rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (08/15/85)
In article <2106@iddic.UUCP> dhs@iddic.UUCP (David H. Straayer) writes: >for my actions." Perhaps some day an overly safety-paranoid >society will decide that riding motorcycles is "dangerous" in the >same sense as not wearing seat belts (I hope not). If so, better >that you should be able to accept the risk (this may involve no >more than paying higher insurance premiums) and continue to ride >motorcycles. If I own a building in a town (the whole building), it is illegal for me to climb it; even with proper mountaineering gear. If I own a hangglider, it is illegal for me to fly it off even a tiny mountain unless I have obtained a Hang-3 rating (many many hours). In many states, it is illegal for me to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. (Cheers to South Carolina for repealing their helmet law.) In the plant here in Burlington, I work in a large building that is totally offices (for the nonce, anyway). When we order out for a pizza from Domino's, we have to tell them not to bring any Pepsi's because they only have them in bottles, and no glass is allowed in the plant for safety reasons. Period. If I come in to work on a Saturday or Sunday, I cannot wear shorts. We cannot (technically) have a coffeepot, for Pete's sake!! They sound silly, but start adding them up. These are risks that affect ME, not other people; or are so ludicrous (the things here in the plant, for example) as to not affect anyone. Society decides that motorcycles are "dangerous" and raises insurance? Maybe you should worry about society deciding that motorcycles are "dangerous" and BANNING them. Ah, you are laughing at me and my concern for personal freedoms (probably). Well, consider that here in North Carolina in a small community the drive-in theatre was recently banned from showing X-rated films. No big deal. Except that the judge in his statement said that (paraphrasing): "This sets the precedent for local communities to set their own legal guidelines in the area of pornography." Playboy and Penthouse are certainly subversive. So are almost all Harlequin romance novels, those steamy devils!! And the local TV station shouldn't be showin' them sex-polluted thangs like Shogun and the Thornbirds, now should it, Martha? -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
etan@tellab1.UUCP (Nate Stelton) (08/16/85)
In article <804@burl.UUCP> rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: > >If I own a hangglider, it is illegal for me to fly it off even a tiny >mountain unless I have obtained a Hang-3 rating (many many hours). > If I own a surfboard, it is illegal for me to surf off even a tiny wave unless I have obtained a Hang-10 rating sorry, I just couldn't resist. -etan
dhs@iddic.UUCP (David H. Straayer) (08/19/85)
In article <804@burl.UUCP> you write: >In article <2106@iddic.UUCP> dhs@iddic.UUCP (David H. Straayer) writes: > (quote from my article on responsibility and risk taking) I'm not sure, but I think you are agreeing with me. It is a little confusing to read a followup to one's own posting and never be quite sure if one is being agreed with or ridiculed! >Society decides that motorcycles are "dangerous" and raises insurance? >Maybe you should worry about society deciding that motorcycles are >"dangerous" and BANNING them. > >alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj My thesis is: 1: society is getting over-protective (seatbelt laws, no bottles,...), 2: people are often irresponsible, therefore, When defending one's right to take risks, your case will be stronger if you make it clear that you are willing to assume responsibility for the consequences of your actions. You seem to (I'm not sure) be objecting to paying higher insurance rates for motorcycles. If motorcycles are a more dangerous form of transportation than automobiles (probably a safe assumption), then those higher rates are a reflection of reality. If you expect the same low rates as auto drivers, then you are expecting others to be assuming some of your risks. So what is your position on being willing to accept the consequences of your risk taking? I'm not sure if it is: (a) I have a god-given right to take any risk I damn well please, and any attempt to interfere with it is unacceptable! (or) (b) I want to protect my right to take risks by accepting their consequences. This may mean paying more insurance. It may mean being limited in my ability to sue sue someone after I'm injured while doing risky things. Please respond with (a), (b), or some understandable rewording of either. David H. Straayer
msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) (08/25/85)
Curtis Jackson writes: > If I own a building in a town (the whole building), it is illegal for > me to climb it; even with proper mountaineering gear. What exactly does this mean? Are there no roofers or window-washers in Burlington, NC? Or is this a specific prohibition on climbing buildings *with mountaineering gear*? Tell us more. Mark Brader