Kids on motorcycles -- a mother fights back...
05-04-16, 11:21 AM
#31
Lexus Champion
Are you up for it?
05-04-16, 11:30 AM
#32
You are lumping together dissimilar things. Calling the cops on the mom who let the kids play in her yard is not the same. Bully for the mother who lashed out on FaceBook--way to go. So she thinks she's right, and everyone else is wrong. Is that where the analysis ends? As long as the kid's parent thinks they have done right, then who are we to say--is that the take away?
It's hard to convey the real message when requoting.
RE: Calling on the cops about kids playing in their own yard is stupid.
I'm not part of the mob for bullying the mob.
I don't meddle with other parents' parenting skills-everyone has their own way.
My only point is it's just unsafe driving on the road nowadays due to the constant distraction, worst for a motorcycle rider since there won't be much protection should an accident occur, let alone a child on a bike.
I can't imagine what would happen to the child if some idiot rear-ends them .
As a parent, we want to protect our child as much as we can (without having to put them in a bubble
).I'm not here to judge or point finger.
05-04-16, 11:44 AM
#33
Ride/drive as safe as you want. You can't control the idiots who don't care. If the timing was just a second different for any of the three drives it would have been an accident. If it happened to a motorcycle it would probably be fatal. I just don't see why risk your life even more by riding.
05-04-16, 12:46 PM
#34
Lexus Test Driver
Just so I understand the levels of your narcissism, if the environment was potentially being harmed, you'd care, but if a kid, that's not yours, is put in jeopardy, you don't?
Of course, not judging at all--just putting it all in perspective.
Because, I thought you cared:
Of course, not judging at all--just putting it all in perspective.
Because, I thought you cared:look i'm not anti human or anything, i think a sense of community and caring about each other is great, and it's part of what separates us from the rest of the species out there. many species will just lay their eggs, and be gone, with the hatchlings left to fend all for themselves.
now i'm not saying we should be an entirely darwinian society, that'd be a terrible and unforgivingly cruel place to be. cigarettes should have warnings on them saying how dangerous they are, and if you still choose to smoke them, then that's entirely on you. i also think it's unfair for an obvious long time smoker that comes in with emphysema to get the same healthcare as everyone else. you knew what you were getting yourself into, why should other people then have to pay for your healthcare?
it's her own child, the child likes to be on the motorcycle, lets let them be. kids in other third world countries have it FAR worse than this kid on a motorcycle, it's really not a huge deal.
05-04-16, 12:51 PM
#35
Lexus Test Driver
Allowing people to indulge themselves in the kinds of behavior that's going to make them wards of the state (meaning us taxpayers) for the rest of their lives isn't a good idea - even if written off to "population control". 
The point is that they ARE causing harm to the rest of us by making us provide care for them, not only in our public hospitals, but potentially for life as they may be partially or even fully disabled. Is it fair that we pay their stupidity tax?
While I fully support caring for the least, the last, and the lost among us, I think we should engage in some preventive measures to minimize the impact of those individuals who insist on indulging in risky behavior on our society. Nearly 2,400 years ago, the Greek poet and playwright Aristophanes noted that “Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
We can teach people to ride and drive safely, we can enforce rigid traffic laws and licensing requirements, and mandate full-coverage insurance against the unforeseen "accidents" that are certain to occur, but it still won't eliminate suffering and death on our roads. That requires a brain, and not one smeared in the traffic lane by someone who's still stuck on stupid.
The point is that they ARE causing harm to the rest of us by making us provide care for them, not only in our public hospitals, but potentially for life as they may be partially or even fully disabled. Is it fair that we pay their stupidity tax? While I fully support caring for the least, the last, and the lost among us, I think we should engage in some preventive measures to minimize the impact of those individuals who insist on indulging in risky behavior on our society. Nearly 2,400 years ago, the Greek poet and playwright Aristophanes noted that “Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
We can teach people to ride and drive safely, we can enforce rigid traffic laws and licensing requirements, and mandate full-coverage insurance against the unforeseen "accidents" that are certain to occur, but it still won't eliminate suffering and death on our roads. That requires a brain, and not one smeared in the traffic lane by someone who's still stuck on stupid.
05-04-16, 03:11 PM
#37
So, in short...
Two camps of thought:
(1) Mother understands the risks, and is justified to let her child accept the risk.
(2) Mother understands the risks, and is not justified to let her child take the risk.
And a bonus thought:
(X) Society as a whole is the problem (a.k.a. ALL drivers are also responsible to motorcyclists' safety)
Using a sports analogy, a mother can understand the risks of certain sports (football, gymnastics) and justify the child's risks of injury, especially if the child wants to do it.
I think it would be unjustifiable if the child refuses to do a certain sport (or ride a motorcycle) against their will.
Also, Society is part of the problem if they do not minimize such risks (such as letting kids play without proper safety instruction and equipment, or letting a child ride a motorcycle as a passenger without teaching them passenger etiquette/safety or providing safety gear, or car drivers who text while driving or speed recklessly).
Two camps of thought:
(1) Mother understands the risks, and is justified to let her child accept the risk.
(2) Mother understands the risks, and is not justified to let her child take the risk.
And a bonus thought:
(X) Society as a whole is the problem (a.k.a. ALL drivers are also responsible to motorcyclists' safety)
Using a sports analogy, a mother can understand the risks of certain sports (football, gymnastics) and justify the child's risks of injury, especially if the child wants to do it.
I think it would be unjustifiable if the child refuses to do a certain sport (or ride a motorcycle) against their will.
Also, Society is part of the problem if they do not minimize such risks (such as letting kids play without proper safety instruction and equipment, or letting a child ride a motorcycle as a passenger without teaching them passenger etiquette/safety or providing safety gear, or car drivers who text while driving or speed recklessly).
05-04-16, 10:48 PM
#38
Safety is in prevention. As in not letting the kid hop on the motorcycle at all. Not sure what your point is.
05-04-16, 10:58 PM
#39
^^^ With that logic, children shouldn't be allowed in cars either, even with seat belts and airbags.
A car crash can still injure its occupants.
Hell, a person can trip over pavement while walking.
Prevention is not safety; that's abstinence. We'd all be living in a bubble.
Safety is prudence. It's good judgement and common sense.
A car crash can still injure its occupants.
Hell, a person can trip over pavement while walking.
Prevention is not safety; that's abstinence. We'd all be living in a bubble.
Safety is prudence. It's good judgement and common sense.
05-04-16, 11:00 PM
#40
I guess it boils down to what you consider acceptable risk, personally putting a child a motorcycle is unacceptable risk IMO.
05-05-16, 12:36 PM
#41
You're going to end up in a world more of hurt or dead in a motorcycle crash vs in a crash being properly restrained in a Honda minivan or Suburban.
I guess it boils down to what you consider acceptable risk, personally putting a child a motorcycle is unacceptable risk IMO.
I guess it boils down to what you consider acceptable risk, personally putting a child a motorcycle is unacceptable risk IMO.
05-05-16, 03:07 PM
#42
Lexus Champion
what's the risk? really?
You don't think a child is safer in ANY car vs on the back of a motorcycle?
It's a parent's responsibility to protect a child and not put them in harm's way or in unnecessary danger.
Big +1 here!! 
You don't think a child is safer in ANY car vs on the back of a motorcycle?
It's a parent's responsibility to protect a child and not put them in harm's way or in unnecessary danger.
You're going to end up in a world more of hurt or dead in a motorcycle crash vs in a crash being properly restrained in a Honda minivan or Suburban.
I guess it boils down to what you consider acceptable risk, personally putting a child on a motorcycle is unacceptable risk IMO.
I guess it boils down to what you consider acceptable risk, personally putting a child on a motorcycle is unacceptable risk IMO.
Last edited by bagwell; 05-05-16 at 03:11 PM.
05-05-16, 03:34 PM
#43
Gilded cages give false sense of safety.
It would be irresponsible for a parent to prevent a child from experiencing a world that, although can be a dangerous and horrific place at times, offers a multitude of pleasurable experiences for the sense.
Without risk, a child would be isolated, biased, misinformed, and numb.
Not that we would throw a child into a lion's den. But we let the child appreciate that the lion is both beautiful and dangerous at the same time.
05-05-16, 06:44 PM
#45
Perceived risk. And of course perception is reality.