OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia • Hacker News Board

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#81

Post by jessaustin » Tue, Jul 03, 2018, 12:37 PM UTC

ponyfleisch wrote: post #80

jessaustin wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any particular collision, a helmeted brain is more protected than a non-helmeted brain, although because of factors like risk compensation and the effect of overall cycling frequency on road safety that is completely beside the point. Of course adults should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take. The relevant populations are at so much lower risk for any number of misfortunes than th…

> Of course adults should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take. It's not universally the case though (see: drugs, seatbelts), and if you think it should be, you're in a small minority with that opinion. I think it's fair to consider externalities and then make laws that strike a nice balance between individual and collective interests. Bicycle helmets are a very small inconvenience, so…

...you're in a small minority with that opinion.

Maybe in your community I would be? Where I live, it would be hard to find anyone who didn't feel adults should take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. I really don't understand this compulsion to measure oneself against the herd, however. "Oh no some randoms I've never met might disagree with me!" Why would I care about that? Perhaps you're not so experienced with reasoned discussion, but "that's fringe" and "that's conspiracy" are not really arguments. By focusing on these propositions you've conceded the factual claims I've made, which by themselves really settle the question of whether helmets ought to be mandatory for cycling.

That assumption... is a conspiracy theory.

I haven't made such an assumption. I would still question the opposite assumption, however. Are you certain that no one values the primacy of the automobile in traffic?

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#82

Post by ponyfleisch » Wed, Jul 04, 2018, 6:30 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #81

ponyfleisch wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course adults should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take. It's not universally the case though (see: drugs, seatbelts), and if you think it should be, you're in a small minority with that opinion. I think it's fair to consider externalities and then make laws that strike a nice balance between individual and collective interests. Bicycle helmets are a very small inconvenience, so…

...you're in a small minority with that opinion. Maybe in your community I would be? Where I live, it would be hard to find anyone who didn't feel adults should take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. I really don't understand this compulsion to measure oneself against the herd, however. "Oh no some randoms I've never met might disagree with me!" Why would I care about that? Perhaps you're not…

> Where I live, it would be hard to find anyone who didn't feel adults should take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

This is a very general statement and probably won't hold up in a number of specific cases, such as the total legalisation of the drug trade. But i do believe that "people" (as in: the majority) draw that line in a culture specific way and it appears that the US leans more towards personal freedom than the rest of "the west".

However, this discussion was about laws in Australia. I think it's reasonable to assume that the laws reflect the majority opinion. Now i'm not discounting fringe opinions in general and i certainly don't think the majority is always right. But in this case it's relevant because it offers a much simpler explanation for why helmet laws exist: because people living in those jurisdictions overwhelmingly want them.

Let me turn the argument around to illustrate: Not wearing helmets increases head injuries, and the people in power know that. Having a pro-helmet-law stance, it would make sense to see a conspiracy between lawmakers and health care providers (more brain damaged people, more revenue!). It seems much more reasonable to assume that places without helmet laws don't have them because people living there draw the line between personal freedoms and collective interests differently.

> I haven't made such an assumption.

Well, you wrote "Imposing helmets by law is a way to reduce cycling" and i really can't parse it any other way than to mean that the sole (or at least main) motivation for helmet laws is to reduce cycling. I stand by my words.

Re: OBike Refund in Singapore, Australia, and Malaysia

#83

Post by Chris2048 » Wed, Jul 04, 2018, 10:18 AM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #50

I think it's becoming clear that (a) bike sharing is good to have in a city. People want it. (b) neither an all public or an all private system can work as well as we'd like it to. The "all public" system means a municipality contracts a single vendor (or owns it) to build all the stations and manage everything. This is what we have where I live, dublin. It's a stagnant system. They don't add stations. Problems with…

You say "you can feel the lack of competition", but Dublin bikes are 20EUR for a year. The issue isn't competition.