Quote:
Originally Posted by Triple Jim
Katie, I ignore things that are written mainly to sell copy. I'm a firm believer in ATGATT, and also in personal freedom. We don't need any laws to save people from themselves, only laws to keep people from infringing on the rights of others.
|
Same
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
Hard to debate that, it is exactly the right concept in the abstract. The stickiest point becomes what counts as infringing on others' rights. Making them pay more due to ones own decisions? Indirectly affecting someone else's safety in a general way? A specific way? Making someone else uncomfortable?
|
The stance Triple Jim has (I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm misrepresenting his views) and I have is based some on some premisses:
1. We understand that all laws are backed by violence (or threat of). So it's not just "you should do this". It's "you should do this... or else". So when we're talking about doing the "good" or the "right" thing using a law you also have to factor in that you're achieving this "good" thing using a threat of violence (which many people consider to be a bad thing).
2. We don't want other people to violently interfere with our life and our decisions by using laws or other violent means. We acknowledge that for people to not interfere with us, we should not interfere with them. I think most people know that when someone makes one rule for you and a separate rule for themselves they are simply trying to control your behaviour for their own benefit without regard for you or the greater community. Conversely, if someone applies the same rule to themselves and others they are showing that they may actually care about
doing the right thing and coming up with objective standards that everyone in a community can follow to benefit the community as a whole.
So in the case of helmets, the hypocrisy comes from creating rules to stop some activities which may hurt yourself but not other activities. I personally think it's stupid to ride without a helmet, but I'm not ever going to call for laws and violence to be used against people who refuse to wear one, because I don't want people calling for laws or violence to be used against me to stop me:
- riding a motorcycle (way more dangerous than driving a car).
- driving a car (way more dangerous than taking a train or plane).
- taking certain drugs that I choose to take
- riding a bicycle without a helmet
- walking around bare foot outside
- any of the other countless things I do which create no risk of damage to other people or their property, but which create risks for myself.
3. Even if there is never a good reason to not wear a helmet on public roads, we acknowledge that the act of making a law to mandate helmets implicitly elevates the law makers to a state where they know what is right and wrong and they know what the best decisions are and you don't. I don't accept this. They are just human like me. These are people that I have never met and who have never met me. I will make my own decisions as to what is right and wrong and how I should behave. I'm not going to place trust in strangers to do this for me. The only time I will consider physically imposing myself on others or promoting that practise is on matters of property rights and aggression. In all other cases, I will let people figure out for themselves and I'll do the same for me. I'll mess up sometimes and so will they. This is part of being human and it's part of the joy of life: having the freedom to try things, be things and do things you want with your own body and mind.
4. Is it really true that there is
never a situation where riding at speed on public roads without a helmet is a bad idea? I don't know for sure. What about if someone you love is in immediate danger and all you have to get to them is a motorcycle and no helmet? You might decide that the risk to you is outweighed by the risk to your love one if you delay getting to them in order to find a helmet or another safer method of transport. This situation is unlikely, but it's just here to illustrate a point. There could be a situation where you deem it reasonable to risk your life by riding without a helmet. Helmet laws could take that choice away from you. You could get stopped by a cop enforcing the law.
Finally: just because I am against helmet laws does not mean that I don't see this as a very real and serious problem which is the cause of great tragedy and suffering in many peoples lives. The only thing I disagree with is using laws (and the violence that backs them) to solve this problem. There are other ways to solve this problem which we can all take part in without using violence to infringe on the free will of an individual. Some ideas:
- donate to a charity which offers free helmets to people who haven't bought a decent one because of lack of money.
- speak with bikers you see in the street who are not wearing decent gear. It's uncomfortable doing this sometimes and can make you look like you are interfering, but in reality it's way less interfering than getting a law passed which makes this compulsory. I personally have spoken to young bikers who don't wear good gear in the UK. I always cringe when I see people riding without decent riding boots, because I know that foot and ankle damage is very common in bike accidents and the effects can be horrendously painful and debilitating. I have a good imagination so I'll build a picture in the mind of the person I'm talking to of what could happen to their body if they crash without boots.
- Promote a culture of ATGATT on forums and at bike clubs. Ninjette.org has a great ATGATT culture and played a big part in getting me to wear full gear on every ride (in the UK only a helmet is compulsory).
- Social ostracism via freedom of association (and non-assocation). I'm not saying that you should do this, but it remains a non-violent option. If you recognise just how dangerous it is to ride at speed without a helmet and you really care about someone, then maybe you can choose to not ride with someone who rides without a helmet or you can even refuse to socially interact with them on a greater level.
I've written a fair bit, but I still feel that what I have written is inadequate. This subject touches on some deep philosophical ideas and some of it comes down to subjective differences in belief between individuals. Hopefully I've at least helped you to understand this viewpoint better