Dave Moulton

More pictures of my past work can be viewed in the Photo Gallery on the Owner's Registry. A link is in the navigation bar at the top

Bicycle Accident Lawyer

 

 

 

Powered by Squarespace
Search Dave's Bike Blog

 

 Watch Dave's hilarious Ass Song Video.

Or click here to go direct to YouTube.

 


A small donation or a purchase from the online store, (See above.) will help towards the upkeep of my blog and registry. No donation is too small.

Thank you.

Join the Registry

If you own a frame or bike built by Dave Moulton, email details to list it on the registry website at www.davemoultonregistry.com

Email (Contact Dave.)

 If you ask me a question in the comments section of old outdated article, you may not get an answer. Unless the article is current I may not even see it. Email me instead. Thanks Dave

Infographic

 

 

« Froomey, take a leaf from Eddy’s book | Main | Point of View »
Monday
Jun182018

Rights and Privileges

As cycling becomes more and more popular, more people choose to ride a bike to work each day rather than drive. We occasionally hear calls for cyclists to be licensed, or a tax imposed, in the same way automobile drivers are licensed and taxed.

The idea of licensing cyclists usually comes from city governments rather than on a state or national level. The argument is usually along the lines that bike lanes and other facilities cost money, and it only seems fair that cyclists should pay some of this cost.

However, in practical terms any attempt to tax or license cyclists in the past has always turned out to be a bureaucratic nightmare. It always costs more to implement such a plan than the income generated. Plus law enforcement and the court system has to then impose fines on those not having a license.

Sidewalks have been in place in cities everywhere since before the beginning of the last century, and no one has ever suggested that pedestrians should pay for sidewalks. Sidewalks make it safer to walk, bike lanes make it safer to ride a bicycle. And anyway revenues from drivers’ licenses or even road taxes do not pay for roads. So really that should be the end of that argument.      

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. As a result, driving is a privilege, one that can be taken away, whereas cycling like walking is a right. Although cyclists and pedestrians are still subject to the laws of the road. It appears no one can be prevented from walking or riding a bike, even if they break the law.

So 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 not have any God given rights? Are you obliged to respect other people's God given rights? As it is, the only God given right I can think of is our right to live.

If you look at The Bill of Rights there are very few actual rights. I don’t see a right to ride a bicycle mentioned. There is 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 we follow certain laws wherever they apply.

It appears to me that rights are rarely granted, they are simply taken for granted.

A goood example, 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 such 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 question is, are there any true rights or privileges? Or is this 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. We should all remember this and in particular those cyclists who blatantly and regularly flout the laws of the road.

 

     To Share click "Share Article" below  

Reader Comments (4)

We have no more TRUE rights than any other organism on the planet. They are rights only if the society we inhabit or the powers that control it decide they are. Gods have no more interest in our rights than they do in the rights of an amoeba.

June 18, 2018 | Unregistered Commenterayjaydee

After that it appears the function of government (In theory anyway.) is to leave us alone

That's the conservative perspective. The fundamental liberal perspective is that the function of government is to Make Stuff Better.

June 19, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterRubeRad

To supplement RubeRad comment, this was a debate during the ratification of the constitution back in the 1780's. The issues was the same, just like state rights and central government control battle.
The Bill of Rights was not to define what the rights of the people have but to ensure that the peoples rights identified were to be protected from government control. Remember, the colonies didn't really revolt as in a revolution but succeeded because of the crown and parliaments parental attitude toward them and the perspective of many that they were not treated as British citizens. They were very careful to create a system that would not allow a repeat of history. They new it was an experiment and predicted the mechanisms that would cause it to fail.

At that time, they recognized what individual freedom meant, to a large degree and wanted to create an environment that protected it.


Jumping on a bike and riding it is not in the scope of government role. Every law that is passed removes a freedom and the consequence is the loss of accountability/responsibility. Law is a control feature.

June 20, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterSJX426

the government's role is whatever the government is capable of taking whether thru use of the voter or thru force of arms

June 21, 2018 | Unregistered Commenterayjaydee

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>