Liberal Democrats

im starting to grow fondness for this newish poltical party called the Liberal Democrats.
This is that Party in the inquiry into Police Harassment.

I see Sam Kennard of Kennards Storage is standing politically for them even though im a bit concerned because I heard a rumour he was linked to that religious group the Exclusive Brethren but that could be just a rumour.

But they seem ok and standing up to Nanny State ideas.

 

What are the "Nanny State ideas"?

 

They are not that new a party, but are becoming more widely known now they have a Senator in parliament.

Laws that tell us what we can and can't for our own protection... should be an individuals right to choose (when they are not impacting on others).

Senate to examine drugs, porn, bike helmets and pools in 'nanny state' inquiry

I agree with a lot of the policies (but not all): Policies

 

I don't think pool fences and bike helmets are a nanny state thing.

The problem with our species, we want complete freedom, but keep doing stupid things that kill us or others, and cost the general society a swag of money and grief in various ways.

The hidden issue with nanny state stuff is to do with litigation by the person who was injured/killed or did the same to another person, and vice versa.

For eg; in the USA, I was sitting on the top rail of a two rail steel fence next to a path in L.A central...bum on top rail, feet on middle rail.

I was over 40 years old at the time; not 3 years old...a security guard came over and told me to get off "for my own safety"......now; that's nanny state stuff.

The problem now is that no-one wants to take any responsibility for their own actions; they want to shift blame and responsibility; to sue others, etc.

So, sadly; we have made our own nest on a lot things - so others can protect themselves from....us.

 

So then a similar height to how you might be positioned to ride a bike. Maybe you would think it more reasonable if he'd asked you to wear a helmet instead...

Yeah not a nanny state thing... Bicycle helmet laws by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

You're a ripping funny dude, BB.

Why do you do this...talk crap and twist posts like this?

Can you just grow up?

Normally I'd wave on a post such as yours as the ramblings of another ignorant keyboard warrior, but in this case it's a serious issue of which I have a bit of prior experience and know different.

Ask any ER/ICU/Trauma unit nurse/Registrar/Surgeon what their view is about "nanny state" things such as seat belts in cars, helmets for motor bike riders, and helmets for cyclists/skateboarders/scooter riders, pool fences (or lack of) and so forth.

Some folks out there think fines for using a mobile phone while driving are "nanny state".....

My wife is a Theater Nurse of over 20 years, and I worked in an ICU for 3 years...

 

@Bayview, the obvious difference between not wearing a helmet riding a bike vs texting while driving is that in one of these situations you are only risking your own safety... so of course I agree with laws against texting while driving.

You want the freedom to do your own risk assessment by sitting haphazardly on a fence without a helmet, but then also want to force others by law to wear a bike helmet... you don't see the hypocrisy here?

You want to force your safety protocols on others (where they only have the ability to hurt themselves) using the force of government. That is what a nanny state does.

 

So, if it's an activity that only affects you and no-one else; the Gubb should butt out?

They did once upon a time, but folks keep on dying - or worse; surviving.

Visited any pediatric wards (or any ward) at the trauma hospitals lately?

Gubbs don't simply have a thought about some weirdo rule to pizz people off and hamper their lives, and whack in a rule overnight...

They are presented with years of records and patterns of injuries and from what causes; then eventually legislate a rule to stop the carnage. I will agree that sometimes they can be a bit over the top, but generally; the intention is good.

If you feel so strongly about having your freedom restricted from an activity that will only affect you and no-one else; you can protest by not wearing your helmet while riding a bike if you want.

What about the bike rider who gets plowed into by a car/truck/bus - no fault of their own and haven't hurt themselves by themselves - this is the possibly the most common cause of bike trauma...

Me; I wouldn't hit the road without one whether it was compulsory or not.

Some nanny state stuff I'll agree with you about, but not this one.

 

I wouldn't ride a bike on the road without a helmet, but would consider it on cycling/walking tracks... if I had a bike.

 

Senator Leyonhjelm is the Liberal Democrats member in the Senate. The Liberal Democrats are neoliberals. This is a good piece on neoliberalism: UPDATED: What is Neoliberalism?

 

Here's one Guest - snow sports. It is not compulsory to wear a helmet if you are skiing or boarding but if you take a lesson you will need to wear one.

So you need to be traveling at great speed/be wary of cars to suffer an injury? No. I have seen stationary people wiped out causing injury, I have been saved a concussion from a simple fall.

Is these all nanny state?

 

How's this;

I caught a rear edge whilst traversing along a path to a run at Mt.Buller one time...literally walking pace as the track was barely downhill at the start, but the track was iced up and rock hard...

Fell extremely hard on my left buttock, and literally could not stand for about 20 mins. The resulting bruise was the size of a bread and butter plate, and as black as the ace of spades for about 3 weeks.

I didn't hit my head, but the whip-lash in my neck from trying to avoid cracking my head on the ice gave me a headache for the next 24 hours, and sore neck muscles for 2 days...

This was back in the days before helmets were considered necessary or cool...I would hate to think what might have occurred if I had struck the back of my head on that ice.

I wasn't a beginner either; just not paying enough attention due to the slower speed.

 

I don't understand what you are suggesting is the nanny state law in this scenario?

If the government legislates that those taking lessons need to wear a helmet then yes that would be a nanny state law, but it seems more likely that is a rule of the instructors or their insurance provider... which I have no problem with.

 

Both instructors and students are required to wear a helmet if they go to snowsports lessons but not if they go off on their with zero instruction.

 

I think you'll find that this scenario is related to their requirements for insurance coverage for the class, rather than a Gubb law.

 

Casually browsing through the headline policies, there's a lot I agree with. Then again, there's a lot I don't agree with.

I'm all for reducing the 'nanny state', but not across the board. People should be welcome to do stupid things and suffer the consiquences, but what happens when those consiquences hurt their families, their kids, the wider community? There's a good argument for limiting certain types of behaviour.

Simple example is bicycle helmets. We all know that your chaces of serious injury in a bicycle accident is massively compounded in the absence of a helmet. If you don't wear one, you're the one who's brain damaged, the helmet doesn't do anything for the other guy in the accident.

Unfortuantely it's your family, parents, kids, friends that will have to support you if you are brain damanged. You're giving them a life sentince because you were stupid. The wider community pays taxes that provide the medical treatment and lifetime support.

So where a bike helmet and be prepared to get a fine if you don't. Some laws are designed to protect others from your own stupidity.

If you want to smoke, fine. Don't force others to smoke because you're in a confined space, don't expect free health care for lung cancer after decades of self abuse. Divert those funds into rehab programs instead.

Civil litiagation needs to be curbed. Today if you trip over a pallet at Bunning, you sue Bunnings. Watch where you're going! Take some responsibility for your own actions! If you invest badly by all means get legal recourse for deceptive conduct, but don't waste societies time because you made a bad decision.

The balance needs to be made in making people to take responsibility for their errors but protecting the wider community from the wrong actions of others. There's some good ideas here, but if they had their way, there's a lot of things that would dramatically hurt the society we enjoy.

I guess that's why democracy can work well. Having multiple parties with various ideologies gives the government the opportunity to take the ideas of one party for a preiod of time. Hopefully extreme ideas are moderated or corrected by others in the implementation or by the next government if necessary.

 

If you put yourself or your kids in a snowboarding class you're handing the instructor some responsibility for their wealfare. The instructor has every right to require a helmet be worn. If you don't like it, don't put yourself in their hands.

 

does anyone know of any other countries where bike helmets are compulsory?

 

New Zealand.

Any other country that implemented it subsequently abandoned it because its a bad idea and does not achieve greater safety.

Cheers,
Inertia.