Dear Mr Norman
I read the announcement that there is to be a review of cycling law and safety on the roads.
As an interested observer, may I please request that the committee appoint Chris Boardman to the panel or as as a special advisor. This is because he has broad experience and understanding of cycling along with a long standing interest in road safety. His inclusion would, in my view and I believe in the view of the wider cycling community, substantially enhance the quality the committee's output.
Yours faithfully,
Ham
If speed limits were imposed you would need a change in the law, and then some sort of MOT check to make sure said speedometer was correct – it ain't gonna happen, but I can see in the not too distant future everybody will have to have some sort of third party insurance.
If speed limits were imposed you would need a change in the law, and then some sort of MOT check to make sure said speedometer was correct – it ain't gonna happen, but I can see in the not too distant future everybody will have to have some sort of third party insurance.
Is it a requirement that every driver (or car) carries a calibrated breathalyser to ensure you aren't over the limit whilst driving?
If speed limits were imposed you would need a change in the law, and then some sort of MOT check to make sure said speedometer was correct – it ain't gonna happen, but I can see in the not too distant future everybody will have to have some sort of third party insurance.
..
(I'm aware that in France it is a requirement to carry a breathalyser, although it's rarely enforced.)
I'm probably going to get flack for this...
Discussion needs to be focussed on our responsibility as cyclists to cycle safely and responsibly, rather than reverting to the "but cars are more dangerous, what about them..." response.
A law to allow irresponsible cyclists to be prosecuted is, I think, a good idea.
I'm probably going to get flack for this...
Discussion needs to be focussed on our responsibility as cyclists to cycle safely and responsibly, rather than reverting to the "but cars are more dangerous, what about them..." response.
A law to allow irresponsible cyclists to be prosecuted is, I think, a good idea.
The cyclist we've all been talking about has been imprisoned; why does the law need changing?
If speed limits were imposed you would need a change in the law, and then some sort of MOT check to make sure said speedometer was correct – it ain't gonna happen, but I can see in the not too distant future everybody will have to have some sort of third party insurance.
A law to allow irresponsible cyclists to be prosecuted is, I think, a good idea.
it's very very easy, trivial in fact, for the average cyclist to implement
only 1 colleague has raised this subject today - he'd like to see a clampdown on dangerously bright ill-aimed lights on bikes.
[and I wouldn't argue with this!]
- Enforcement of existing traffic law, including removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras, allowing for example red light enforcement by CCTV for all road users
There can be no question (!!!) that cyclists can be no more trusted to police themselves than drivers can and, without the history and background of a cycling culture, widespread dickish behaviour is a result. OK, this might be a predominantly London thing, but that's where an awful lot of cycling happens, and a lot of awful cycling, to boot.More to the point, it's where the media happens.
- Enforcement of existing traffic law, including removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras, allowing for example red light enforcement by CCTV for all road users
I agree with more enforcement of existing law, but I don't agree with removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras. The point of cameras is not to catch drivers out, more to remind them of their responsibilities, and removing warnings of cameras would only give the 'stealth tax' moaners ammunition.
More to the point, it's where the media happens.
Australia doesn't tell drivers about camera locations.- Enforcement of existing traffic law, including removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras, allowing for example red light enforcement by CCTV for all road users
I agree with more enforcement of existing law, but I don't agree with removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras. The point of cameras is not to catch drivers out, more to remind them of their responsibilities, and removing warnings of cameras would only give the 'stealth tax' moaners ammunition.
I agree with you about the financial penalty, though I think the likelihood of getting is perhaps more important as a deterrent than the size of the fine. But the bit I've bolded; unless we restrict driving licences to people who pass some sort of intelligence/common sense/attitude test (which might be a very good idea but almost impossible to implement), traffic systems are going to have to be such that "tiny little heads" can deal with them. That's perhaps an even bigger challenge than restricting driving licences to people with "good attitude"!- Enforcement of existing traffic law, including removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras, allowing for example red light enforcement by CCTV for all road users
I agree with more enforcement of existing law, but I don't agree with removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras. The point of cameras is not to catch drivers out, more to remind them of their responsibilities, and removing warnings of cameras would only give the 'stealth tax' moaners ammunition.
Sorry, I disagree. The key improvement to behaviour for cyclists and motorists is the threat of financial penalty for behaviour infringement. Nothing else will get them to change. I have no great hopes to achieve that, we've just heard the idea that speed bumps should be removed because of the pollution they cause slowing down and speeding up. Going at a steady speed doesn't seem to enter their tiny little heads.
Widespread use of average speed cameras is the only way to go. Plus, a picture of someone coming from the other way when the lights are green should be enough, you should not need dedicated red light cameras. OK, wouldn't catch the amber gamblers, but around here traffic lights are often treated as optional advice.
Hmm. Front and rear plates?
What size -
Only ones that could be upgraded to use RFID, (or maybe ones that could theoretically use RFID, following a similar principle as TV detector vans).
they would need to be readable by ANPR equipment, especially if linked to the insurance database,
and by normally sighted humans from 70 yards (or whatever is required in the driving test).
Would they be reflective, like car plates? Different colours front and back?
Separate set for each bike, like you have to for each car.
Could you transfer plates between bikes or have to have a separate set for each bike.
Again, same for cars, and same rules for keeper liability would apply.
Would each bike then need to have a registered keeper - that way you could always claim it was someone else riding when the PC knocks on your door to ask about that red light you jumped.
Whenever they want to ride on the road.
What about kids' bikes - at what age do they need plates?. Where would you mount them?
bicycle licensing for dummies (http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/bicycle-licensing-for-dummies/019971)
No. It's "licensing". :facepalm:bicycle licensing for dummies (http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/bicycle-licensing-for-dummies/019971)
ITYM "bicycle licencing is for dummies". ;)
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. On of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go. All you need a cheap bike and a basic level of fitness enough to turn the pedals.
And again, we don't enforce the currently motoring laws so it's all a bit pointless.
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-law-must-be-fixed-mustnt-it/
Lord Diplock noted the following:
“It is for the jury to decide whether the risk created by the manner in which the vehicle was being driven was both obvious and serious and, in deciding this, they may apply the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by themselves.”
When it comes to the notion of “equal legislation” (or any synonymous term) there is one thing which makes it a transparent sham, at least in the context of existing statute.
And that is, of course, the ruling in the appeal of R v Lawrence, in which Lord Diplock’s remarks were pivotal.
To randomly find a jury of drivers is a facile task: the overlap between those who drive and those who are eligible for jury service is large. To randomly find a jury of pedal cyclists is not: only around 15% of adults cycle even monthly, meaning that even two regular cyclists on a jury of twelve would be a little above average.
How, then, could a jury “apply the standard of the ordinary prudent [cyclist] as represented by themselves”?
The answer is simple and indisputable: It could not..
.. the RTA 1988, cognisant as it is of Lord Diplock’s comments, enshrines in law not just inequality but a tyranny of the masses. Those who drive contribute to the decline in the standards to which driving defendants are held; those who do not cycle are open to influence in raising the standards to which cycling defendants are held.
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. On of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go. All you need a cheap bike and a basic level of fitness enough to turn the pedals.
And again, we don't enforce the currently motoring laws so it's all a bit pointless.
Plenty of York cyclists. I think York cycling is very different to London cycling having done both. (I have also cycled in Ipswich, Manchester and Southampton on a daily basis i.e. as a commuter. In Southampton I was regarded as a freak of nature by my colleagues and far worse when actually on the road. )
Isn't this a general weakness of the jury system? That it relies on average people to judge things other people have done by their own standard. A system using a panel of judges means a more dispassionate and expert view can be taken, but has other weaknesses.https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-law-must-be-fixed-mustnt-it/QuoteLord Diplock noted the following:
“It is for the jury to decide whether the risk created by the manner in which the vehicle was being driven was both obvious and serious and, in deciding this, they may apply the standard of the ordinary prudent motorist as represented by themselves.”
When it comes to the notion of “equal legislation” (or any synonymous term) there is one thing which makes it a transparent sham, at least in the context of existing statute.
And that is, of course, the ruling in the appeal of R v Lawrence, in which Lord Diplock’s remarks were pivotal.
To randomly find a jury of drivers is a facile task: the overlap between those who drive and those who are eligible for jury service is large. To randomly find a jury of pedal cyclists is not: only around 15% of adults cycle even monthly, meaning that even two regular cyclists on a jury of twelve would be a little above average.
How, then, could a jury “apply the standard of the ordinary prudent [cyclist] as represented by themselves”?
The answer is simple and indisputable: It could not..
.. the RTA 1988, cognisant as it is of Lord Diplock’s comments, enshrines in law not just inequality but a tyranny of the masses. Those who drive contribute to the decline in the standards to which driving defendants are held; those who do not cycle are open to influence in raising the standards to which cycling defendants are held.
Unfortunately there is a kind of anti-cycling tendency in the UK and Charlie Alliston played right into their hands.
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. One of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go.
Someone told me today (so I've no idea if it's true) that in Switzerland, when you buy a bike you buy a licence in the form of a sticker. It is not just a tax, it gives you 3rd party insurance. It sounds quite sensible, given the cost of 3rd party insurance for a bike would be pretty small if applied universally.The Swiss abandoned that about 10 years ago, primarily because it was simply to expensive to run. One of the Channel islands had such a scheme, as did some US states; all abandoned because they are too expensive to administer.
It wouldn't work here, we are not like the Swiss. In the same way that turn left on red would never work here like it does in other countries - too many people have the wrong attitude.
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. One of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go.
What is being proposed that mean you won't be able to just get on and go?
You just won't be able to plough into somebody.
We have no idea what's being proposed yet as the consultation hasn't been published. We're told it will be in the interests of cyclist safety. I'm still convinced it will include the two H-words.
If speed limits were imposed you would need a change in the law, and then some sort of MOT check to make sure said speedometer was correct – it ain't gonna happen, but I can see in the not too distant future everybody will have to have some sort of third party insurance.
The limits apply to mechanically propelled vehicles, not vehicles with a speedometer.Quite. To reinforce that, the reason bikes don't have to obey speed limits is because the law says that motor vehicles (mechanically propelled vehicles) may not exceed designated speed limits. Bikes aren't motor vehicles. Of course, a good speedometer is useful in obeying such laws, but whether you have one isn't the point.
I agree with more enforcement of existing law, but I don't agree with removing the need to warn drivers of enforcement cameras.The problems with warnings are that they are an implied acceptance of the view that speeding fines are a tax, and not something levied for law breaking, and that, by implication, they indicated where cameras are not located, and therefore where it is safe to break the law, to the detriment of others.
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. One of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go.
What is being proposed that mean you won't be able to just get on and go?
You just won't be able to plough into somebody.
We have no idea what's being proposed yet as the consultation hasn't been published. We're told it will be in the interests of cyclist safety. I'm still convinced it will include the two H-words.
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. One of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go.
What is being proposed that mean you won't be able to just get on and go?
You just won't be able to plough into somebody.
....The lighting regulations for cycles need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the century of the fruitbat. I'd be in favour of something like the German or Dutch regs - let's mandate static dynamo/e-bike battery powered lighting with sensible beams at point of sale, unless the bike is designed for racing or off-road riding. Make pedal reflectors optional, while we're at it.That was one of things Chris Juden worked on (lastly on the red tape challenge):
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. One of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go.
What is being proposed that mean you won't be able to just get on and go?
You just won't be able to plough into somebody.
You can't 'plough into' anyone.
I've no idea what is being proposed. At best our current crop of politicians are incoherent. I suspect most of them still need help finding the loo.
Anyway, I doubt anything they 'think' up will make cycling a more attractive transport option. It might please a reactionary bunch of DM readers but then they hate everything including, I suspect, themselves.
Are you concerned that they will make you fill in a government form every time you want to go for a bike ride?
Yeah but what's the point behind the comment "One of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go" - it seems to suggest you are concerned that ability in jeopardy.The usual commentariat are suggesting all sorts of "sensible" ideas from helmets and hiviz to cycling tests, insurance, bike registration, trackers for cyclists, and others.
Are you concerned that they will make you fill in a government form every time you want to go for a bike ride?
Are you concerned that they will make you fill in a government form every time you want to go for a bike ride?
No, but they might make you wear special clothes, which many of us would regard as a pointless infringement of civil liberties with no genuine benefit to society and based on the experience of other countries may in fact be detrimental to public health.
Without the aberrance that is central London, approximately no one cycles in the UK because, tbh, unless you're passionate about cycling it's a bit shit, somewhere between DIY dentistry and juggling your own poo. Sure, slap some ill-formed laws on cycling, and it'll be less than no one. One of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go.
What is being proposed that mean you won't be able to just get on and go?
You just won't be able to plough into somebody.
You can't 'plough into' anyone.
Are you concerned that they will make you fill in a government form every time you want to go for a bike ride?
No, but they might make you wear special clothes, which many of us would regard as a pointless infringement of civil liberties with no genuine benefit to society and based on the experience of other countries may in fact be detrimental to public health.
I would support the views of citoyen regarding compulsory wearing of clothes. I choose to wear certain items of 'clothing' when cycling but totally oppose such items being mandated. Effects on health are debatable and have been discussed elsewhere so no point in raising that again.
Are you concerned that they will make you fill in a government form every time you want to go for a bike ride?
No, but they might make you wear special clothes, which many of us would regard as a pointless infringement of civil liberties with no genuine benefit to society and based on the experience of other countries may in fact be detrimental to public health.
Are you concerned that they will make you fill in a government form every time you want to go for a bike ride?
No, but they might make you wear special clothes, which many of us would regard as a pointless infringement of civil liberties with no genuine benefit to society and based on the experience of other countries may in fact be detrimental to public health.
I would support the views of citoyen regarding compulsory wearing of clothes. I choose to wear certain items of 'clothing' when cycling but totally oppose such items being mandated. Effects on health are debatable and have been discussed elsewhere so no point in raising that again.
::-) ::-) who says???
That isn't really related to the incident that's prompted it though, so can't really be a response to it. If this guy was wearing "safety" items it still would have happened, so I would therefore go so far as to say airing concern about those potential laws in this thread is therefore off topic.
Yeah but what's the point behind the comment "One of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go" - it seems to suggest you are concerned that ability in jeopardy.
A re-vamp of motoring offences is badly needed. I see no problem in principle with covering pedal cycles (and horseists and whatever) under the same laws, so speed limits would apply to bicycles and cyclists could be charged with drink driving or dangerous driving. Then everyone knows where they stand, and cyclists can carry on as normal.On the face of it It makes sense but:
The lighting regulations for cycles need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the century of the fruitbat. I'd be in favour of something like the German or Dutch regs - let's mandate static dynamo/e-bike battery powered lighting with sensible beams at point of sale, unless the bike is designed for racing or off-road riding. Make pedal reflectors optional, while we're at it.
On my York shared use track the signs make it very clear that the onus is on cyclists to avoid pedestrians. It seems to work and I take it that is the general rule - without doing any research.
Issue of rider knowing their speed.
Issue of rider knowing their speed.
I don't think this is the issue with speed limits for bikes so much as how to enforce them. If there were a speed limit, it would be the cyclist's responsibility to observe it one way or another.
Are you concerned that they will make you fill in a government form every time you want to go for a bike ride?
No, but they might make you wear special clothes, which many of us would regard as a pointless infringement of civil liberties with no genuine benefit to society and based on the experience of other countries may in fact be detrimental to public health.
I would support the views of citoyen regarding compulsory wearing of clothes. I choose to wear certain items of 'clothing' when cycling but totally oppose such items being mandated. Effects on health are debatable and have been discussed elsewhere so no point in raising that again.
::-) ::-) who says???
Anyone interested in not derailing the thread into something that has been discussed extensively elsewhere on this thread.
Some other countries. Many if not most, worldwide, have more vehicle-is-power=right attitude than UK. Their laws might not say so but their practice does.On my York shared use track the signs make it very clear that the onus is on cyclists to avoid pedestrians. It seems to work and I take it that is the general rule - without doing any research.
That is the big issue - pedestrians have the right to be anywhere on the highway. A cyclist should not shimmy around a pedestrian in their way, just as a driver should not blast their horn expecting pedestrians to leap out of the road. Unfortunately the principle that you should take care not step out immediately in front of a vehicle where they might not have seen you or not have enough time to stop, has been warped into the idea that you have to keep the hell out of the way of anyone in a vehicle and vehicles should never have to slow down except for other vehicles.
A recent chat on the cycle channel at work revealed that most people there believed that jaywalking is illegal, crossing against the red man or away from the crossing is illegal, and pedestrians who do those things should expect to get run over.
As I said above, I think our culture is to blame. Other countries, even where they do have laws about keeping off the road, have a culture where people don't feel the entitlement to plough through just because they happen to be in a vehicle and will give way out of politeness, just as you do when not in a vehicle.
Yes, thanks, that's exactly what I meant.
It's quite strange that in the UK, where people will hold doors open for you, never dream of pushing in front of a queue, and apologise if someone else bumps into them, throw all that out of the window as soon as they get behind the wheel or handlebars.
That isn't really related to the incident that's prompted it though, so can't really be a response to it. If this guy was wearing "safety" items it still would have happened, so I would therefore go so far as to say airing concern about those potential laws in this thread is therefore off topic.
Re your comment:QuoteYeah but what's the point behind the comment "One of the main attractions of cycling is that you can just get on an go" - it seems to suggest you are concerned that ability in jeopardy.
That ability would be put in jeopardy by mandatory special clothing laws. And if you think a review of the law relating to cycling would restrict itself to matters pertinent to the Charlie Alliston case, you're living in cloud cuckoo land.
You asked the question, that's the answer. I'm not trying to derail the thread and have no interest in discussing that matter any further.
You may not personally, but all the empirical evidence from places that have enacted such requirements suggests that they materially depress cycling rates, and as such are a bad idea for public health overall.Bootifully put.
Also, the point about civil liberties is that they are rights, and I get to exercise them however the fuck I like without needing the approval of others.
You may not personally, but all the empirical evidence from places that have enacted such requirements suggests that they materially depress cycling rates, and as such are a bad idea for public health overall.
Also, the point about civil liberties is that they are rights, and I get to exercise them however the fuck I like without needing the approval of others.
Hang on, aren't you normally arguing from the libertarian perspective? Yes, of course in practice rights are exercised only insofar as the state permits them to be; nonetheless, in the UK tradition freedoms are generally only limited insofar as the common good requires it. And, to belabour the point, the massive preponderance of evidence is that measures such as compulsory registration and dress codes have little or no safety benefit to the individual and have a large negative effect on public health.Oh, right - well if you're introducing the "only limited insofar as the common good requires it" clause, then it becomes entirely subjective.
"Only limited insofar as the common good requires it" is basically a fancy way of saying "I'm only abiding by laws I agree with".
"Only limited insofar as the common good requires it" is basically a fancy way of saying "I'm only abiding by laws I agree with".
No, you wilfully misconstrue my point; I'm talking about legislation rather than individual behaviour. Laws should ideally only be created if there is a common good to compensate for the restriction on freedom. The point that I and others on this thread are making is that most of the knee-jerk measures being suggested would be bad laws from this perspective.
Or do you wish to engage with my claim that (eg) mandatory 'safety equipment' laws for cyclists depress cycling rates without a corresponding improvement in cyclist injury rates?
No, rights ARE what the state permits - by definition! - no more and no less.
The terms are synonymous - they don't just usually happen to align, but sometimes not , as and when you feel you know better than the government.
I think we can all agree that laws to govern cycling shouldn't restrict cycling, we are all likely concerned that any laws will end up restricting cycling, which was my motivation starting this thread - what regulations could work? (anyone who wants there are multiple threads to moan about Charlie Alliston and other dickheads etc over there -->)
There can be no question (!!!) that cyclists can be no more trusted to police themselves than drivers can and, without the history and background of a cycling culture, widespread dickish behaviour is a result. OK, this might be a predominantly London thing, but that's where an awful lot of cycling happens, and a lot of awful cycling, to boot.
A set of expectations/laws for cycling would be no bad thing, for example why shouldn't it be an offense to use a mobile on a bike? As for enforcement, that might be similar to speeding is in cars. As in, not normally enforced, but can be. Speed limit on superhighway could be set at 12mph, and prosecuted over 20. No speedo needed, if you can't tell the difference that's your problem.
No, rights ARE what the state permits - by definition! - no more and no less.
The terms are synonymous - they don't just usually happen to align, but sometimes not , as and when you feel you know better than the government.
You are in this matter, entirely mistaken, check any dictionary or online source such as https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define++rights
Rights are derived from basic moral code, ascribed to by society, adopted by legal frameworks in the body politic, also curiously embedded in the UK legal system, given we have no written constitution as such.
No, rights ARE what the state permits - by definition! - no more and no less.
The terms are synonymous - they don't just usually happen to align, but sometimes not , as and when you feel you know better than the government.
You are in this matter, entirely mistaken, check any dictionary or online source such as https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define++rights
Rights are derived from basic moral code, ascribed to by society, adopted by legal frameworks in the body politic, also curiously embedded in the UK legal system, given we have no written constitution as such.
The issue I still have is whilst what is a legal right can be defined as a matter of fact, what is a moral right (for the meaning you are trying to make it fit - see below) is entirely subjective.
You feel you have a right to go out without wearing hi viz, someone else may feel they have a right to do 75 on an empty dual carriageway - it is their opinion that they have a moral right to do that.
What someone has a "moral right" to do cannot be defined as a matter of fact. If you feel differently, I would be very keen to see the evidence for how something is factually, objectively, a 'moral' right.
So in that sense, the term 'moral right' doesn't really make sense in this context. And we find that using your own method of definition, https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+moral+right, a "moral right" is actually something rather specific - "the right of an author or other creative artist to protect the integrity and ownership of their work". So it doesn't really apply to a law about what you can and can't wear on your bike, and you can't really claim it is your 'moral right' just because you don't like the fact that it isn't a legal right, becasue a 'moral right' is actually nothing to do with laws you feel are wrong, but specifically about intellectual property and plagiarism.
Ah, for want of anything better to do why don't I have a go. After all, you have just disagreed with yourself in the first post. What you are saying in the first paragraph (we'll ignore the bit about copyright) is exactly, 100% spot on. And, exactly what Jakob W said. That is......OK well by that token then I have the 'right' to do 90 on the motorway as everyone involved either agrees or is in other ways complicit (they're doing it as well).
(1) Rights exist based around common morality. While an individual can think it is their right to do/say/have anything, unless that view is shared by others it is meaningless. Think of the class system if you want to see how things can change. Droit de seigneur has disappeared for a long while, thankfully, for example; yes, that "first night" thing might be fiction, but Lords of the Manor having it away when they fancied wasn't. So, rights can and do exist without a legal framework, but only as long as everyone involved agrees or is in other ways complicit.
That seems to be what you are saying. It is what I am saying, and I'm pretty certain Jakob W was saying. Can we agree to agree?Apart from the fact that I'm not sure how I've contradicted myself...?
You are getting confused between a right, a noun - a thing - and a moral right, which is also a noun. A thing. A different thing. The word "right" appears in both, but that's english for you.
It is more confusing because a right is related to morality, and the word "moral" appears in both. You'll have to live with it.
Your example of speeding is quite a good one, tbh, as the overwhelming majority of people believe that speeding is a right, which is infringed by speed cameras; there is constant tension between the general populace and law enforcement, much as there was with drink driving for years. However, I'd go as far as to say that there is nobody in the UK now who would claim it was their right to drink & drive, although they might behave as if it is.
Nah, your inference was wrong (surprise!). I was responding to your use of the term 'civil liberties' - if helmets and hi-viz are non-compulsory, then, however much finger-wagging wowsers may want to tell me otherwise, the choice to wear them or not is mine and mine alone, because *that is how liberties work*.Ok. Isn't it obvious that you have the right to ignore mere "finger-wagging wowsers"? So what's the point in asserting that?
FTR, if a compulsory helmet law were enacted, I'd probably comply, but would most definitely be campaigning for its repeal; the position that you should just suck it up because it's the law sets terribly low standards for both lawmakers and an engaged citizenry.No, there are no "moral'/fundamental/human rights" outside of those defined by law. (Not withstanding the fact that some 'human rights' are defined by law).
As for the distinction between rights in law and 'moral'/fundamental/human rights, consider the case of Rosa Parks; should she have sucked it up and given up her seat on the bus?
No, there are no "moral'/fundamental/human rights" outside of those defined by law.
I'm not sure it works to have a whole population espousing their rights, because those rights will almost certainly be incompatible somewhere.
No, there are no "moral'/fundamental/human rights" outside of those defined by law.
The thing about laws is that they tend to be restrictive rather than permissive
This is why there is often an outcry every time the government tries to introduce new laws that are perceived to be eroding personal freedoms, such as the freedom to ride a bike without being required to wear so-called safety equipment. There is currently no law stating what you may or may not wear when riding a bike, ergo you have the right to wear whatever you like.
Aren't "Rights" ability to do/say/be things that are not allowed to be changed or repealed by gubbinsments? Such as the Magna Carta?
Any other right can be withdrawn by legislation so is rather more a state of "License to ......."
No. For a start the rights in the Magna Carta were, I believe, very limited in extent and in to whom they applied. Most other rights must therefore derive from legislation, or social assumptions, since. And I'm not aware of any reason why the government could not repeal the Magna Carta anyway; Parliament is sovereign. It's just not clear why any likely UK government would want to.
I think it's easier to think about moral rights when they limit your legal rights. For example:
- I'm in the queue for a real bargain next to someone whom I know to be a single parent on a very limited income, who needs it for the family. I clearly have the legal right to buy the last item on offer, but do I have the moral right?
- My accountant shows me how to arrange my affairs rather artificially, in order to reduce my tax liabilities. I'd clearly and indisputably be within my legal rights, but would I be within my moral rights?
No, there are no "moral'/fundamental/human rights" outside of those defined by law. (Not withstanding the fact that some 'human rights' are defined by law).Surely the Rosa Parks example shows just how fucking important those "moral'/fundamental/human rights" outside of those defined by law are?
Rosa parks fought for the right to a seat on the bus. The fact that she fought for something implies that it's something she didn't have previously, which agrees with what I'm saying.
I'm not saying that the law is always morally correct in my opinion, but it's my subjective opinion, so I cannot say I "have the right" to do something that isn't law because that would be an (incorrect) attempt at aa statement of fact, and I simply don't.
I can say I feel I should have the right. Rosa parks felt she should have the right to a seat, but she didn't at that time ("lost out in the end though didn't she" ;) )
No, there are no "moral'/fundamental/human rights" outside of those defined by law. (Not withstanding the fact that some 'human rights' are defined by law).Surely the Rosa Parks example shows just how fucking important those "moral'/fundamental/human rights" outside of those defined by law are?
Rosa parks fought for the right to a seat on the bus. The fact that she fought for something implies that it's something she didn't have previously, which agrees with what I'm saying.
I'm not saying that the law is always morally correct in my opinion, but it's my subjective opinion, so I cannot say I "have the right" to do something that isn't law because that would be an (incorrect) attempt at aa statement of fact, and I simply don't.
I can say I feel I should have the right. Rosa parks felt she should have the right to a seat, but she didn't at that time ("lost out in the end though didn't she" ;) )(click to show/hide)
I think you could make a case that there are human rights recognised by international law, even if they are not recognised in a particular country. There are also campaigns for liberation. I'm still not sure that you can talk about rights unless those rights derive from some external authority. I'm no expert, but at the time that Rosa Parks took her action, international human rights law was in its infancy at best. It looks to me as though she was highlighting her lack of rights.
As the case went to court, this was presumably to argue whether or not she actually should have had rights under the law, but she plainly did not in practice, or she would never have had to take the action that she did.
given the public health benefits of cycling and the vanishingly small number of road KSIs that cyclists are responsible for, from a cost-benefit perspective, changing cycling law comes below just about every other aspect of the transport system.
That's a good point, but I don't think they include the right to cycle without wearing safety items. If they do, wahey, nothing to worry about then is there.
Well, the UN declaration on human rights was made in 1948, but the modern concept traces back to at least the Enlightenment; the UK bill of rights is enshrined in law post-1688, and universalist claims are at the heart of the American and French Revolutions. Now obviously there is an argument to be made (and I take this to be Ben T's point) that any claim about rights is socially constructed; nonetheless, as I said way back upthread, the UK common law tradition assumes that people's freedoms should not be limited without good reason. I'd have thought this was pretty uncontroversial - there's over three centuries of precedent for this position - and I didn't intend this to turn into a discussion of political philosophy. Before we got sucked into that, my point was far more instrumentalist: given the public health benefits of cycling and the vanishingly small number of road KSIs that cyclists are responsible for, from a cost-benefit perspective, changing cycling law comes below just about every other aspect of the transport system.
It is possible to objectively disagree with policy makers, especially when they admit to being ideologically motivated.
The "will of the people" argument is pish.