Julia Neuberger has been looking at the nudge philosophy so beloved of iDave and company. Her brief was to see if it would help with his big society. Well… It ain’t looking so good. Neuberger uses terms like “precious little evidence” that it worked. While she may be spending more time looking at food labels to take note of all the bollocks they now contain, the rest of us (me included) are continuing to just pick it off the shelf and chuck it in the trolley. I don’t care a jot how much salt or fat it contains.
So, she’s right.
Oh, but…
“Basically you need more than just nudge,” she says, when we meet in the Lords. “Behavioural change interventions appear to work best when they’re part of a package of regulation and fiscal measures,” she adds, putting down her papers and a large canvas bag from Daunt Books in Hampstead.
So, rather than tell iDave that it’s all nonsense and that we are best left to our own devices, we need a “package” of regulation.
As an example, Neuberger points to the efforts to persuade people to wear seat belts in the 1970s, which incorporated an advertising campaign and legislation. “So it was a whole series of measures that did eventually change the climate.” Later, she adds: “I think politicians would be well advised to use these sorts of behavioural interventions as part of an armoury.”
No, absolutely not! We don’t need behavioral interventions. The seat belt law was a classic example of law that is designed to protect us from ourselves and is therefore redundant. If people want to take the risk that they will fly through the windscreen in a collision or crush their chest on the steering wheel, then that’s their decision to take, not the state’s. At least, it should be. The same goes for our diets. So, I for one will buy what I damned well please – taste being the deciding factor, not the traffic light symbols on the package that I don’t even bother to look at and have no plans to do so in the future. And Neuberger and iDave can take their behavioral intervention and stick it somewhere distinctly unpleasant.
“The seat belt law was a classic example of law that is designed to protect us from ourselves and is therefore redundant.”
I would be all for taking that a stage further – remove ALL the modern safety systems from cars and then see if the standard of driving improved. Now that drivers are cocooned and protected they act like complete idiots. If they thought they might not survive a crash, I reckon their behaviour would improve. And if cars didn’t have 6″ thick windscreen pillars, the old “sorry mate, didn’t see you” excuse would carry less weight.
The seat belt law example was extremely well said. I always find great life lessons on this blog, thank you very much for this! You are totally right about Neuberger and iDave, I agree with you.
Best wishes,,
Victor Cadouri
Microdave, you are absolutely spot on with your post. When people think they are safe, they will become overconfident and take more risks, leading to more accidents.
Please google and utube Hans Monderman. He got it right.
Sickening control freaks.
There ARE still cars that don’t need seatbelts – those that were made 50+ years ago. And these are, arguably, ‘greener’ than new ones when the carbon footprint of manufacture & disposal of 5-10 replacements is taken into account
The problem with letting people smash their chests on steering wheels or whatever, is that our taxes pay for their rescue and subsequent hospital treatment, often for years if they smash their skulls.
Ah, the old “cost to the NHS” argument. Doesn’t wash, I’m afraid. By that reasoning, you will ban all dangerous sports or motorcycling or ballooning or anything where people voluntarily take risks that might incur NHS treatment and therefore cost. The whole point about the NHS is what we all pay in and take out what we need when we need it irrespective of cost or cause. That’s what universal provision means.
@ Mjolinir – even a relatively new one like my 24 year old Panda (which has seat belts) is free of other “Hi Tech”. It has excellent all round visibility through not having massive windscreen & door pillars. No dangerous reflections of the upper dash in the screen when driving into sun, either. How often do you see that drawback of every new car mentioned in road tests???
Is it just me or is there a competition going on between car manufacturers to see who can fit the smallest windows? I fear that within 10 years we will have cars with NO windows at all, and just cameras and TV screens…
@ Oram – The same argument is used for banning smoking and drinking, and we all know how emotive that can be!
I think it was Anthony Smith in one of his excellent “Sideways Look” talks on the steam wireless about 25 – 30 years ago who suggested removing all the safety features from cars and installing in their place a sharp steel spike pointing out from the hub of the steering wheel straight at the driver’s chest.
Now that would concentrate the mind wonderfully.
When nudge comes to shove.
In time honoured fashion, where persuasion fails, use aggression.
It is the essence of Socialism, persuading, bribing even, Humans to relinquish their Human instincts and follow the path of light shone by their intellectual betters, but when that fails, suppression then oppression.
I always used to use the seat belt before the law came in. I think all these laws are heavy handed. The motorcycle helmet law too. Adults should be given the choice, not forced by fear of a fine or jail in such matters.
@Oram,
As Bastiat said all those years ago, there is always something that cannot be seen…
In the case of safety belts, the increased perceived “safety” transferred the problem to the people outside the car, ie cyclists, pedestrians, etc…
With the helmet law, notwithstanding the fact that there was more than 90% compliance beforehand, I believe that more people got accidents because they felt safer and therefore took more risks. Such that the overall effect is not what is claimed.
It is called risk compensation. Everybody does it all the time. You do.
As for the NHS argument, if you force people to use something then you can hardly blame them for using it.
One of the consequences of the helmet law IIRC was an increase in paraplegic and brain damaged survivors. I always wear a helmet irrespective of the law because to ride without one is incredibly uncomfortable at anything like approaching legal speed limits, but I do not accept that it is the place of the state to force me to wear it.