Author Topic: What changes would you make to cycling law?  (Read 8452 times)

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #75 on: September 24, 2017, 12:37:34 pm »
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.
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.
The earth is vast and beautiful and contains many miraculous places. (Chekhov)

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #76 on: September 24, 2017, 06:01:09 pm »
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.
Quote from: tiermat
that's not science, it's semantics.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #77 on: September 27, 2017, 05:07:26 pm »
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.

It doesn't apply to everyone in the UK.  I would say that York has a fairly large proportion of people who are polite when driving or cycling.  Don't take the anti-cycling comments beneath York news as typical altho there are a few bad apples.

Driving in Hull (another city I know well) is another matter, I am sorry to say.  Two of the worst things that could happen to York is the upgrading of its road links to Hull or Leeds despite the clamours for this to be done.   
Sic transit and all that..

Ben T

  • What you saying, then?
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #78 on: September 27, 2017, 06:29:31 pm »
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:
Quote
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.

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.

Ok , I don't personally think throwing on a few items of safety gear is arduous enough to not count as "just getting on and going".
Methinks some members of the community want civil liberties purely for the sake of it, rather than for any practical difference in convenience.
This is destiny, it's fate, it's the matrix working in my favour.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #79 on: September 27, 2017, 06:47:00 pm »
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.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #80 on: September 27, 2017, 07:02:37 pm »
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.
Bootifully put.

(Also - isn't it funny how new rules and infringements of liberties are casually dismissed by those who aren't affected by them? )
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

rower40

  • Not my boat. Now sold.
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #81 on: September 28, 2017, 03:39:27 pm »
Helmets: Compulsory for ALL road users.  Pedestrians, tram passengers, space-hopperers, yogic flyers, the lot.

The head-injury stats suggest that those who would benefit most are those who hit their heads on the inside surface of their tin box in a collision - since the closing speed of head-to-windscreen (when wearing a seatbelt) becomes well within the capability of the current crop of magic hats.

Or did I make that up?  Anyway, it's not going to happen, so I might as well muddy the waters a bit...
Be Naughty; save Santa a trip

Ben T

  • What you saying, then?
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #82 on: September 28, 2017, 07:49:42 pm »
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.

....until they cease to be rights.
This is destiny, it's fate, it's the matrix working in my favour.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #83 on: September 28, 2017, 08:13:55 pm »
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.

Ben T

  • What you saying, then?
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #84 on: September 28, 2017, 09:54:21 pm »
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.
The driver speeding down an empty road at 90 might well think that his freedom needn't be limited because the common good doesn't require it, because there's nobody around.
"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".
Quite simple - if it's not law, enjoy the freedom, if it's law, then the majority of (elected representatives of) the population obviously disagree with you about the need to do it.
The whole point of laws is they're society-wide, people don't pick and choose which ones they want to abide by.
This is destiny, it's fate, it's the matrix working in my favour.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #85 on: September 28, 2017, 11:37:21 pm »

"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?

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #86 on: September 28, 2017, 11:48:57 pm »
You've been Bonj'd.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Ben T

  • What you saying, then?
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #87 on: October 06, 2017, 11:26:16 pm »

"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?

You seem take the attitude that the set of things you have a "right" to do is greater than that what the law allows you to do? That the two are separate things...?

"in practice rights are exercised only insofar as the state permits them to be"

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.

"Laws should ideally only be created if there is a common good to compensate for the restriction on freedom"

Agree, but if the law gets created anyway, you don't have the right to flout it on the grounds that it is a "bad law" . That would then be something you used to have the right to do. There's lots of bad laws if you think about it , just don't dwell on it and move on.
This is destiny, it's fate, it's the matrix working in my favour.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #88 on: October 07, 2017, 05:18:16 am »

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.

quixoticgeek

  • Mostly Harmless
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #89 on: October 08, 2017, 03:24:42 pm »
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 -->)

What regulations work? Well let's take our usual favourite example. The Dutch.

So what are the laws here?

Well, you have to have a front and rear reflector, front and rear lights, a safe bike with at least 1 brake, pedal reflectors, and side reflectors (wheel or tyre side wall).

So what do I actually see when cycling around Amsterdam. Well most bikes have exactly none of the above. Where the brakes are installed, the chances of them allowing an effective rapid deceleration are next to zero. Lights are regarded as optional. Reflectors usually fell off, and as for safe bike. I'm still trying to convince people that a bike wheel should only rotate on one axis, and that the grinding noise their bikes makes is not actually normal. So in a city where bikes out number people, and most of them are basically unsafe junk. The law is basically useless...

And as such, nearly everyone cycles, noone wears a helmet, and the KSI numbers are very low. 

Quote

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.


Yes, but the potential for my 12kg bike travelling at 20kph to do harm to others, relative to someone in a 2 ton lump of metal doing 70kph is not even in the same order of magnitude...

If you think London cyclists are bad, come join me on my 7.5km commute in Amsterdam. I've done hide park corner on a brompton in the rain and dark. I've cycled in Brussels, I'm pretty good at dealing with moron motorists. But yegods, my commute here, I stopped counting when the near misses went to double figures in the first week...[1]

Quote

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.

They are talking of bringing in a law here to ban the use of mobile phones when cycling. The popular opinion is one of "hahaha like that'll work".

As for the speed limit on the cycle superhighways. That's a bloody stupid idea, all it will do is make people cycle less. Which is pointless.

If you want to revise the laws on cycling in the UK there are three basic things to do:

  • Presumed liability for motorists
  • Fix the laws on lights[3]
  • Explicitly state in law that a helmet and hi vi is not a requirement

J

[1]The epiphany was to treat Dutch cyclists as if I'm basically surrounded by London Black Cabs. Once you work on that basis, it becomes a lot simpler to handle them.[2]
[2]The first week of term the students at the uni round the corner from work started cycling to college. Ye gods. At first I described them as demented lemmings. This is unfair. Lemmings demonstrate more will to live and basic survival instincts...
[3]Dutch law says that you can have the bike lights attached to the rider rather than the bike. This is a popular choice as it means you don't have to remember to take your lights off the bike when you dump it in Leidseplien in the vane hope it's still there when you come back later. They did however request that people turn the lights off when off the bike. Beyond that the law needs to make sure that a light that produces enough light to safely descend a hill at speed, is legal. Whilst also handling the safe aspect of morons with 1200 lumen portable suns. Oh and while we're at it, can we do something about drivers who don't understand the correct use of main beam, or the tilting on their car lights?
--
Beer, bikes, and backpacking
http://b.42q.eu/

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #90 on: October 08, 2017, 04:06:53 pm »
Having the fog light symbol say "FOG" rather than have an indistinct wavy line would help.

Hopefully this will be one of the two benefits of Brexit.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Ben T

  • What you saying, then?
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #91 on: October 08, 2017, 05:46:43 pm »

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.
This is destiny, it's fate, it's the matrix working in my favour.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #92 on: October 08, 2017, 06:29:24 pm »

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......

(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.

(2) When it comes down to it, rights mean jack shit if there aren't laws to enforce them.

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?

Ben T

  • What you saying, then?
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #93 on: October 09, 2017, 01:39:03 pm »
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......

(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.

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).
The view of having the right to speed is definitely shared by others - it's still regarded as a lot more socially acceptable than say drink driving.
You would not have to go far to find people who would agree that you have the 'right' to do up to 90 on a motorway (even if they're imho wrong), but you would to find someone who would agree that you have the right to drink drive.

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...?
I originally said 'right' is analagous to 'law' - you said that it isn't because it's actually a 'legal or moral' right, and I'm now saying that whilst I agree with that*, the term 'moral right' is meaningless either because of its definition as something to do with copyright, or because of an lack of definition over how many people have to agree with you that you have the right to do it - so given the meaninglessness of the term 'moral right' (in this context), then the term 'legal or moral right' essentially boils down to 'legal right', which means my original point about 'rights' and 'the law' being synonymous sort of still stands.
At what point in that reasoning does it not make sense to you?

* I'm only agreeing with it because it was a definition provided by google, but you seem to think it's appropriate to conveniently bat aside a definition provided by google with 'we'll ignore that'?
This is destiny, it's fate, it's the matrix working in my favour.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #94 on: October 09, 2017, 02:39:45 pm »
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.

Ben T

  • What you saying, then?
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #95 on: October 09, 2017, 03:10:34 pm »
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.

OK. Fine. Let's say for a minute that I accept that there is a definition of 'moral right' meaning what you are saying it means. BUT - that simply proves that google's definition isn't always perfect - which unfortunately also blows a hole in your argument about the term 'right' including a 'moral right' in the first place.
If you want 'right' to include 'moral right', just because google says it means that, then it follows that you have to accept 'moral right' meaning something to do with copyright (and yes I understand what a noun is).

However, let's say for the sake of argument that I do accept that 'right' includes 'moral right' and that it means what you want it to mean: given that, what I struggle with accepting, that you seem to accept perfectly well, is a fairly less than unanimous majority of the population. In other words, I would have thought for something to be a 'moral right', it's got to have near on (say) 99% of the population agreeing with it - 60% is, for me, nowhere near enough.
Therefore whilst I gave the example of speeding because a lot of people find it acceptable, I don't think anywhere near enough do for it to class as a 'moral right'. My thinking is that not wearing hi viz is the same.
Where we probably differ is that you obviously feel that the proportion of the population feeling that, say, not wearing safety gear on a bike is a right is enough to class it as a 'commonly accepted moral right', either because you think it is the overwhelming majority/99%, or you feel that whatever it is - 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% - whatever, is enough.

It still doesn't make sense to me though really - I understand 'a right' to mean something I am entitled to do, and I'm not entitled to do something that is illegal. Are we going by google's definition, or not? You can't have it one way but not the ohter.
This is destiny, it's fate, it's the matrix working in my favour.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #96 on: October 09, 2017, 07:44:34 pm »
There are a lot of concepts jostling for space in there. Let's take it apart and start from the beginning, leave aside laws for the second, we'll come back to them.

A right - as a noun - in the context of this discussion is something that you are morally allowed to do, have or say. It isn't "a moral right" - the thing - it is just a right. When you start using the term "moral right" you start confusing the issue. And yes, it is  confusing because you can't split it from morality.

This is what I said in my first sentence upthread "Rights are derived from basic moral code" So, you, I and most people in the Western World think that we have a right to life, we have a right to freedom of thought, we have a right to privacy and a right to protection by the law.

To come back to your question, can you decide that it is a right to speed? Well, yes, if sufficient others follow you, within that community it will be "a right"

Lets move onto the law. There is obviously such a thing as a right in law, but is that then "moral" or good? Not as a matter of course. It is quite possible to have a right that is not just amoral, but close to evil as far as society is concerned. The most famous example is Shylock, who has a right to a pound of flesh under (the fictional) Venetian law (but there are plenty of real examples).

So now we have morally right rights and morally wrong rights. Which tells us, if we needed telling, that there are a spectrum of rights across the panoply of human existence. And, it's that variety that is the second cause of your confusion.

I said the example of speeding is a good one, because at the heart of it, it is perfectly clear, you do not have the legal right to speed. That is entirely contrary, however, to the actual experience and the attitude of (likely) the majority of drivers: that they have an absolute right to speed, at least where they cannot be caught, and the police have a duty to warn them where they might be caught.

You want rights to be black and white - they rarely if ever are.

So, coming back to where this started, you can easily have a right but unless there is a law (along with the willingness to enforce) it counts for jack.

Ben T

  • What you saying, then?
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #97 on: October 10, 2017, 09:15:30 pm »
Coming back to where this started was the statement "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".
I took 'others' to mean 'the government' (I have an argument as to why this is a reasonable inference but will not go into it unless you are bothered as that point is essentially largely a tangent)
in other words what is being said is I have a right to cycle without wearing safety gear even if it is made mandatory under law because I have a "right" to. I am simply saying I don't see how it is a right, how is this mystical "right" actually defined if not by the law?
I know it wasn't your quote, but it comes over as a fairly anarchistic statement, in other words, the law is an ass because it is made by corrupt stupid white men and it is there to be disagreed with if one knows better.

I still don't grasp how you actually define a 'right' if not by the law.
Where do you draw the line?
So for example, there is an unknown random bike in the way of the club house door, do I have the right to move it ouf of the way?
Do I have the right to borrow it to nip to the shops on?
Do I have the right to borrow it to do an audax on?
Do I have the right to drive?

As far as I can gather, there are some things that are law but not rights - such as Shylock extracting his pound of flesh, and some things that are rights but (potentially) not law - such as cycling without safety gear in this particular hypothetical future scenario in which such a law is passed.
So it's a Venn diagram, effectively?
Where is the definition of this secret 'moral rights' law that sits alongside, and partially overlapping, the actual law?


Also are we not splitting hairs between
"you can easily have a right but unless there is a law (along with the willingness to enforce) it counts for jack"
and
"you can easily feel you have a right but unless there is a law (along with the willingness to enforce) then ... you don't have the right"
are they not two ways of saying the same thing?
This is destiny, it's fate, it's the matrix working in my favour.

Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #98 on: October 10, 2017, 10:46:05 pm »
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*.

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.

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?

Ben T

  • What you saying, then?
Re: What changes would you make to cycling law?
« Reply #99 on: October 10, 2017, 11:20:34 pm »
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?
Why do you care what Joe public tells you about how you "should" be cycling? They don't make the law. Ignore them.

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.

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. (Not withstanding the fact that some 'human rights' are defined by law).
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"  ;) )

I don't think I disagree with you on anything morally, and I don't have anything against campaigning for change to the law , or feel you should "suck it up" - it essentially is an argument about language and definitions -  I just think your terminology is wrong , but to the point of making you come across, to me at least, like you think you're above the law.
I know exactly what you mean by "I have the right", it's exactly the same as what I mean when I say I " feel I should have the right".
This is destiny, it's fate, it's the matrix working in my favour.