Issue 140 : April - May 2005
Tribute to Simon
Milward in Africa
MZ 1000SF
Ducati 620 Multistrada
Fred's Run
| |
|
Tribute to Simon
|
Fred's Run21 years on, MAG remembers Fred's incredible stand. At a time when the right to take any risk is being increasingly challenged by the safety nazis, this issue has more relevance than ever. MAG must promote the broader debate about risk and freedom if it is to successfully defend motorcycling in the long term . . .  Time was when MAG runs used to be chaotic affairs full of competing riders overtaking each other in a haze of two stroke smoke; I'm going back a bit mind you. This year's Fred Hill run from to Oxford was as disciplined and impressive a convoy as I can ever remember seeing. The three police outriders were brilliant, holding up the traffic to let the bikes stick together and demonstrating a tolerant good humour that represented the best of good policing. It wasn't exactly warm but it did stay blessedly dry and the substantial convoy stuck around at journey's end to listen to an address on the helmet issue and its broader significance for riders rights today. Despite numerous explanations there are still many people who cannot understand why MAG sticks to its guns on this. In fairness there are new people joining all the time for whom the days of free choice are something they've only read about and for them in particular some explanation may be of value. A critical point that was made on the day related to something uncovered by Robert Quane in his recent court challenge of the helmet law and it is this. For a law to satisfy the standards by which laws are themselves judged, it should satisfy the test of proportionality. That is to say that the imposition the law represents for those subject to it, should not be out of proportion to the problem it seeks to address, put another way, you don't use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Now prior to the helmet law's introduction, about 90% of riders wore helmets voluntarily. Considering also that helmets can only make a life or death difference under certain circumstances, and that in many really bad accidents their role is irrelevant, it's no great surprise that the Government of the day were unable to prove that the law had made one iota of difference to fatality rates. So, given that a fundamental right of choice over personal safety had been sacrificed, was the law proportional? Absolutely not, no way, not in a thousand years! Smoking by contrast is estimated to cause 100,000 premature deaths a year and you can smoke 100 a day if you want. Some slight inequality here? A law banning smoking, however intolerable it might be to millions, would stand far more chance of satisfying the requirement of proportionality; and the difference is? Millions of people smoke and less than 100,000 rode motorcycles without helmets. Might is 'right' even in a democracy. There's nothing undemocratic about the helmet law as a large majority almost certainly agree with it but that doesn't make it right, it just means a lot of people are misled or have just never thought about it.
For assessing this element of the argument Quane argued that cyclists and horse riders are what are known as comparator groups. Since neither of these groups are forced to wear helmets it is maintained that the requirement for motorcyclist to wear them represents inconsistency in the application of justice, and so the law is in breach of the criteria which it should satisfy. Will MAG ever drop the issue? I hope not because we're right and you don't drop a principle just because you find yourself in a minority by supporting it. Does it detract from our campaigning in other areas? Not at all, because people who aren't interested don't have to support the annual Fred Hill runs or make any effort at all and those who do will do it in addition to all the other things they do or because it's the only thing they are interested in. It's a bit like the street full of restaurants scenario. If you have 10 restaurants in a street and an 11th arrives, does trade in the other 10 drop by 10% ? Not usually, particularly if the 11th is serving completely different food, it just means a broader customer base patronises the street. It's the same with rider issues. There will always be those who trot out the old mantra about dropping the helmet issue and moving on as if the issue obstructs MAG's progress. It does not and to be realistic it consumes an infinitesimal amount of MAG's time but the principle it represents is crucial which is why it gets mentioned here quite a lot. If you want consistency of principle then you keep your issues and move on and there is no conflict between those two things, as moving on does not have to mean abandoning that which you have already committed to. MAG moved on to other issues years ago but the line in the sand remains. Some people think that MAG's credibility in political spheres is harmed by our commitment to free choice. This is a myth. Very few politicians are stupid and most can follow a credible philosophic argument when it's put to them in a rational way. It doesn't follow that they will actively support us of course, as to challenge perceived wisdom can be dangerous for your political health even if by so doing you are championing pure logic and justice. In politics one must balance real wisdom against perceived wisdom and the most sensible route for a politician to follow is often the route of perceived wisdom ie the popular one. The problem that MAG has always faced on this issue is in large part the refusal of the media to even discuss it and that goes for the motorcycle media as well as the national media. In the absence of that serious debate, the overwhelming view is dominated by saloon bar rhetoric riding on the back of anecdotal claptrap about 'uncle Bert who wouldn't be here today ...' that completely ignores the fundamental issue of principle and wallows in ignorant speculation. Fred Hill was seen by many as an extremist and by most people's standards he was, but he was absolutely right. Sadly when absolute right meets absolute intolerance, intolerance often wins, but not for ever. We live in a culture where every inconsistency in the application of justice and every illustration of prejudice is coming under the microscope. There have been some pretty weird judgements lately where courts have had to find in favour of those who have simply demanded the observance of the law as it is framed. Against the background of some of these judgements, a reform of the helmet law might seem a moderate concession indeed. if only pure reason rather than distorted perception could be allowed to prevail. The reason we haven't achieved it yet ? Not enough people are prepared to complain, simple as that. Nothing to do with right or wrong, just a case of inadequate protest volume. The principle on helmets is fundamental to our whole right to ride. We have to defend the the right to use a form of transport which is demonstrably far more dangerous than other forms. It's no good just blaming others or the roads or fate, motorcyclist suffer a massively greater fatality rate than motorists, for whatever reason that is the reality, no argument. We're not giving away any secrets here, the figures are constantly being flung at us by the safety lobby. There is a growing feeling of unease in the nation that the government is interfering too much in our lives for our own good and we have to ride that wave of anxiety. We have to say that despite the safety record of motorcycles, despite the hand wringing of the rabid extremists of the safety lobby, we want to chose to ride bikes. In the final analysis we must be prepared to say, (to plagiarise the Stones), 'it's only motorcycling - but I like it.' |
|
home | top
| |
Furthermore if there are groups of people comparable to those who are subjected to a given law who are not subjected to a similar restriction on their freedom then the law fails in its proportionality test on that account.