• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
    1811·
    2 天前

    We shouldn’t though. The responsibility should fall on those who create the danger to manage it responsibly.

    I do wear a helmet but if someone chooses not to that’s their business and it’s not their fault if someone else injures or kills them any more than it would be if you failed to wear body armor while walking in a dangerous neighborhood.

    • grue@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      6·
      2 天前

      I wear a helmet while biking. It’s saved me from a head injury once so far, in an accident that had nothing to do with being hit by a car.

      I don’t think it should be legally required, though, because avoiding discouraging people from cycling at all is more important for safety and health in aggregate.

      (I was riding along at relatively low speed, looking up at some scenery, and hit the longitudinal edge of a cockeyed metal plate in the road in just the wrong way such that it pushed my wheel sideways and made me fall over.)

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
        8·
        2 天前

        Yeah I support helmet wearing. I just don’t think we should blame people for bad things that other people do to them just because they chose not to.

    • blitzen@lemmy.caEnglish
      63·
      2 天前

      Comes down to if you want to assign blame or prevent it from happening to you.

      Yes, if you’re riding without a helmet and hit by a car, the car is (probably) still at fault. But if your primary concern is avoiding brain damage, you wear a helmet.

      You’ve chosen hyperbole in your hypothetical in a dangerous neighborhood. More to the point is wearing an expensive watch while in a dangerous neighborhood. If you’re rolled and the watch stolen, it’s the fault of the thief. But maybe a better idea to put the Rolex in your pocket when downtown after dark.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
        66·
        2 天前

        I think my analogy is way more similar than yours.

        Make your own decisions about how you keep yourself safe. But once you start victim blaming, expect criticism.

        • blitzen@lemmy.caEnglish
          64·
          2 天前

          Nope. We’re talking basic common sense precautions. Not “body armor.”

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
            34·
            2 天前

            “Common sense” stems from the cultural context. Which in this case is carbrained.

            Most other countries do not consider a helmet a necessity for riding a bike.

            • blitzen@lemmy.caEnglish
              51·
              2 天前

              I ride exclusively on bike trails, away from any cars. Other countries are wrong on this one.

                • blitzen@lemmy.caEnglish
                  21·
                  2 天前

                  I’m not going to edit my comment, but I shouldn’t have said exclusivity. I should have said that most of my mileage is ridden away from cars, and thus wearing a helmet isn’t due to proximity to cars. I wear a helmet when I’m riding in car traffic as well, but not because of the cars.

                  Riding a bike anywhere without a helmet is disregarding your safety. I’m not saying it needs to be legislated, but don’t pretend you’re enlightened because you rawdog your bike.

                  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.netEnglish
                    21·
                    2 天前

                    It’s all about risk tolerance. Wearing a helmet on a bike keeps you a little safer. Wearing body armor keeps you a little safer. Those are facts. But the decision as to what actions to take to keep oneself safe is a personal decision. As such, it may be reasonable to advise people of that information so they can make a better decision. But insulting them for failing to take advice you personally consider common sense is just rude. And when you’re insulting them and ignoring the person actually creating the danger… well that’s why the term carbrain was invented.