Debate: This House Believes That Society Is Too Risk Averse.

[David Lee's Hair]

Aye commie, but when you're covering your ass from....

Secondly, the law has changed to the point whereby lots of people are trying desperately to cover their asses in the face of a fat bloke from Ambulance-chasing Scumbag Lawyers at your Service turning up. So much so that it's far easy just to say "no you can't do that" than it is to actually assess the risk and take some steps to mitigtate it.

By coverig yourself you are making yourself more risk averse, and due to the high demand for the fat lad chasing you to the hospital, is this not changing society?

Perhaps people don't want to be more risk averse, but shifts in the morale fibre of society (see fat lad panting behind) have made society itself become more averse to taking on risk?

[americantrotter]

Nothing wrong with helmets and such. Why should the state pay for your medical bills because you didnt want to wear a seat belt or have the proper device installed for a child? Or, do you wanna be the passer by or ambulance worker to see your disgusting body that has become a skid mark of torso and flesh?

[boltonboris]

On the topic of booster seats for safety, why not start at the root of the problem - The people who are involved in car crashes - Surely 99.9% of crashes can be avoided. So look at the drivers, not the lack of a booster seat

[blurred]

I don't believe it is too risk averse. It's easy to jump on the PC/H&S bandwagon and claim everything's gone mad, but surely safety devices and government warnings only come about as a result of an increase in knowledge (and therefore associated risk). If we're comparing society to 50 years ago, would you say it's too risk averse to have health warnings on a packet of cigarettes, or to fit seatbelts as standard in all cars? I wouldn't.

Oh, and ask that Frenchie stockbroker chap if he was risk averse or not

[boltonboris]

I don't believe it is too risk averse. It's easy to jump on the PC/H&S bandwagon and claim everything's gone mad, but surely safety devices and government warnings only come about as a result of an increase in knowledge (and therefore associated risk). If we're comparing society to 50 years ago, would you say it's too risk averse to have health warnings on a packet of cigarettes, or to fit seatbelts as standard in all cars? I wouldn't.

Oh, and ask that Frenchie stockbroker chap if he was risk averse or not

But again, anyone who buys a pack of cigarettes already knows the risks, they don't have to be reminded. If you don't know that they'll kill ya - You're too young to buy a pack!

[communistworkethic]

Aye commie, but when you're covering your ass from....

Secondly, the law has changed to the point whereby lots of people are trying desperately to cover their asses in the face of a fat bloke from Ambulance-chasing Scumbag Lawyers at your Service turning up. So much so that it's far easy just to say "no you can't do that" than it is to actually assess the risk and take some steps to mitigtate it.

By coverig yourself you are making yourself more risk averse, and due to the high demand for the fat lad chasing you to the hospital, is this not changing society?

Perhaps people don't want to be more risk averse, but shifts in the morale fibre of society (see fat lad panting behind) have made society itself become more averse to taking on risk?

the latter on the basis of effort and the ease of litigation if someone breaks a finger nail

[Dujon]

I suppose that in the first instance one has to define what 'risk averse' means in the context of the question. No doubt the question has been posed to have the debating teams consider their positions in the broadest terms.

Apart from personal risks in everyday life there are also such things as:

Business: Not only the machinations of multi-nationals but the bloke who sets up or buys a concern even knowing that a significant number of such ventures founder in the first five years of their existence.

Adventuring: Which covers a whole different world of activity and would include such pursuits as sky diving; BASE jumping; motor racing; mountain climbing and their ilk. Probably what most people these days would classify as 'extreme sports'.

The stock market: Some people play it safe and buy 'gilt edge' stock to reap the dividends (a risk in itself) while others play the 'gain game' and gamble on rises and falls of specific shares/stocks/futures.

Going out at night: Each morning I awake to find stabbings, shootings or some sod being beaten to a pulp being reported via the media. Usually at times when all decent citizens should be safe abed.

Playing football without shin pads: 'nuff said?

So, to sum up. Are we or are we not 'risk averse'? (well, it was the original proposition). Simple, physical, things that could protect or reduce an individual's chances of injury (legislated or otherwise)? An employer doing its best to look after its employees? Simple, common sense, things such as using an oven glove to take the cake out of the oven? Are the lifeboat men risk averse because they have boats which are designed to handle heavy seas in a rescue situation? Are surf lifesavers risk averse if they use a line attached to a reel in attempting to bring a lost swimmer back to shore? Was the bloke who opened a chippy in Little Lever taking a punt?

[TANGODANCER]

And then of course, there are people. Because we're all of the same intelligence level, er, aren't we? Same level of normal social behaviour, same acceptance of common-sense rules and regs and same consideration for others. Oh aye, undoubtedly.

"Don't drink and drive, never happens?. Don't drive one-handed whilst using a mobile phone, don't cross roads with music players blocking your ears, don't tailgate other drivers", etc etc etc. And still they come. Every day of our lives tragedies occur that could be avoided if people just played by the rules; they don't. Mitigation is fine in minimalising risk, but mitigation depends on people taking notice of it. It makes rules too, and people still break them and then look for something or someone to blame.

[Harry Genshaw]

But these days only a fool would ride a motorbike without a helmet

Just out of interest..does anybody know how many Sikhs have died in the UK from motorcycle accidents?

[TANGODANCER]

But these days only a fool would ride a motorbike without a helmet

Just out of interest..does anybody know how many Sikhs have died in the UK from motorcycle accidents?

Never actually seen a Sikh riding one to be honest, but wearing a head cover a-la Monty Panasar would probably allow them to wear helmets wouldn't it?

[Worthy4England]

And then of course, there are people. Because we're all of the same intelligence level, er, aren't we? Same level of normal social behaviour, same acceptance of common-sense rules and regs and same consideration for others. Oh aye, undoubtedly.

"Don't drink and drive, never happens?. Don't drive one-handed whilst using a mobile phone, don't cross roads with music players blocking your ears, don't tailgate other drivers", etc etc etc. And still they come. Every day of our lives tragedies occur that could be avoided if people just played by the rules; they don't. Mitigation is fine in minimalising risk, but mitigation depends on people taking notice of it. It makes rules too, and people still break them and then look for something or someone to blame.

Now you have me worried about Alien invasion Tango..... maybe we should reinforce starwars defences?

[Harry Genshaw]

But these days only a fool would ride a motorbike without a helmet

Just out of interest..does anybody know how many Sikhs have died in the UK from motorcycle accidents?

Never actually seen a Sikh riding one to be honest, but wearing a head cover a-la Monty Panasar would probably allow them to wear helmets wouldn't it?

No. The reason I asked is because it was a celebrated case in the 1970s (I think) that decided Sikhs were exempt from wearing motorcycle helmets. If it really is madness to ride a motorbike without a helmet then I was wondering how many Sikhs had been killed or whether the risk of using one - sans Kangol - was as dangerous as its cracked up to be?

[Montreal Wanderer]

But these days only a fool would ride a motorbike without a helmet

Just out of interest..does anybody know how many Sikhs have died in the UK from motorcycle accidents?

Never actually seen a Sikh riding one to be honest, but wearing a head cover a-la Monty Panasar would probably allow them to wear helmets wouldn't it?

No. The reason I asked is because it was a celebrated case in the 1970s (I think) that decided Sikhs were exempt from wearing motorcycle helmets. If it really is madness to ride a motorbike without a helmet then I was wondering how many Sikhs had been killed or whether the risk of using one - sans Kangol - was as dangerous as its cracked up to be?

Sikh kids have to wear helmets to play hockey here. Naturally they use ones many sizes too large. They look like the Mekon out there, but they seem to have as much fun as the rest.

[Bruce Rioja]

Like a Pat out of el?

[TANGODANCER]

Like a Pat out of el?

That is very wickedly wicked. Coat?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Like a Pat out of el?

Hey, that's Baljinder Badesha who is trying to won the right to wear a turban on a motorcycle in a religious freedom case heard in front of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. IIRC, the crown claimed the turban would unravel at high speeds so it was empirically tested on a race track. Not sure why he is not wearing a coat with that snow on the ground though. (I'll ignore that awful pun )

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Like a Pat out of el?

Hey, that's Baljinder Badesha who won the right to wear a turban on a motorcycle in a religious freedom case heard in front of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. IIRC, the crown claimed the turban would unravel at high speeds so it was empirically tested on a race track. Not sure why he is not wearing a coat with that snow on the ground though. (I'll ignore that awful pun )

Alas, this thread appears to have unravelled at a rather lower speed....

[Montreal Wanderer]

Like a Pat out of el?

Hey, that's Baljinder Badesha who is trying to win the right to wear a turban on a motorcycle in a religious freedom case heard in front of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. IIRC, the crown claimed the turban would unravel at high speeds so it was empirically tested on a race track. Not sure why he is not wearing a coat with that snow on the ground though. (I'll ignore that awful pun )

Alas, this thread appears to have unravelled at a rather lower speed....

I've just looked up the case as it is currently in the news. Apparently the unraveling crown evidence (using a dummy in a wind tunnel) was based on a faulty test. The turban unraveled when subject to 300 kph winds, which is above our legal limit. Significantly above.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

We're risk-loving when it comes to spending, certainly compare that with the likes of the Japanese, whose risk-aversion left them sitting in an economic mire for years.

There's a few British folks with mortgages ten times their incomes who are nervously eyeing the economic conditions underfoot... mind, they weren't risk-averse... or were they merely misguided?

The Health And Safety Nazis are a great bogeyman, there's no doubt we're far more hemmed in now than before, back when we were free to suck in great lungfuls of untreated factory chimney smoke and drive untrammelled by seatbelts...

As many (most amusingly Commie) pointed out, it's partly the fault of a litigious culture which blames anybody but you... that reminds me, have we discussed the bloke who's suing Ladbrokes for running up a gambling addiction?

[blurred]

As many (most amusingly Commie) pointed out, it's partly the fault of a litigious culture which blames anybody but you... that reminds me, have we discussed the bloke who's suing Ladbrokes for running up a gambling addiction?

It's Will Hills, and an interesting case. Shall be keeping my eye on it