Comments on: Ruthie plays with tools http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/ A barrister gossips & rants on intellectual property law, the legal system and civil liberties. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:22:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Ruthie http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/#comment-14899 Ruthie Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:13:51 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/#comment-14899 What I do resent however, is the recent proposal for automatic speed limiting bikes. Whatever view one takes of speeding, there are times when exceeding the speed limit may help to prevent rather than cause an accident. Riders need to be treated like adults and allowed to exercise their judgment. The law as it exists is adequate to deal with lunatics. So I propose this as a much better pro-choice lobbying point. What I do resent however, is the recent proposal for automatic speed limiting bikes. Whatever view one takes of speeding, there are times when exceeding the speed limit may help to prevent rather than cause an accident. Riders need to be treated like adults and allowed to exercise their judgment. The law as it exists is adequate to deal with lunatics. So I propose this as a much better pro-choice lobbying point.

]]> By: Ruthie http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/#comment-14898 Ruthie Wed, 20 Jun 2007 23:06:18 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/#comment-14898 Thanks for your comment. If you consider the freedom not to wear a helmet is a "right" then any intereference with that right by the state must be proportionate taking into account the extent of the intereference, set against the reasons for it. Whilst wearing a helmet is a pain, the requirement is hardly a breach of my fundmental human rights. Statistics show that helmet wearing does make s significant reduction to injury. I am never in favour of the state legislating simply to protect people from themselves; grown adults ought to be allowed to make their own choices. However if I expect the state to scrape me off the tarmac and provide medical care in the event of injury, then the state can set down laws to limit the extent of its obligation. I appreciate MAG is about much more than the wearing of helmets, but frankly given the number of other more pressing issues facing bikers today, I think they would do well to forget the helmet issue and concentrate on something more important. Sadly also sticking to this view makes it harder to take MAG seriously as an organisation. However I take the point that if I want to change it then I should join and exercise my democratic right to vote. However, instead of joining and trying to change the policy of MAG surely so much easier to join a riders rights organisation that already supports my viewpoint. Thanks for your comment. If you consider the freedom not to wear a helmet is a “right” then any intereference with that right by the state must be proportionate taking into account the extent of the intereference, set against the reasons for it.

Whilst wearing a helmet is a pain, the requirement is hardly a breach of my fundmental human rights. Statistics show that helmet wearing does make s significant reduction to injury. I am never in favour of the state legislating simply to protect people from themselves; grown adults ought to be allowed to make their own choices. However if I expect the state to scrape me off the tarmac and provide medical care in the event of injury, then the state can set down laws to limit the extent of its obligation.

I appreciate MAG is about much more than the wearing of helmets, but frankly given the number of other more pressing issues facing bikers today, I think they would do well to forget the helmet issue and concentrate on something more important. Sadly also sticking to this view makes it harder to take MAG seriously as an organisation. However I take the point that if I want to change it then I should join and exercise my democratic right to vote. However, instead of joining and trying to change the policy of MAG surely so much easier to join a riders rights organisation that already supports my viewpoint.

]]> By: Geeklawyer http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/#comment-14882 Geeklawyer Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:22:23 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/#comment-14882 Thanks or the clarification scouse. My view is that some choices are just not worth having or fighting for: helmet wearing is one of them. The consequences are so serious I'd never ride without mine even if I had the power to do so. I respect the counter-argument but I just don't buy it. Thanks or the clarification scouse.

My view is that some choices are just not worth having or fighting for: helmet wearing is one of them. The consequences are so serious I’d never ride without mine even if I had the power to do so.

I respect the counter-argument but I just don’t buy it.

]]> By: Scouse http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/#comment-14879 Scouse Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:08:32 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/#comment-14879 Hi Ruthie, Just a quick thing to correct your comment in the post. MAG were formed in response to the Helmet Law, and every year the members debate whether to continue campaigning for it's abolition at the AGM. The reason it has stayed as an active lobby point is that it is now symbolic of choice. MAG are pro-choice , and if you choose to wear a helmet that is your choice. If you do not agree , then join MAG , and take part in the democratic process, and put forward another symbol of the right to choose. Do not justify your lack of support without due consideration of the historical facts. :smile: Hi Ruthie,
Just a quick thing to correct your comment in the post. MAG were formed in response to the Helmet Law, and every year the members debate whether to continue campaigning for it’s abolition at the AGM.

The reason it has stayed as an active lobby point is that it is now symbolic of choice. MAG are pro-choice , and if you choose to wear a helmet that is your choice.

If you do not agree , then join MAG , and take part in the democratic process, and put forward another symbol of the right to choose. Do not justify your lack of support without due consideration of the historical facts. :smile:

]]> By: Charon QC http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/#comment-14869 Charon QC Mon, 18 Jun 2007 05:11:45 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/#comment-14869 Ride a bike without a helmet? Not for me... having only had one crash in my time - which I reported on in my blog, after a driver hit me from behind while I was waiting to turn right - I would probably have been dead had I not been wearing a helmet or, at the least, would have had bad head injuries. the helmet was badly damaged. Ride a bike without a helmet? Not for me… having only had one crash in my time - which I reported on in my blog, after a driver hit me from behind while I was waiting to turn right - I would probably have been dead had I not been wearing a helmet or, at the least, would have had bad head injuries. the helmet was badly damaged.

]]> By: Geeklawyer http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/#comment-14833 Geeklawyer Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:32:00 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/17/ruthie-plays-with-tools/#comment-14833 Would this not-so-superstore be "Halfloads" by any chance ;) I agree: all sanely priced cars are functional and unexciting. Even the cool ones (Bentley GT's etc) aren't exactly a lifestyle choice even if fun. Would this not-so-superstore be “Halfloads” by any chance ;)

I agree: all sanely priced cars are functional and unexciting. Even the cool ones (Bentley GT’s etc) aren’t exactly a lifestyle choice even if fun.

]]>