More pictures of my past work can be viewed in the Photo Gallery and on my Website. Links are in the navigation bar at the top 
The difference between rights and privileges
Thu, November 12, 2009 In a recent article I wrote about the Miami Critical Mass event I stated that the people taking part were abusing the "privilege" of riding a bicycle on the road.
A couple of people called me on this, stating that cycling is a right not a privilege. The argument being that a right cannot be taken away, whereas a privilege can.
My choice of words however, did not change the meaning of what I said, and the word "right" actually strengthened my argument.
If it is a right for us to ride our bikes on the road, all the more reason not to abuse that right by assembling in large numbers and blocking city streets to other road users.
It did however get me asking myself, what is a right? There are so called God given rights, but as people have the right to choose whether they believe in God or not, how does that work?
If you don't believe in God, do you have any God given rights? Are you obliged to respect other people's God given rights? As it is, the only one I can think of is our right to live.
Even that doesn’t count for much as laid out in my last piece, where a young couple riding a tandem bicycle had their lives taken by a person in a Ford truck, who was on the road driving as a privilege.
If you look at The Bill of Rights there are very few actual rights. The right to bear arms, the right to practice a religion of your choice, etc.
After that it appears the function of government (In theory anyway.) is to leave us alone, and we are free to do as we please as long as it doesn't include criminal activities. A problem arises when the rights of one group impede the rights of others.
For example when automobiles first appeared there were no laws or regulations, you could simply buy a car, jump in and drive it. Pretty much in the same way as we can buy a bicycle today and ride it anywhere.
Later because of wholesale carnage on the roads, laws were passed and licenses issued to drivers. Driving became a privilege that could be taken away. Today it seems, this is a privilege that people are rarely deprived of, at least in the US.
It appears to me that rights are rarely granted, they are simply taken for granted. Is riding a bicycle on the highway is a prime example this?
I know to even suggest such a thing will cause outrage among a great many cyclists, but before we all get our anti-bacterial padded shorts in a twist, let’s think about this.
In recent years cell phones have become available and some assume it is their right to own one and talk and send text messages whenever they please, including while driving.
It turns out this is not a good idea so in some places this practice is being outlawed. Have people lost a right, or was it just an assumed right in the first place?
A few years ago, people had the right to smoke just about anywhere they pleased. However, that right infringed on everyone else’s right not to breathe secondhand smoke. So, now that right has gradually been taken away, and smokers are now privileged to smoke in fewer and fewer places.
Because riding a bicycle on public roads is for the most part not a danger to other road users, it is doubtful than anyone will stop us doing it.
Cycling is a good idea. It cuts down on congestion in our cities, it is better for the environment, and it should be encouraged because it is good for the physical and mental well being of the participant.
My point is, are there any true rights or privileges, or just an ongoing daily debate among millions of people, on the streets, on the talk shows and in the courtrooms?
We all have certain rights, and we get to keep them as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. If they do we may lose those rights, it is happening all the time.
In which case there is little difference between rights and privileges; either can be taken away.
Reader Comments (19)
For someone not from this country, you get what it is supposed to be about. Sadly, most people from here don't get it. This passage is essentially the platform of the Libertarian party:
After that it appears the function of government (In theory anyway.) is to leave us alone, and we are free to do as we please as long as it doesn't include criminal activities. A problem arises when the rights of one group impede the rights of others.
As for the topic at hand, I'd have to say that riding your bike anywhere specifically is not a right. Do you have the right to own a bike? Yes. Do you have the right to ride it? Yes. Do you have the right to ride it specifically in the street? No. That is something open to the interpretations and vagaries of local ordinance. Were it a right, it would be the same everywhere, and it isn't.
Discrimination has too often been a basis for granting “rights”; take the Ricci firefighter promotion case (originally granting promotion to unqualified firemen), or Muslims wearing headscarves in schools (look, a man controls me).
Or driving, where licenses are given to illegal immigrants, or just bad drivers (keep taking the test till you pass).
And then they aren’t revoked after accidents.
The Automotive Industry (and UAW) has powerful lobbyists.
The Mexicans have theirs.
The Bicycle Industry has the American Bicycle League and Lance.
So in our Politically Correct environment, everyone is afraid to offend someone, in spite of the obvious (school children aren’t Left Behind while their parents buy homes with Fred and Fan’s blessing and backing).
Seems so often others “rights” become society’s burdens.
And responsible citizens will pay for this via taxes; and less freedom.
Steve, do you even listen to yourself? What did anything you had to say have to do with Dave's post? I'll bet you are one of these people who just likes to hear themselves talk. Given the tone of your comments, I have a title for you: All hail Steve, the King of Snark!! But I do have to thank you, Steve-o; thanks to you, I will no longer be reading the comments after Dave's posts. You have officially ruined it for me. Now off to listen to the comedian Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Billo the clown and Hannity so that I can better understand The World According to Steve.
EJ:
You said: “I'll bet you are one of these people who just likes (sp) to hear themselves talk.”
Did you lose that's what Blogs are?
Same with Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and the Comments sections on-line.
Use to be a community’s only forum were Letters to the Editor. You may be happier there.
Better yet, spend time reading books, get away from video games and the internet.
Where Blogs and YouTube really make a statement are those coming from suppressed countries such as Cuba, China and Iran. There people don’t have “Rights” that democracies enjoy.
But they do have Twitter.
It seems to me the responsible thing is for Free Countries to pay attention and do something more.
We can at least use our Votes for Real Change.
Steve
Oi! Please don't make Dave's great blog into a platform for politics! Its about riding your bike, and things related. It isn't about libertarianism. liberalism (at least not always;), conservatism or any any other political philosophy. I ran a cycling blog, targeted in the US, that got so dragged down by strongly held political opinions that I simply shut it down. Politics was not the point. Please.
So what is your definition of a “political” discussion?
Anything controversial, or that someone else (ex. a Troll) attributes to a Political Party?
Have you read any of the Comments after the SA article Dave linked in his last topic?
There’s a ton of people that think bikes don’t belong on the road with traffic.
Anyone arrogant enough to argue?
You’d be wasting your time! Really, what difference would it make?
People come to Blogs and Comments on the internet Not to change their minds, but to express them, Damn the Torpedoes.
I agree with you (surprised?); seems we have a Lost Generation of Young Men that don’t read books, spend way too much time in their parent’s basement playing video games and can’t construct a coherent paragraph posting to all kinds of social sites, including Blogs.
And don’t think any of these Blogs or Comments will save any lives. That would be like saying the gov’t Stimulus Package has saved millions of jobs; can’t be qualified.
Like owning a Prius, one can brag about it, but really its hubris.
Dave also writes about bicycling history. Great stuff, a saving grace.
Otherwise, maybe you’ll remember why you closed your blog and not waste time reading these topics.
Were you really fooled into believing in Change?
Steve
To take a sidestep away from the above pissing contest above, I agree 100% that there are few "rights" when it comes to means of transportation, Both automobiles and bicycles have a privilege to ride on state built roads, that can be taked away.
As an observation, would this blog be the same without a Comments Section? When is a Blog a Public Forum?
Or this: would you have a Facebook page if you didn’t allow comments from your “friends”?
How do you know when people read your Facebook?
Dave knows how many ‘hits’ and viewing times his blog gets.
But he doesn’t know if people actually read his blog, much less if they relate, agree or disagree with it. Until they comment.
And because he may not know the person, he won’t know if they changed their opinion just before commenting or will afterwards.
Think about this:
Dave knows how many copies of his book Prodigal Child have sold. He doesn’t know how many people have actually read it.
At a book fair, someone tells him how much they love his book. Only by asking leading questions can Dave can tell if they’ve really read it, and what specifically affected them.
Does any of this matter? Depends on whose attention you want to get.
That’s the paradox of Bloggers: Will it get the attention of whom you want?
As far as keeping politics out, it’s political when it affects more than just you, like riding a bike.
Steve
I can't really agree that riding a bicycle on public roads is for the most part not a danger to other road users.
Increasingly, as more and more people take up "commuting" or just showing off their new high heel shoes on bikes because it's the thing to do, bicycle riders are indeed becoming a danger... not so much to enclosed motor vehicles, but to other cyclists and to pedestrians... all users of public roads. I've started to notice many calls for licensing or other forms of control with regard to cyclists. This will only increase as the numbers of irresponsible and immature people on bikes increase... and that's assuming they don't first force us all off roads and onto segregated paths.
Rights are constitutional and are difficult to take away from any given individual or group, but privileges are administrative and can be taken away without recourse to the judicial system.
Steve: Stop. Please. Enough. Please. Please...
Dave said this:
It appears to me that rights are rarely granted, they are simply taken for granted.
Have people lost a right, or was it just an assumed right in the first place?
We all have certain rights, and we get to keep them as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. If they do we may lose those rights, it is happening all the time.
I sometimes feel I am wasting my time writing about stuff like this; after all, I am preaching to the choir.
Pierre said this:
Rights are constitutional and are difficult to take away from any given individual or group, but privileges are administrative and can be taken away without recourse to the judicial system.
I say this:
Correction to that last statement: The Constitution of the United States is a document of the framework of the structure of the United States, it is not the Bill of Rights. Two different documents, as Dave pointed out.
Dave is sharing his thoughts when he does topics such as these.
He also wondered if enough cyclists got involved politically things would change.
Don’t see that happening. They don’t bother.
From what my wife and I have seen, there has been a seismic change in living these last 10 years.
There has been so much abuse of freedom (from businesses to individuals to rights groups) that of course the government uses this as a reason to grow larger. Most live as if the world owes them.
Or, for all that don’t see the connection, cyclists that ride as if they are the only ones on the road.
Just don’t be surprised when you can no longer do this or that. You have been warned.
At least those at fault will have to live with it longer than I.
I am sharing my thoughts. Skip down if you don’t like them…
Steve
I was using the word "constitutional" in the broadest sense. We don't all live in the U.S.A. and I assume that Dave is not blogging specifically for a U.S. audience. If he is, then let's hear it, and I will just go away. My statement was not really intended to address fine lines of difference between the constitution of the United States, and a Bill of Rights, or what in other countries might be called a Charter of Rights. It's all the same in the end unless you're a constitutional lawyer, and a particularly argumentative one most people would want to avoid at a cocktail party.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what the difference between rights and privileges is. If you live in any major city where there is a lot of cycling, you've probably already encountered many bozo cyclists a number of times, and certainly often enough to make you not think of all cyclists as well-intentioned. It's those bozos that risk all of us losing our privileges.
Pierre,
Since we aren’t over beers…
Yes, it is true, the blurred line between “rights” and “privileges”.
In the Unites States, people have been buying up guns and ammo because they fear Obama will, not take away The Right to Bear Arms, but through its interpretation make it more difficult to buy them.
Our Constitution can be amended, the Bill of Rights (an amendment to the Constitution) can’t. However each article of the Bill has had different interpretations.
The beauty of a democracy is its ability to change.
Can that be a detriment when assumed “Rights” are always changing?
Our individual states used to decide for themselves on the right to abortion.
Rights Groups made it a Constitutional issue.
Today states (voters) decide gay marriage. Tomorrow…
Most cyclists won’t become activists, nor do I see the need.
But I ask you, if we don’t, will we be caught off-guard?
Steve
Pierre,
Dave wondered if Rights were ephemeral.
Does the Constitution guarantee the Right to ride a bike on the road?
It could.
Take the Right to Privacy. The Constitution doesn’t mention it. However, to continue my prior post, the Supreme Court has interpreted parts of the Constitution to mean we do have the right to privacy.
Through a decision we enjoy a right.
Too many radical cyclists (activists) think they have to become obnoxious to keep riding.
The Constitution and The Bill of Rights are not political documents. They are the founding principles of the greatest democracy in history.
Because of that, any one of us could make riding a bike on the road a Constitutional (not political) issue.
I can’t imagine how it’d be worded, nor how our Supreme Court justices would render their decision (they are amazing minds), but it doesn’t take an amendment to grant rights.
It could take just one cyclist.
We would have to rethink who the Greatest Cyclist is.
Because we have the Constitution, we have hope. Real Hope.
Steve
Just a point of interest here: the "Bill of Rights" in the US is not a document unto itself. It is a collective name for the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.
Now back to your regularly scheduled squabbling.
Amendment: n. A revision or addition proposed or made in a constitution.
The original framers of the Constitution allowed for amending. Thus the Bill of Rights is a separate document added to the Constitution later.
Today the Constitution is about 42 pages long, the original being a brief (comparatively) foundation for democracy.
Would we have rights today that aren’t included in the original without amendments?
So that's one way “privileges” become “rights”.
Steve
Why does this distinction matter?
It’s huge.
Say your state passes a law banning bicycles from roadways. Think you can sway enough people that already think bikes don’t belong on the road to change their minds (after they voted to ban them)?
Good Luck.
You’d have a better chance taking it to the Supreme Court to see if they agree with the Vehicle Code that states bicycles have the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicles.
If they agree, no state could ban bikes from roadways.
This could happen, especially with so many rogue groups irritating drivers (voters).
There is more than one way to amend the Constitution, making the distinction between “privileges” and “rights” huge.
Steve
Dave, There are rights that you are born with:
1) The right to life (as you state)
2) The right to equal distribution of access to what nature provides to all for free (land and resources)
3) The right to own property in the entire product of you own labour (the wealth you create by working)
The above are all natural laws that cannot be disputed
Privileges have nothing to do with natural human rights at all. In ancient language privi-legde means private law. They are human laws that may or may not harmonise with natural law. If they do not, these privileges will punish us in the end. If they do, all will be good.
You can draw your own conclusions from this
That is all.
Finally some dialogue, Thanks Robin.
And it had nothing to do with riding.
It’s not always About the Bike.
Our lives should be the same…