tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post111710714271971445..comments2005-08-08T00:11:06.146+09:00Comments on Riding Sun: Riding two-up with Big BrotherUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1117229690568807902005-05-28T06:34:00.000+09:002005-05-28T06:34:00.000+09:00Do they mention that riders sometimes need to brea...Do they mention that riders sometimes need to break speed limits in order to save [i]themselves[/i] from serious harm? Sounds like, yet again, somebody who is not involved with something trying to dictate the actions of those who are involved. Nobody know what a morotrcyclist has to go through to stay alive in traffic, unless they are a motorcyclist themselves.<BR/><BR/>Baka. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/05/riding-two-up-with-big-brother.html#comments" REL="nofollow" TITLE="kresh at aol dot com">Kresh</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1117139510304041722005-05-27T05:31:00.000+09:002005-05-27T05:31:00.000+09:00cube: That's a good point about collective respons...<B>cube:</B> That's a good point about collective responsibility for health care costs being the onus upon Brits to be more proactive in regards to activities that are inherently more dangerous to ones' physical health. If this was their rationale, it would require them to also install these same chips in cars. Clearly, this isn't the case.<BR/><BR/>Quite simply they're doing it because motorcyclists constitute a minority constituency, and most Britons aren't likely to care about limits being placed on bikers. Talk about doing this to their cars, however, and there'd be no end to the uproar.Sharonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15533437212721794768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1117139118859020022005-05-27T05:25:00.000+09:002005-05-27T05:25:00.000+09:00Unfortunately for Britain they don't have a Consti...Unfortunately for Britain they don't have a Constitution, whereby this silly measure-that-could-soon-become-law might be struck down. It seems inherently against the idea of liberty, in that one has the right to engage in an activity freely and, in the event one excceds legal limits, pay a fine or lose the right to continue said activity. Measures like this take the biker's choice out altogether. What a childish, Nanny-state way of saying you don't trust your citizens, and therefore will bring your superior knowledge and morality to bear on them.<BR/><BR/>Wait. That sounds an awful lot like the Democrats, doesn't it? <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/05/riding-two-up-with-big-brother.html#comments" REL="nofollow" TITLE="s_langworthy at hotmail dot com">langtry</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9395124.post-1117121268547098052005-05-27T00:27:00.000+09:002005-05-27T00:27:00.000+09:00"...the responsibility of using that freedom wisel..."...the responsibility of using that freedom wisely, and the knowledge that you will bear the consequences of your own actions."<BR/><BR/>The only problem is that in britian everyone bears the responsiblity of paying everyone else's health bills. So one of the basic premise of your argument (bearing the consequences of your actions) does not exist in britian. Which i by no means agree with that situation, but given the situation, the law becomes quite logical.<BR/><BR/>Bascially, they are to far down the path to dark side listen to reason. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/05/riding-two-up-with-big-brother.html#comments" REL="nofollow" TITLE="cyrusmckormick at hotmail dot com">cube</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com