This is illegal too.fat and old wrote:nsible, and something that we all could suffer for (The ignoring of laws. What if that child grows up with the attitude that laws only apply to it when he/she decides they do? And he/she drives a car?).
Ummm, situation normal?fat and old wrote:...What if that child grows up with the attitude that laws only apply to it when he/she decides they do? And he/she drives a car?).
That's an overly simplistic view because there are aspects to the mandatory helmet law that make it particularly hard to repeal. Or in other words, if all that was required was to make a sufficient argument concerning the effects of the law, then the law would have been repealed already, but there are aspects not concerning the effects of the law that hinder its repeal.silentC wrote:. At this point in time it is compulsory to wear a helmet when riding a bike in this country. The case for the negative has yet to be made sufficiently to have it overthrown.
Well that's just lovely isn't it? Sounds like Darwin's Law might get them if the cops don't.Range wrote:Well, have just joined today, after lurking for a long time & feel the need to vent..............
Parramatta Early this morning - no daylight - 4 riders together (2 male & 2 female I think) 2 of them with rear lights - no front lights - all 4 went through a red light (so did the car behind mind you).
When I made a polite comment - yes it was polite, about traffic lights & Bike lights, I was invited to procreate with myself.
Great way to reinforce negative opinions!!
I use the word 'sufficient' in the sense that whatever argument has been made, it has not been enough to create whatever impetus is required within government to put the wheels in motion to remove whatever obstacles lie in the way of it's repeal. Suffice to say, it currently is law and that's what I think we should be teaching our children. Civil disobedience is great but it should be carried out by people who understand the implications and potential repercussions of what they are doing, not by 3 year oldsyugyug wrote: That's an overly simplistic view because there are aspects to the mandatory helmet law that make it particularly hard to repeal. Or in other words, if all that was required was to make a sufficient argument concerning the effects of the law, then the law would have been repealed already, but there are aspects not concerning the effects of the law that hinder its repeal.
What relevance does this have? It took a long time for slavery to be repealed, for women to get the vote, for homosexuality to be legal.silentC wrote:I use the word 'sufficient' in the sense that whatever argument has been made, it has not been enough to create whatever impetus is required within government to put the wheels in motion to remove whatever obstacles lie in the way of it's repeal.
Yep, lets outsource the importance of child rearing to the law.silentC wrote:Suffice to say, it currently is law and that's what I think we should be teaching our children.
These online arguments are really taxing on the memory, aren't they?We have 2 parents that are effectively telling their child that they are above the law. Whether or not that law is good or bad doesn't matter. The parents in question may be raising the child to think for itself; make decisions based on the situation at hand rather than just blindly follow a law for the sake of it. If so then that's one smart 3 year old. Otherwise it's irresponsible, and something that we all could suffer for (The ignoring of laws. What if that child grows up with the attitude that laws only apply to it when he/she decides they do? And he/she drives a car?).
Forget the debate about helmets. I'm happy to keep that elsewhere. What I am advocating is blind law abidance under all conditions (even for under 16s) is absurd. Calling those described in the first post "dumb" is plain intolerant.silentC wrote:Far out, it's a simple enough point to make. If you want to wrangle it into some argument about MHL, do it without my assistance, ok?
Thanks, its pretty arduous sometimes.silentC wrote: A. Yes I recognise you are all out there fighting the good fight against helmet laws. Hooray for you
It doesn't send a confusing signal to a 3 year old because 3 year olds don't have a proper conception of what law is. They do what mummy and daddy tells them and only question it an immature sense, which is insignificant. A child's conception of the law develops as they age, through praxis e.g what has effect and significance to their actions and that of their families and peers. At the other end of the scale you mention, a 16 years old is fully capable of understanding the problems of a mandatory helmet law and why their parents may or may not choose to wear them.B. A child under the age of 16 is not considered by most aspects of society to be old enough to make their own decisions. Teaching them to obey some laws and disobey others sends a confusing signal.
Basic principle of law abidance, sure. Absolute principle of law abidance, no way.silentC wrote:And what I am advocating is that until a child is old enough to make mature decisions (albeit wrong ones) then we should be teaching them to obey the law. It's what civilised society is all about. Sure, if you disagree with a law, protest against it. Nobody is saying we should put up with bad laws. I am talking specifically about a basic principle of law abidance which should be instilled in our kids. It's not absurd, that is nothing more than responsible parenting in my opinion.
Welcome to the forum, some times diving into a thread folks don't see a new member.Range wrote:Well, have just joined today, after lurking for a long time & feel the need to vent..............
Parramatta Early this morning - no daylight - 4 riders together (2 male & 2 female I think) 2 of them with rear lights - no front lights - all 4 went through a red light (so did the car behind mind you).
When I made a polite comment - yes it was polite, about traffic lights & Bike lights, I was invited to procreate with myself.
Great way to reinforce negative opinions!!
Yes I am sure most parents sit down and have intellectual discussions with their kids about morality and the lawIMO any 'confusion' or questioning that develops in the intervening years can be used as an opportunity to discuss the issues Human raises, using examples suitable for the intellectual capacities of the child. For example, past injustices of practices like slavery are simple enough to present clearly to many children that morality doesn't always align with law.
Sure, so their understanding of the law will be shaped by the actions and their outcomes of those around them. That's what I'm saying. Anyway it's only my opinion. I'm not a child psychologist, just a parent trying to do my best and so far my kids are fairly respectful of laws and rules so I'm happy to continue with that approach.A child's conception of the law develops as they age, through praxis e.g what has effect and significance to their actions and that of their families and peers.
I wouldn't raise my child to put laws about ethical decisions. (For all my supposed anti helmet attitudes I own at least 6 different helmets for various sports!)
Does he? If the cycling light is green then it brings into question whether he did need to stop and check for cross pedestrian traffic?jules21 wrote: the thing is - you still have to give way to pedestrians matey!
i've not seen one of those?Certainly some of those intersections have signage indicating that the pedestrians need look and give way.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
