This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
...
I don't think you could have missed the point any harder -- the problem that teleo has noted boils down to lack of agency; to counteract this, you need to take some.
If you think that car accidents 'just happen', you are experiencing the downstream consequences of the widespread promotion of this (terrible) feeling -- you will probably struggle with countermanding it no matter what if 'speeding' or 'not wearing a seatbelt' carry too much risk for you. (start slow, try one at a time!)
Possibly you are too habituated to care, but if not I guess you could chip away at it --
Helmetless bike riding?
Midnight playground maintenance?
IDK, find something man.
Speeding has substantial benefits alongside the risks - you waste significantly less of your life travelling and thus get more done.
What are the benefits of not wearing a seatbelt while you're sitting in a car anyway? I might disagree with punishing people for failing to wear a seatbelt since the risk is almost entirely to themselves, but seriously, this one is a good cost-benefit. Having agency for yourself does not mean doing the opposite of everything They tell you to do - that is still refusing to make decisions for yourself, insofar as your actions are still 100% predictable from Their edicts. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence; the goal is not to invert the system, but to ignore it.
You feel a bit free, take some agency -- maybe notice that being slightly safer is not the be-all or end-all. Like I said, the exact thing that you do is not very important -- although if your risk tolerance doesn't extend to not wearing a seatbelt sometimes, you are probably going to struggle with alternatives.
When was the last time you crashed your car? On average you can go like half a million miles without your seatbelt becoming relevant -- quite a bit more if you aren't also drinking or whatnot. Consider how your opinion has been formed, and whether this is truly too risky for you -- it will give you the tools to evaluate other risks in your life.
All this plus you look cooler. I felt like a complete dork when I was riding in a car putting my seat belt on and everyone else was just freeballing it (in another country of course, with a lower standard of safety).
ABC man -- Always Be Cool
More options
Context Copy link
I've always thought that the core idea of coolness is not caring what other people think in the moment.
Coolness is associated with freedom and relaxation and confidence yes. So caring less about what others think is usually cool, but the neurotic person dutifully buckling seatbelts for a 5 minute pickup jaunt is not cool. (not to say they aren't cool in general, just in this specific moment. they could very well be cool to give a moving eulogy when a drunk driver ends the merry ride early for anyone not wearing a seatbelt)
I've used some adjectives to stack the deck unfairly here of course, because this pup would be cooler than a try-hard wannabe that would like to buckle seatbelt but avoids doing so because they care so much about what other people think.
There's something about the fact that the doing (seatbelt) is uncool and the actively-non-doing (unbuckling to fit in) is double-uncool and the passive-non-doing (jaunt) is the cool thing.
Additionally: consider proportionality of safety-ism. Teen wearing a helmet for a razor scooter is uncool. Neil Armstrong triple-checking industrial buckles is very cool. (source: my opinion). Whether wearing a seatbelt is cool or not depends on which reference class a car-ride feels like.
More options
Context Copy link
Strongly agreed. Cool people aren't doing what makes them look cool, they are doing what they feel like doing. The things they do become cool because the person is cool, not the other way around.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For small values of significant. As a toy model, let us assume a daily commute of half an hour. Say 50% of the time, you are hampered by traffic and traffic lights from going faster. The other 50% is spent in situations where you could save time by speeding.
Let us say that you go twice the speed limit when speeding. This is breakneck speed, public menace level. Instead of going 50km/h in residential neighborhoods, you go 100km/h. Instead of going 100km/h on two way traffic roads, you go 200km/h. By risking your life and everyone else's, you save a whopping 25% of your commute time, or 7.5 minutes. Of course, for every second saved you will also spend a second in high concentration ready to slam the brakes at the slightest trouble ahead, knowing that every 50ms in reaction delay will make it even more likely that you will kill someone.
Now, there are certainly examples where going faster will save you substantial time. "It is 3am, I am at a highway junction in Munich and want to get to a highway junction in Berlin." Sure, going 280km/h will save you about half the time compared to a more leisurely pace of 140km/h (if there are no construction sites which will bottleneck your time, and you ignore speed limits meant to cut down nighttime noise). But for the average road trip, the time saved just is not all that big.
As another intuition pump, consider ambulances. Clearly, getting a patient into the hospital as soon as possible after an accident is beneficial, and this is why we allow them to turn on their siren and run red lights. So we want them to be reasonably fast. An ambulance capped at 70km/h would be comically slow. But once you get to 160km/h or something, you quickly hit the point of diminishing returns in most scenarios. I am sure it would be technically feasible to build an ambulance with a top speed of 300km/h, but nobody wants that, because the scenarios where the maximum expected utility would require an ambulance to go that fast are very rare indeed.
I said "travelling", not "commuting". I was thinking of going to visit family or going on a holiday, which (unlike commuting) often involves driving through long stretches of nothing (my general feeling is that the speed limits in built-up areas are generally about right, but those on highways are frequently far too low; many of the high-end divided roads and outback highways in Australia, for instance, could support far more than their speed limit of 110 km/h).
Also, here in Australia, there are certain highways where you're not just saving days, but potentially saving the need for a bloody caravan because the towns are over a day's drive (at the speed limit) apart.
I mean, the Royal Flying Doctor Service here in Oz has 500 km/h and even 800 km/h ambulances, which are in fact very handy. That particular solution doesn't work so well for random people travelling, though, because lol piloting is hard.
Piloting is easy, unless you mean helicopters. Dealing with all the nintendo-hard licensing and air traffic control stuff is the problem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Midnight playground maintenance has an actual purpose. It's agency for something. Unbuckled driving or helmetless biking achieves nothing (unless you're in the autism-adjacent minority who find the sensation of having to wear seatbelts and helmets actively torturous, I guess). It's just contrarianism.
Helmetless biking at high speed is awesome. Especially when it's kinda hot.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and?
That's the whole point!
Contrarianism is the whole point of unbuckled driving; I don't think it's the whole point of unsanctioned playground maintenance. Therefore I object to them being listed as examples of the same phenomenon. I'm not even knocking the joys of contrarianism! But it's more of a niche pleasure, and many people can and should see the appeal of the playground thing even though they have no interest in contrarianism-for-contrarianism's-sake.
Taking back agency in a practical, goal-oriented sense is, IMO, not the same conversation as letting yourself be contrary for the hell of it now and again - and while both are valid causes, the former is more societally important (while fortunately also being an easier sell).
Still missing the point -- the idea here is to build some risk tolerance, and notice that many of the things that a giant propaganda machine has been blaring are way too dangerous since the day you were born -- are not.
The responses here are a great example; you'd think I was suggesting BASE jumping every weekend or something.
The agency you are taking is not strictly contrarianism; it's also that you are taking responsibility for your own actions in the car. Making it clear (to yourself) that your life is in your own hands. Bird on a wire stuff.
It is anyways, we are all fragile and hanging by a thread -- making that apparent to oneself has intrinsic value. Like I said, there are other things you could do that would work -- but the options that are strictly safer than taking your seatbelt off and going for a drive are probably much fewer than you think.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Helmetless biking (and skiing, omg, the 0-to-100 in the uptake rate of ski helmets in Europe in the past decade is making me fume) achieves a lot. It makes the difference between a bike being something you can just hop onto, go from A to B with and leave wherever, and it being an activity that requires locating a particular piece of gear and hauling it with you everywhere at the destination, leaving you with either -1 hand or -1 head's worth of volume in whatever bags you bring until you return home, unless you engage in extra planning to be able to leave it somewhere.
Seatbelts are ok because the delta-inconveniencs to driving is small. Bike helmet advocates, though, belong together with Rust programmers and playground securers on the scrap heap of history for being scolds that would sap all efficiency and convenience out of life by a thousand cuts for the sake of their padded-cell utopia.
Yeah, I normally wear a helmet when I bike for recreation, but when I commuted partly by bicycle I certainly didn't. Both because it's inconvenient and because I'm not exactly screaming down hills at 40mph when I'm commuting. Ironically my commute put me through the one local town which requires bike helmets for adults, but fuck them anyway.
(Dorkiness when biking for recreation is not really affected by the helmet, because the rest of the kit already maxed that out)
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, why are we scared to say that the bike and ski helmets are inherently unaesthetic, dorky, and weird looking? Riding a bike is already fairly unaesthetic, but riding a bike with a helmet is basically doomed to dorkiness, and the more the helmet is optimized for any functional purpose the worse it tends to look. I do typically wear a helmet when I ride any considerable distance, but I'm under no illusion that I look at all cool doing so.
That said, seatbelts I remain a fan of. The numbers simply are what they are, and I don't think avoiding a seatbelt is really any improvement in comfort in a modern vehicle. I do occasionally drive classics that feature no or minimal seatbelts, and I suppose I'm taking a risk there but there's a corresponding benefit. My favorite tuner car modifications to see young guys drive around with are the addition of aesthetically obvious safety features. The fire extinguisher ostentatiously anchored to the floor in easy reach, the two strap hanging off the bumper, the four point racing harness in the driver's seat.
The idea that bike helmets look "dorky" is very alien to my lifelong sensibility on this point. They look sporty. Professional competitive bikers on television have them - they're part of the same aesthetic as football helmets or hockey masks, they have a kind of paramilitary-looking toughness about them. I will grant @4bpp the point that they are cumbersome, though.
I dunno, pros seldom raced in helmets until ~2002, maybe a little earlier in cobbled classics, and I definitely think the sport was more aesthetic pre-helmet. Not saying it's not worth it, on net, but.
The UCI started requiring helmets during the Armstrong years (there was a year or so in which they were allowed to remove them on a terminal climb in a race). The aesthetics are maybe worse (Fignon's pony tail!), but there really have been (and continue to be, and I'm not going to look at rigorous stats right now) a number of fatal high-speed crashes in bike races that helmets may mitigate somewhat.
My understanding is that the occasionally-seen soft helmets of the 80s were less about mitigating concussion-type injuries and more about road rash on scalps. I'd like to think the science has gotten better there.
It was most probably the UCI requirement that did it. My recollection is there is (was?) a slight areo, cooling, and obvious weight, penalty. At least, excepting TT specific helmets on the areo front.
The science has developed quite a bit over the last decade, I think because the NFL poured money into helmet research to show they they were doing something about CTE. There's now coverage for a huge variety of helmet types, including most cycling disciplines. If you were ever unfortunate enough to actually need protection from a helmet, I assume anthing rated by any reputable agency would be better than nothing. The Virginia Tech lab seems to publish the most about the methodology and have an extremely extensive testing protocol though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this attitude comes from having grown up as helmet adoption was first spreading. The cool kids did not wear helmets. It was the dorks who had helmets forced on them by their parents, and were too obedient to discard them once out of sight.
The helmet campaign was totalizing and successful. Kids born in the late 90s see them in all the media they consume and every kid wears them. Though as an elder millennial of a toddler I do notice the other dads my age sometimes give in to their kids hopping on a balance bike while leaving their helmets on the ground.
People who graduated high school before roughly 1992 wouldn’t have been exposed to the dynamics introduced by the helmet campaign and so can reasonably view them as the domain of Lance Armstrongs.
Well, now, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I saw no "aw, making sure to put your helmet first, are we? what are you, a baby?" grandstanding from wannabe-toughies. "It's dorky to wear a helmet" is not an alien sentiment to me. What I objected to was the idea that it is a truth universally acknowledged that bicycle helmets, as a piece of gear, look dorky. An oversized one painted in bright primary colors, such as a worrywart mother might give to a nine-year-old - sure, that looks a bit dorky. But a sleek pro-type one, I just don't see it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link