the helmets were giant (unlike bike helmets, the rider doesn't have to carry the entire weight or air resistance). Then, instead of filling the helmets with hard styrofoam, we could fill them with something even softer, maybe a compressible gas. People could obviously store them in the vehicle. It might be annoying to wear them all the time, so we could mandate that cars detect when you are about to be in a crash and slam a helmet on your head. Although, come to think of it, it doesn't need to surround your whole head. What if we could make it just appear between your head and anything you were going to hit. Hey, we could even have those things hold the micro helmets. Since they are filled with air, we can use air pressure to deploy them fast, these flexible bags of air.

[AnthonyMouse]

You're kind of making their point for them.

It's dumb to mandate helmets or any other specific technology because it removes the possibility for something better or for context-based decisionmaking.

Suppose you ride your motorcycle into the desert and then lose your helmet into a canyon. Your phone is dead. Your choices are a thirty hour walk out of the desert which might cause you to die of dehydration, or riding your motorcycle without a helmet. Should you get a ticket for making the obvious choice?

[HWR_14]

I'm not sure how you think I'm making their point for them. They said safety rules infringe on their freedom, and added an example of a more severe safety rule that would infringe on their freedom. I pointed out we also implemented a rule that does the thing they implied was more severe.

Meanwhile, there is a general necessity defense to violating all traffic laws for your motorcycle example. We don't list every possible emergency or every possible rule we would allow an exception to.

[AnthonyMouse]

> I'm not sure how you think I'm making their point for them.

They argued against mandating helmets in cars. Your point was that we could do something better than helmets and less inconvenient, namely airbags. But that is an argument for not mandating helmets. And the same argument generalizes to any specific technology. What happens when someone comes up with something better than an airbag but then it doesn't satisfy the rule "is an airbag" and is therefore prohibited?

> Meanwhile, there is a general necessity defense to violating all traffic laws for your motorcycle example.

In practice this kind of general exception either consumes the rule or isn't available when it legitimately applies. If you can say you lost your helmet and would have been stranded then everyone says this and you can't enforce the law. But if you can't claim that when it's true then the necessity defense isn't meaningful.

And for the same reason the exceptions are typically excessively narrow. Suppose you lose your helmet while camping, so you have plenty of food and water and can make the 3-day walk back to civilization. There is no risk of death. But then you have a three day walk for what would have been a two hour ride, which is going to make you late for work on Monday. Is not being late for work a necessity? And yet, is it reasonable to punish someone who makes that choice?

[ilyt]

Yes. Catering for extreme edge cases is a waste of time, just pay your ticket dumbass, how the fuck you even "lose" a helmet and why the fuck you didn't bring a phone charger?

Given the chance of the story being fabricated close to 100% catering for it is unreasonable.

[Shaanie]

You can make the exact same example, except someone without a driving license finds a car. I doubt you're opposed to mandating driver licenses, though.

[AnthonyMouse]

You're not making the point you think you are. All a driver license proves is that you took a basic class as a teenager and have been paying the government a fee since then. You could get the same benefit just by adding the class to the high school curriculum.

[defrost]

> You could get the same benefit just by adding the class to the high school curriculum.

This doesn't contribute to the upkeep of roads in the same manner as a yearly tax on those that use them.

So no, not the same benefit at all.

[AnthonyMouse]

You're thinking of car tax and fuel tax.

But also, the value of roads scales poorly with any of these things. The ability to have a package delivered to your front door is valuable regardless of whether or not you even have a car, and the value of it depends on what's in it rather than how much the truck cost. The most sensible way to fund any kind of basic infrastructure is from general revenues.

[ilyt]

The point is to discourage use of certain vehicles, not to fund anything.

But yes, truck used to haul building materials for a building site is the vehicle fulfilling its purpose and any replacement for that purpose being suboptimal.

Truck bought to haul 2 bags of groceries is not. Tax the second one.

[defrost]

Is it telepathy that allows you to claim that you know what I'm thinking?

I'm stating that a number of charges go towards the upkeep of roads and related services (at least in the country I'm present in) these charges include driver and vehicle licences, fuel taxes, etc.

> So the most sensible way to ..

Proposing an alternative doesn't negate the present practices, moreover it makes sense that as much of the public cost associated with roads should come from those that use the roads the most.

[renewiltord]

Helmets are still advantageous and will continue to abate TBIs in that tool regimen. In addition, helmets can be used in a backwards compatible way to increase safety in older cars (which make up a very large fraction of vehicles on the street).