Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: sas mayhem on May 26, 2011, 05:02:33 PM
-
I got a little upset today from what I saw on my way home from work. I was on the interstate cruising at 75 mph, as I come up to an on ramp I noticed another motorcyclist coming down. So I checked my mirrors signaled and went into the left lane, giving the bike rider a clear shot to come on.
As a rider the first thing I look at is riding gear. He had a skull helmet, T-shirt, cargo pants shorts and flip flops. I’m a firm believer in ATGATT, but that is his decision. All of that made my nod my head but what really got my goat was his passenger …… a 5 year old (if that) sitting on the base of the gas tank and her feet positioned on either side and behind of the gas cap >:( . I thought what the hell. I was at a loss for words gang. She looked over to me and smiled as I pull next to them. That when I noticed that she was wearing Barbie sandals and pink Barbie foam helmet???? :o Then they sped off …..Remember I was do 75.
I’m still fuming about it, when I got home a told my girlfriend and said,” If I had my headset synced to my phone I would have called the police”. Would that have taking it too far? I mean I’ve done it to a drunken driver that was weaving in front of me when I’ve been in my car. Get that idiot a reality check.
Your thoughts please
Cheers
Ron
PS. my phone is now synced to my headset.
-
I don't even like seeing kids in cars without their seatbelts on.
I don't like seeing people driving with dogs on their laps.
I don't like seeing kids going down the freeway in the back of a pick-up.
-Still 75+ mph with a little kid on the gas tank?? What a G.D.D.A !!!!
-
SAS,
Not sure how long you have been riding, but as you get older, you will see that this is still something that some people just don't get.
I don't want to preach, but human nature is human nature, and the only real difference between us and some certain primates is that we learned to talk. That didn't mean we all learned common sense.
Try to look at it as a learning experience, you'll learn to not get to upset with the human species, it really won't help.
And for all of us, please ride safe and smart.
Greg
-
not defending the guy at all...
way back when my daughter was 4 or 5, she started riding on the tank. course it was only up and down the driveway or in front of the house. we lived at the end of a road. now, in her twenties she won't ride without a helmet.
-
not defending the guy at all...
way back when my daughter was 4 or 5, she started riding on the tank. course it was only up and down the driveway or in front of the house. we lived at the end of a road. now, in her twenties she won't ride without a helmet.
My son, when he was 3-4 years old (now 32), rode approx 1700 miles on the gas tank on my '84 Sportster. All putting around the neighborhood, at less than 15 mph, with a helmet on. Safe? probably not. Fun? Hell yes. Highway at 75 mph. Hell no.
And I never let him own or ride a motorcycle after that.
-
"The average man's judgment is so poor, he runs a risk every time he uses it."
E.W. Howe
People are stupid. Riding a motorcycle does not tend to make them any smarter. Unfortunately, the children are the ones who end up paying the price.
-
When I was younger you could ride in Washington without a helmet (I live in Oregon), in highschool we used to always go ride there just so we could ride without a helmet, crazy stupid speeds too... Looking back on it now I think how stupid we were, but at that tiime in my life it never crossed my mind as being stupid, just fun.
This obviously isn't the same as putting a child in danger, but my only point is that maybe in his mind he wasn't being stupid, maturity and thought process you know... (http://i1200.photobucket.com/albums/bb336/jaywilcox/smiley_dunno.gif)
To the op, you can't let other people's stupidity frustrate you, I know it's hard... I rarely watch the news anymore other than for the weather because of exactly this. ;)
-
How dare someone make a decision regarding the welfare of their own child? The unmitigated gall!
While I may, and do, agree with your assessment of the wisdom of his actions, it really isn't any of your (or my) business. Should I call the police or CPS or any government agency or official because I don't like the way you raise your kid? What if you let them watch the wrong show, or read the wrong book, or go to the wrong church, or eat the wrong food, or play with the wrong toys, or live in the wrong neighborhood, or whatever - the list is infinite.
Teach correct principles. Let the people govern themselves. Freedom is better than coercion, even if "we" are "smarter" than "them" and "know" what is "best" for "them".
-
How dare someone make a decision regarding the welfare of their own child? The unmitigated gall!
While I may, and do, agree with your assessment of the wisdom of his actions, it really isn't any of your (or my) business. Should I call the police or CPS or any government agency or official because I don't like the way you raise your kid? What if you let them watch the wrong show, or read the wrong book, or go to the wrong church, or eat the wrong food, or play with the wrong toys, or live in the wrong neighborhood, or whatever - the list is infinite.
Teach correct principles. Let the people govern themselves. Freedom is better than coercion, even if "we" are "smarter" than "them" and "know" what is "best" for "them".
I do agree that the guy in the OP was not acting in the best way, but I also feel that the statement quoted above is correct. You know how many times I have spanked my kids at the grocery store or Walmart or whereever in public and I have had people tell me they were calling social services or the police on me. F U. They are my kids so mind your own business. They are lucky that they didn't have to call the cops on me for beating them after saying that to me. And let me say I spank my kids, I don't beat them. I got the crap beat out of me as a kid and I deserved every one of them. And that is when the kid could come out bruised and it was oh well he/she was bad and they deserved it. I will say that it probably helped me be a better person. After you get a beating once for something you sure as hell don't do it again. You find something new and hope you get away with it.
Another example: Guns can be dangerous and aren't meant for kids. But my 5 year old son shoots with me. I hear people complain all the time that he is to young to hold and shoot that pistol (maybe they are jealous because for a 5 year old he shoots better than some of them). Now my sister will not even allow my nephew to have toy guns, water guns, cap guns, etc. But she doesn't say a word about my kid shooting and I respectively don't say anything about how anal she is about my nephew not having anything gun related at all.
Anyway my point is that I am not going to tell you how or what to do to or with your kids. I feel bad for the kids, but it isn't my place. And my kids ride with me on the tank but they are in gear and it is never out of our neighborhood or any faster than about 25.
-
it really isn't any of your (or my) business.
That's what's so sad these days. People too lazy or apathetic to watch out for their fellow man. The notion that we are not each other's keepers is, IMHO, a good part of why this society has become so blatently violent and selfish. If I choose to paint my house/car/bike purple with pink zebra stripes, that's none of your business. If I choose to endanger the life of a small child, it had better damn well be evryone's business!
Does a 5 year old have the balance and coordination to stay on that bike if the driver has to make an abrupt manuever? If they did crash and the child was hurt or killed, what would the hue and outcry be then? OHHH, who could we find to blame??
Comparing letting your child watch a certain TV show vs. placing them on a MC at 75+ mph is ludicrous at best. I wish Ron did have the means to call the police on that idiot!
-
OHHH, who could we find to blame??
I disagree. This to me is where the problem lies. Who can we blame? Blame the idiot putting their kid on the bike and hauling ass.
It is none of his business to call. While I agree the child was not in the safest position, you could say the same about anything. Would you put your kids on an airplane or to the ocean to swim? The plane could wreck or they could be swept out and drowned, but you probably don't say you are calling the cops on the parents for that. So unless I witness a child in "real" danger (getting beaten senseless, raped, etc.) it is not my place to dictate how you raise your kid.
-
OHHH, who could we find to blame??
In case you missed it, that was my apparently failed attempt at sarcasm. I know fully well who would be at fault, problem is there seems to be too many people looking for someone else to blame. And in case you weren't aware, many states have laws regarding passenger placement and mandatory use of proper protective head gear for minor passengers, both for good reason. I'm not certain about NC, but I really have no desire to figure it out either.
-
Boils down to this; what requirements does the state mandate for the child and the motorcycle? If no laws are being broken then IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS to interfere. You can be shocked and angered all you want but it is not for you to decide how the child is being treated if there is no legal threshold being crossed. Once that legal threshold is crossed then I would have no issue with it being reported to the appropriate venue. My personnel threshold is at least as much protection as I am wearing and that will always be well above the legal limit and feet must fit soundly on the foot-pegs.
Sorry kiddies until then Grandpa will only give you rides in the sidecar within our dead-ended neighborhood; but I will do it without safety gear as I CAN control the situation in MY neighborhood.
-
If I choose to paint my house/car/bike purple with pink zebra stripes, that's none of your business. If I choose to endanger the life of a small child, it had better damn well be evryone's business!
:goodpost:
Makes sense to me. However my Google-fu seems to suggest that the only laws in S.C. (concerning motorcycle safety) are: goggles for all, and helmet under 21. most other states seem to agree. So although the child's "Barbie helmet" probably wasn't legal, and the lack of gear on both of them would suggest poor judgement on the part of the operator, and the excessive speed, the Q: is would you propose to "chase/tail" him till the LEOs get there?
You could call in his plate if you got it, but what do you think the odds are that someone will actually be in the right place at the right time to catch the idiot?
Maybe worth the try, but I'd limit my expectations to the benefit of a good facepalm.
(http://www.talknerdytomelover.com/storage/facepalm.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1279036303529)
-
Now that i am older i have mixed emotions on this subject. I have very fond memories of zipping down the highway perched on the gas tank of my fathers Honda 500Four. Was it safe? Hell no; but at the time i was king of the world. Hell once in a while he would let me touch the handlebars ???
I am ATGATT now. I try not to preach about safety; would I let my granddaughter ride with me like that? NO, it sure was fun though :o
-
My son rode all over the midwest with me when he was 3 years old and up. We went to Springfield and Peoria often for the flat track and TT races. I had made a wrap around seat where the sides nearly touched my back, brackets to put passenger pegs high enough where he could actually use them. I even had a headrest where he often laid back and napped. I bought a DOT approved helmet to fit his little head and finished it off with SCOTT youth goggles. The boots and leather jacket, and gloves were marginal but functional. (Bates doesn't make leather gear for preschoolers) I actually was pulled over a few times by Police officers who wanted to inspect the system, and they were all at least approving if not impressed. If you want to take your kid with you, at least love them enough to do it right.
Motorcycles quickly became old hat with my boy. I remember one day I told him to get his helmet and I would take him to school. He replyed " Can't we just take the station wagon like everyone else?"
I like motorcycles and firearms, he like fast cars and archery, where did I go wrong? ;D
-
T-Cro had the interesting question, was he breaking the Law? Being as SAS is in NC I can asnwer that, YES, all riders must be on the seat as intended. If the girl could not reach the pegs on the back where she should have been seated, then she is too young to ride. The Barbie helmet is not legal as it is not DOT approved, then again I'm sure the Dad wasn't either. And yes child welfare would have been notified had the bike been found and stopped.
On to personal opinions, you want to ride around in the neighborhood like described above, fine, I don't like it but go ahead, on the road at 75+ assume the worst will happen and be smart. SAS, had you called you would have indeed done the right thing, you want to ride without proper gear fine, you want to toss a small child on a bike without gear, not so much. 17 years in law enforcement, I've seen enough dead kids to last a life time, the majority of which were from car accidents without the proper restraints, it can happen to you and yours. And yes I let my children ride with me, but only when they have ATGATT, even in the neighborhood.
-
Maybe you were mistaken and it was his midget girlfriend who loves Barbie?
But if not, it would have made me mad also mate. I think people care too little about others these days and I would have had the same conversation with myself inside my helmet that you did in yours. Beside, I would not have thought that was even legal?
Aussie
-
I got a little upset today from what I saw on my way home from work. I was on the interstate cruising at 75 mph, as I come up to an on ramp I noticed another motorcyclist coming down. So I checked my mirrors signaled and went into the left lane, giving the bike rider a clear shot to come on.
As a rider the first thing I look at is riding gear. He had a skull helmet, T-shirt, cargo pants shorts and flip flops. I’m a firm believer in ATGATT, but that is his decision. All of that made my nod my head but what really got my goat was his passenger …… a 5 year old (if that) sitting on the base of the gas tank and her feet positioned on either side and behind of the gas cap >:( . I thought what the hell. I was at a loss for words gang. She looked over to me and smiled as I pull next to them. That when I noticed that she was wearing Barbie sandals and pink Barbie foam helmet???? :o Then they sped off …..Remember I was do 75.
I’m still fuming about it, when I got home a told my girlfriend and said,” If I had my headset synced to my phone I would have called the police”. Would that have taking it too far? I mean I’ve done it to a drunken driver that was weaving in front of me when I’ve been in my car. Get that idiot a reality check.
Your thoughts please
Cheers
Ron
PS. my phone is now synced to my headset.
IMO your initial instinct is spot on... what he chooses to wear is his business, but when he endangers another, it becomes our business... I wish you would have memorized his plate and called him in anyway...
IIRR, In CO it is against the law to ride any passenger that cannot reach the foot pegs...
-
Some good comments. Even respectful. Cool.
I do not equate legal with moral or wise. They can be the same, but often are not. Many legal actions are "bad", while many illegals actions are not.
As to watching shows not harming children: Once Hitler controlled the media, (many of) the children raised watching, reading, hearing, learning his message grew up to willingly participate in the horrors on Nazi Germany. IMO, that is much worse that falling off a motorcycle.
As to caring, it is bold to suggest that minding one's own business is tantamount to being uncaring. I thought that should have been clear in my first post, but apparently it was not. Many laws have been proposed and enacted in the name of caring that only served to restrict legitamate freedoms. Every one of us every day "endangers" ourself as well as others. Merely having running water and electricity in our homes is a risk. Driving a car, we endanger a huge number of people almost every time we get on a city street or highway. Same with bikes, perhaps more danger to ourself and less to others than a car, but the same principle is effective. The world seems to have plenty of caring people who want to take away our cars, motorcycles, knives, guns, trampolines, lawn darts, bb guns, etc.
If you really care, should you have cps take your neighbor's kids away if he buys a trampoline? No, being caring and being a busybody are not the same thing.
Again, teach correct principles and let people govern themselves.
-
I miss my Jarts....
-
:goodpost:
Some good comments. Even respectful. Cool.
I do not equate legal with moral or wise. They can be the same, but often are not. Many legal actions are "bad", while many illegals actions are not.
As to watching shows not harming children: Once Hitler controlled the media, (many of) the children raised watching, reading, hearing, learning his message grew up to willingly participate in the horrors on Nazi Germany. IMO, that is much worse that falling off a motorcycle.
As to caring, it is bold to suggest that minding one's own business is tantamount to being uncaring. I thought that should have been clear in my first post, but apparently it was not. Many laws have been proposed and enacted in the name of caring that only served to restrict legitamate freedoms. Every one of us every day "endangers" ourself as well as others. Merely having running water and electricity in our homes is a risk. Driving a car, we endanger a huge number of people almost every time we get on a city street or highway. Same with bikes, perhaps more danger to ourself and less to others than a car, but the same principle is effective. The world seems to have plenty of caring people who want to take away our cars, motorcycles, knives, guns, trampolines, lawn darts, bb guns, etc.
If you really care, should you have cps take your neighbor's kids away if he buys a trampoline? No, being caring and being a busybody are not the same thing.
Again, teach correct principles and let people govern themselves.
-
I have no problem watching an adult taking willing chances with their life. As long as it doesn't affect me. If someone wants to do do wheelies down the freeway at 75mph, fine, but not in traffic where their crash could cause a multi car accident and injure me. If they want to shoot up heroin and die, so what, as long as they don't steal from me or my community to support their death wish. If they want to hood surf at 65 mph (I did once) then so be it, as long as I won't be affected by their behavior.
However, when a child is involved with reckless endangerment, I will sure get involved and notify the local authorities. It's then up to them to make the judgement and penalize or let off the adult risking the child.
None of my business? I would be haunted for life with the visions of a child killed senselessly in front of me...
-
The purpose of civilization and the Christian religion especially and all the laws and rules that derive from those institutions is to "take care of society's weakest and most vulnerable." A child certainly qualifies.
I agree with the original poster. I would've had the nearest LEO on his ass asap. Besides being a total retard, let's say he crashes and his daughter is killed or horribly injured. Obviously the idiot father gets blamed, but so do ALL OF US. If we don't want more "do-gooder" laws like the one just passed in Texas that all you Libertarian/TP types bitch about, then take some responsibility and help self-police the sport.
Would the idiot father listen to one of us? Who knows and who cares. He's hurting motorcycling, a sport I've been involved in all my life and I thoroughly resent those who do things that hurt or lead to limits on my riding. Don't even get me started on the HD crowd and their open pipes that **** off people for blocks away . . .
When my daughter was about 7, she and I were on a ride to Kentucky. She was wearing all the right gear and a harness I bought designed to allow you to carry a child so they could not fall off the back of a motorcycle or snowmobile. She was securely strapped to me and as safe as I could make her. Someone on the Interstate called the State Patrol and one pulled up to us when I stopped for gas. He checked to make sure she was secure, was satisfied, told us to have a nice day and drove off. Was I PO'd? Not really. He was doing his job, I was doing mine as a parent. No big deal.
-
I miss my Jarts....
:chugbeer: Oh hell yeah...I still have the set from when I was a child. I was luck enough to go visit my parents and found them in the garbage. That was a close one. Maybe I will pack them up and take them to the Nationals. I still have my wood burning kit also. You know the one; the one with the two foot cord. I put some serious hole in the carpet with that bad boy.
-
I have no problem watching an adult taking willing chances with their life. As long as it doesn't affect me. If someone wants to do do wheelies down the freeway at 75mph, fine, but not in traffic where their crash could cause a multi car accident and injure me. If they want to shoot up heroin and die, so what, as long as they don't steal from me or my community to support their death wish. If they want to hood surf at 65 mph (I did once) then so be it, as long as I won't be affected by their behavior.
However, when a child is involved with reckless endangerment, I will sure get involved and notify the local authorities. It's then up to them to make the judgement and penalize or let off the adult risking the child.
None of my business? I would be haunted for life with the visions of a child killed senselessly in front of me...
:goodpost:
Exactly the way I feel...
-
I think there is a threshold of what constitutes reckless behavior with children. Riding with a kid on the tank is not a good idea, no arguing that, but we aren't used to seeing that either. I travel a lot in Southeast Asia, and it is very common to see, 1, or 2 or more small children and sometimes entire families riding on motorbikes. That's how they travel. That's often the only way they have of travelling.
Personally I don't think riding with a small child on a tank in itself warrants getting in the middle of the situation. If it's in a particularly reckless manner, then yes. Sort of like the previously mentioned example of seeing a kid get spanked in the supermarket. Kudos to parents that excercise disipline on their kids. Beating the crap out of a kid is an entirely different matter.
-
I like motorcycles and firearms, he like fast cars and archery, where did I go wrong?
Different position and velocity, same potential outcome. Don't think you went wrong at all!
-
If no laws are being broken
Well, in Texas, a child under the age of 5 cannot ride as a passenger on a motorcycle.
-
Well as long as we are fantasizing about possible outcomes of the scenario, let's toss this one out:
Father and daughter have a great relationship, including riding together on the motorcycle. Do-gooder/busybody/caring citizen calls the police. CPS is involved. Dad gets fined and some jail time. Family finances take a beating. Divorce. Daughter loses loving relationship with dad. At 14, runs away from now-broken home. Lives on street. Becomes hooker. Dies of drug overdose at 17.
Since the do-gooder never gets to see the results of their action, they sleep peacefully, never knowing of the lives they have destroyed.
One could argue that it is a bit far-fetched, but it is just as likely as the girl dieing in a crash in front of your eyes.
So I still say, none of your business. Mind your own kids. Please.
-
Well as long as we are fantasizing about possible outcomes of the scenario, let's toss this one out:
Father and daughter have a great relationship, including riding together on the motorcycle. Do-gooder/busybody/caring citizen calls the police. CPS is involved. Dad gets fined and some jail time. Family finances take a beating. Divorce. Daughter loses loving relationship with dad. At 14, runs away from now-broken home. Lives on street. Becomes hooker. Dies of drug overdose at 17.
Since the do-gooder never gets to see the results of their action, they sleep peacefully, never knowing of the lives they have destroyed.
One could argue that it is a bit far-fetched, but it is just as likely as the girl dieing in a crash in front of your eyes.
So I still say, none of your business. Mind your own kids. Please.
+1
Unless of course as I said previously it is an obvious case of severe beatings, rape, etc.
-
I don't think there is really a right or wrong answer. There are too many variables to consider. Legal abligation, moral obligation and what ever mental propensity each individual making the assessment has. While I would have thought that it wasn't the best decision, I probably would not have taken the action the OP questions.
Here in Kansas all passengers must have foot rests. I have a friend who routinely rides with 2 or 3 of his kids on his Gold Wing. They all wear helmets and such and have solid places for their feet. I don't really agree with that either but he is operating within the confines of the current laws and these chillins range from 8 to 11 years old. I have given nieces and nephews rides on my bike with out any safety equipment. This was neighborhood stuff at slow speeds but it was certainly braking the law.
In the hypothetical world that some of the comments in this thread live, there are lots of things that I might take exception to. However, unless there was an imediate danger to life and I was I was in a position to stop loss of life with out making the situation more dangerous I would not step in.
I don't have chillins (unless there are a bunch of short, angry asians running around Japan/Okinawa :) ), I was raised to make my own decisions. Some where bad, resulting in a beating. Some where good, resulting in understanding respect from my parents. Too many people today think it is their right to make decisions for others. Sad really but such is life today.
-
WOW !!! We have some very interesting view point of what I saw, and most of the a valid and make sense, to which I respect. :thumbs: I'll little of my back ground to try to explain why I was shocked. I did the US Air Force for 20 yrs, aircraft mechanic, QA, aircraft inspection and Crew Chief and Flight Line super. So I'm always look at things as a safety and "what if " point of view. Sought-of looking at the odds.
When I saw that the first thing that went thru my mind was, "that is a hellof a risk. As WE all know when on the interstate rolling at 70+, an emergency situation can happen real fast and without warning. So trying to handle your scoot and hold a child on, will be kinda impossible.
I don't think I'm being a busy boddy I honestly think the odds where not in the child's favor. 70+ NO WAY.
Read this and you'll see were I'm coming from, I simple lapse in judgement caused all this.
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=352566 (http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=352566)
Cheers
Ron
-
AF and a crew chief, you're ok in my book... :thumbs: Thanks for serving!
-
I'm a grandpa, and can't wait (tho I will..) to take my grand doughter and grandson on some fun rides.. with that said, it will be with reasonble protective gear, at reasonable speeds, and on reasonable roads.... willfull neglect for "correct" thinking aside, anyone placing thier pseudo-offspring" at risk need to be surgically "re-alligned"
I cannot wait to take my grand-doughter on a serious ride, to bond, and enjoy, and to share my passsion, just sooo f'd up some folks don't get the hint on how to do it safely....
-
just sooo f'd up some folks don't get the hint on how to do it safely....
Ditto MOB :thumbs:
and Thank you vajim :chugbeer:
-
How dare someone make a decision regarding the welfare of their own child? The unmitigated gall!
While I may, and do, agree with your assessment of the wisdom of his actions, it really isn't any of your (or my) business. Should I call the police or CPS or any government agency or official because I don't like the way you raise your kid? What if you let them watch the wrong show, or read the wrong book, or go to the wrong church, or eat the wrong food, or play with the wrong toys, or live in the wrong neighborhood, or whatever - the list is infinite.
Teach correct principles. Let the people govern themselves. Freedom is better than coercion, even if "we" are "smarter" than "them" and "know" what is "best" for "them".
Should have put up a poll for this.
I am with the above post...MYOB, its his kid, his bike, his life,
-
There is no political correctness on stupid. No ones constitutional rights have been denied by calling the cops when a law is being broke and a childs life is saved. If we are not our brothers keeper then why befriend a broken down roadside biker or stop for stop signs.....screw the posted speed limits....etc. When any of us walk out the door of our humble homes we join society whether we like it or not.....and we should look out for the weak and oppressed. Any Veterans agree with that on this Memorial Day......shouldn't that concept begin on our front door as well as abroad. I'm just saying..... :-*
-
Should have put up a poll for this.
I am with the above post...MYOB, its his kid, his bike, his life,
His life, his decision. His kids life, not his decision....
-
Oh, wow. So you want someone calling the police everytime you break a law? Regardless of whether you think that it is a good law? Maybe if that happened we would lose some of the stupid laws we have. Assuming anyone still had enough life, liberty or property left to change the laws.
Of all the "caring, neighborly" posters here, not one of you has shown a whit of interest in getting to know the dad, and talking to him about bike safety. Utter hypocrisy.
If your child's life is not your decision, just whose decision is it? Mine? Some gov't committee? CPS? As I stated before, every day parent's make decisions that affect their children's lives. When I was a kid, there were no seatbelts in the cars we had, and it was not illegal for me to ride standing up, sitting down, or laying on the shelf in the rear window. Now it is a crime. Same behavior, but now illegal. My parents "put my (then a child) life at risk. Should we dig them out of their graves & prosecute? They let me ride a minibike w/ no helmet. Evil criminals. Some of you might want to re-examine just how many of your freedoms you want to give up while you are wanting to take them away from others.
The man did not kill his kid. Get a grip. Please.
-
I can see some here have not had to deal with kids and bad choices. Have any of you had to tell a dad his kids ere dead because his wife did not make them wear their seatbelts when she was driving them to church, hit a slick spot, went into the oncoming lane hitting another car head on which pitched 3 kids out of the car. One boy and two girls. The oldest was 9 and the youngest was 2. They died at the scene. I got to do this within the last 3 months. Not Fun, trust me. It was not my accident but I got stuck telling dad all about it. Wife was airlifted to Seattle. She made it but she doesn't have any kids anymore. :'(
-
How dare someone make a decision regarding the welfare of their own child? The unmitigated gall!
While I may, and do, agree with your assessment of the wisdom of his actions, it really isn't any of your (or my) business. Should I call the police or CPS or any government agency or official because I don't like the way you raise your kid? What if you let them watch the wrong show, or read the wrong book, or go to the wrong church, or eat the wrong food, or play with the wrong toys, or live in the wrong neighborhood, or whatever - the list is infinite.
Teach correct principles. Let the people govern themselves. Freedom is better than coercion, even if "we" are "smarter" than "them" and "know" what is "best" for "them".
+1
-
There is no political correctness on stupid. No ones constitutional rights have been denied by calling the cops when a law is being broke and a childs life is saved. If we are not our brothers keeper then why befriend a broken down roadside biker or stop for stop signs.....screw the posted speed limits....etc. When any of us walk out the door of our humble homes we join society whether we like it or not.....and we should look out for the weak and oppressed. Any Veterans agree with that on this Memorial Day......shouldn't that concept begin on our front door as well as abroad. I'm just saying..... :-*
+1 Well said.
-
Oh, wow. So you want someone calling the police everytime you break a law? Regardless of whether you think that it is a good law? Maybe if that happened we would lose some of the stupid laws we have. Assuming anyone still had enough life, liberty or property left to change the laws.
Of all the "caring, neighborly" posters here, not one of you has shown a whit of interest in getting to know the dad, and talking to him about bike safety. Utter hypocrisy.
If your child's life is not your decision, just whose decision is it? Mine? Some gov't committee? CPS? As I stated before, every day parent's make decisions that affect their children's lives. When I was a kid, there were no seatbelts in the cars we had, and it was not illegal for me to ride standing up, sitting down, or laying on the shelf in the rear window. Now it is a crime. Same behavior, but now illegal. My parents "put my (then a child) life at risk. Should we dig them out of their graves & prosecute? They let me ride a minibike w/ no helmet. Evil criminals. Some of you might want to re-examine just how many of your freedoms you want to give up while you are wanting to take them away from others.
The man did not kill his kid. Get a grip. Please.
There is a huge difference between 'breaking a law' and endangering a child. It is a parents obligation to protect the life of their children, not endanger them. If the guy wants to ride naked, I don't care, it's his choice. It is not the child's choice to ride unprotected, he/she can't complain, or say they don't want to. The decision is made for them, by the parent.
Your right, things that were legal before, like riding in the bed of a pickup, are illegal now, mostly because we've learned better. I don't support most of those laws for adults, but I do for kids. You see, adults can make informed decisions, children can't. Most of the time I don't care what illegal activity you're into, as long as you're not violating or threatening someone else's rights. Then there will be a problem. This man was threatening his child's right to life, and you're damn straight I'm gonna report him, or you, or anyone else who threatens harm to others, just like I'd report a drunk driver.
You want to look the other way? Fine, it's your right to do so. If you come across the accident scene with a tiny body bag a few miles down the road, I hope your sanctimonious rationalization helps you sleep that night...
-
Friend, I find that post hilarious. Or your signature line hilarious. Or the combination of the two. All of life is risk. Either risk management belongs to the individual, or it belongs to someone else (the government). I think my position is clear, if not well-stated. I believe I understand yours.
At some point, you have to either claim the right to control other people, or you have to let it go. IMO, it is better to teach, even though some will choose wrong. Force vs persuasion. Freedom vs subjection. I have not always lived the principle well, but I stand on the side of freedom. Even with the risks that freedom entails.
-
Friend, I find that post hilarious. Or your signature line hilarious. Or the combination of the two. All of life is risk. Either risk management belongs to the individual, or it belongs to someone else (the government). I think my position is clear, if not well-stated. I believe I understand yours.
At some point, you have to either claim the right to control other people, or you have to let it go. IMO, it is better to teach, even though some will choose wrong. Force vs persuasion. Freedom vs subjection. I have not always lived the principle well, but I stand on the side of freedom. Even with the risks that freedom entails.
Then you will appreciate this quote as it fits what you are saying:
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise." – John Stuart Mill
I agree with you that risk management belongs to the individual... and the individual, the child, in this case didn't have the option to decide risk management for itself...
Once the man on the motorcycle made a decision that could harm another, in this case the child, we can and should, rightfully exercise power over him...
You are correct to champion the rights of the individual, where you are wrong is that you don't see the individuality of the child...
-
Then you will appreciate this quote as it fits what you are saying:
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise." – John Stuart Mill
I agree with you that risk management belongs to the individual... and the individual, the child, in this case didn't have the option to decide risk management for itself...
Once the man on the motorcycle made a decision that could harm another, in this case the child, we can and should, rightfully exercise power over him...
You are correct to champion the rights of the individual, where you are wrong is that you don't see the individuality of the child...
Let's start at the bottom. I see the individuality of the child. This child was not harmed.
We all make decisions every day that COULD harm another. If that is your true criteria for seizing control of another's freedom, we are not anywhere close to agreement. The correct criteria is actually harming another. Every time any of us get in a motor vehicle, we have made a decision that could harm another, including little children. Every time we overeat or under-exercise or smoke we risk a heart attack, which could harm another, especially if we have the heart attack while driving. Every time we lie, or don't take our kids to church, or allow our kids to play with scissors, we have made a decision that COULD harm another.
I simply do not believe that you love that child more than her dad does. I do not believe you have any right to make decisions for the child, nor for her father. I do not believe that I have the right to control how you raise your children, even if I believe you are doing it wrong. If I care about you, I will try to teach you a better way. Society should only control behavior after harm has been done. In the meantime, preach, teach, exhort and expound to your heart's content, but it is wrong to interfere with the freedom of mankind just because you think you are smarter or safer or wiser.
Again, both sides seem to be clear. I have no hope that you will understand it any better now than before, but maybe some of the other reading this may seen the difference in our positions a bit clearer.
-
Most of the time I don't care what illegal activity you're into, as long as you're not violating or threatening someone else's rights. Then there will be a problem. This man was threatening his child's right to life, and you're damn straight I'm gonna report him, or you, or anyone else who threatens harm to others, just like I'd report a drunk driver.
You want to look the other way? Fine, it's your right to do so. If you come across the accident scene with a tiny body bag a few miles down the road, I hope your sanctimonious rationalization helps you sleep that night...
Mal! I'lm somewhat stunned to find us on the same side of this issue! :goodpost: :thumbs:
At some point, you have to either claim the right to control other people, or you have to let it go. IMO, it is better to teach, even though some will choose wrong. Force vs persuasion. Freedom vs subjection.
See Lt1, I believe that the majority of the rules (or at least in theory) are not so much made, as discovered. "Natural" laws like the laws of math or physics as opposed to "positive" laws concerning banking transactions.
And they are not per say "necessary" for life, but for "civilization"?
To come inside the wall and into the city? you don't think its fair to have some agreed upon (or at least voted upon) standards of behavior?
Let's start at the bottom. I see the individuality of the child. This child was not harmed.
We all make decisions every day that COULD harm another. If that is your true criteria for seizing control of another's freedom, we are not anywhere close to agreement.
So By this criteria should we only prosecute drunk drivers if they actually crash?
I simply do not believe that you love that child more than her dad does.
Don't assume that a parent is actually thinking about whats good for a child.
-
Let's start at the bottom. I see the individuality of the child. This child was not harmed.
We all make decisions every day that COULD harm another. If that is your true criteria for seizing control of another's freedom, we are not anywhere close to agreement. The correct criteria is actually harming another. Every time any of us get in a motor vehicle, we have made a decision that could harm another, including little children. Every time we overeat or under-exercise or smoke we risk a heart attack, which could harm another, especially if we have the heart attack while driving. Every time we lie, or don't take our kids to church, or allow our kids to play with scissors, we have made a decision that COULD harm another.
That's quite the reach you have there, Lt...
I simply do not believe that you love that child more than her dad does. I do not believe you have any right to make decisions for the child, nor for her father. I do not believe that I have the right to control how you raise your children, even if I believe you are doing it wrong. If I care about you, I will try to teach you a better way. Society should only control behavior after harm has been done. In the meantime, preach, teach, exhort and expound to your heart's content, but it is wrong to interfere with the freedom of mankind just because you think you are smarter or safer or wiser.
While I agree that no-one should have the right to tell anyone how to raise their children, that right ends when they intentionally place them in harm. Society has an obligation to prevent harm... not wait until the harm is done.
Again, both sides seem to be clear. I have no hope that you will understand it any better now than before, but maybe some of the other reading this may seen the difference in our positions a bit clearer.
Oh, I understand perfectly where you are coming from, and we disagree on but one point, but I find your argument to be specious and an attempt to justify your specific outlook... children have a right to their lives... and no one, not even the parent, has the right to threaten that right...
-
Mal! I'lm somewhat stunned to find us on the same side of this issue! :goodpost: :thumbs:
Even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while... ;)
See Lt1, I believe that the majority of the rules (or at least in theory) are not so much made, as discovered. "Natural" laws like the laws of math or physics as opposed to "positive" laws concerning banking transactions.
And they are not per say "necessary" for life, but for "civilization"?
To come inside the wall and into the city? you don't think its fair to have some agreed upon (or at least voted upon) standards of behavior?
:thumbs:
So By this criteria should we only prosecute drunk drivers if they actually crash?
Excellent analogy...
Don't assume that a parent is actually thinking about whats good for a child.
Indeed, some are only thinking of convenience...
-
Well I was out walking my dog today and a police car casually went by. So I flagged him down and talked to him about what I saw the other day.....and after he picked his jaw off the dash he said.. " In the state of NC that is a felony for child endangerment period. He went on to say "driving around quite neighborhood would be even be frowned upon and/or get a ticket. ........." " But on the highway there no different than putting a child on a hood of a car and going down the interstate...." he went on to say Child Services would have been called and he would have gone to jail... 4 to 6 yr at least...." . He went on to say if I ever see something like that again try to get a tag, pull over and call 911. ....".You won't believe how many kids get killed or maimed...because a parent thought it was sooooo cute".
Cheers
Ron
-
So my scenario was pretty close. You'd go home feeling good about destroying a family. The family is the basic unit of society, not the busybody.
-
In Wake County, NC and the surrounding areas, unless he already had a criminal history, he would get probation, the jails are too full to do much more. DSS would be involved with the family for some time however.
-
So my scenario was pretty close. You'd go home feeling good about destroying a family. The family is the basic unit of society, not the busybody.
The ultimate responsibility lies with the father, as he made the choice to commit a felony and endanger his child...
-
:popcorn: subscribe.
-
Lt1's comments were over my head. Too philosophical for my tiny head to comprehend. So I am not even gonna try to re-read to understand. What I got so far, is that calling the policy because that guy is endangering his child will tantamount to encroaching on his freedom and his freewill on how to raise his kids (and hence in general to the whole concept of freedom). Hmmm....wondering if we should convert society to the wild wild west - everyone was pretty much looking out for themselves. If you got issues, your six shooter does the talking. If I got this whole thing wrong, apologize.
Lt1's comments aside, my personal feeling is that I sure heck would not want him to endanger someone else's life. That whole scenario of highway driving with a kid on the gas tank tells me that guy is not fit to be a parent. Now, that is my personal opinion and I am entitled to it. But I am with folks that will call the cops on him with whole heart.
As for the comment on spanking kids on grocery store, I am not against some discipline as long as you do not cross the line and beat your kid blue. But I frown when you spank in public. If your kid is really misbehaving and really deserve a spanking, taking him/her to your car or to the bathroom and do it. Just my thought.
-
Absolutely correct Awaz .....my kids are terrified of public bathrooms to this day and they are in their 30's LOL ....I told him early on in life that I don't do bail for "stupid" either. As a good friend of mine likes to say "case closed".......
-
....I told him early on in life that I don't do bail for "stupid" either.
My Dad used to tell me that if I called from jail he would ask me how was the food; good thing I never had to find out if he was bluffing or not. Mom was a little softer she came got me the first time I crossed the line at 14...... :P
-
My Dad used to tell me that if I called from jail he would ask me how was the food; good thing I never had to find out if he was bluffing or not. Mom was a little softer she came got me the first time I crossed the line at 14...... :P
LOL at your father's comment ! But I absolutely agree with him !