Editor
Administrator
Posts: 914
|
posted August 25, 2005 07:39 AM
School board: 'Leave the bikes at home'
 AMA members and other active motorcyclists in Crisp County, Georgia, are working to reverse a policy that prevents students from riding motorcycles to the local high school.
The issue arose when the principal at Crisp County High School denied a student's request for a parking permit because he wanted to ride a motorcycle to school. The principal then went to the school board and the board passed a policy banning students from riding motorcycles to the high school, even though students have been allowed to do so in the past.
Also, the policy does not apply to faculty and staff, who can ride to the school.
The ban didn't seem right to AMA member James Musselwhite, himself a 1962 graduate of the same school.
"It kind of made my blood boil," he said.
Musselwhite and other motorcyclists in Crisp County are working to overturn the ban. One of those is Jim George, the president of ABATE of Georgia, who happens to live in Crisp County, a small, rural county in south-central Georgia. Both Musselwhite and George spoke against the ban at a subsequent school board meeting.
"The school principal made the statement that this policy was not discrimination," Musselwhite said. "A motorcycle in the state of Georgia is the same as a car, with all the same regulations. And we feel it is discrimination."
Musselwhite said he has talked personally to the members of the school board to try to convince them the policy should be reversed, but he's fighting an uphill battle, even though some of the board members ride motorcycles themselves. That other riders would go along with such a policy was the biggest surprise, and disappointment, to Musselwhite.
"In cases like this, the best approach is grassroots action," said Terry Lee Cook, the AMA Government Relations Department grassroots manager. "Local elected officials pay attention when their neighbors, the people who vote them in and out of office, let them know they're doing something wrong. And that's what motorcyclists in Crisp County are telling their school board."
The AMA will continue to work with local motorcyclists on the issue.
Source: American Motorcyclist Association
   
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted August 25, 2005 03:10 PM
Hmmm... I dunno... if the student is 18 years old then I agree the ban would be absolutely wrong.
If the student is a minor, it IS the business of the school to consider risks and how to minimize them for the student on their property. And it is fair to say that it is predictable that given a substantial number of under-18 kids riding motorcycles to school, more injuries or even fatalities will happen with time than if they are driving cars or being transported by car or bus or walking.
|
swft
Needs a life
Full throttle!
Posts: One MEEEEEELLION
|
posted August 25, 2005 06:04 PM
Make em all walk!
|
fish_antlers
Administrator
The Truth is Out There
Posts: 21896
|
posted August 25, 2005 08:23 PM
disagree tren... if they are of legal driving age and they carry a valid license then they should be able to ride their bikes to school, or drive a friggin 18 wheeler if they wanted..
all street legal and licensed vehicles.
|
worm~hole
Needs a life
Miles to go before I sleep....
Posts: 10623
|
posted August 25, 2005 10:59 PM
...make'em crawll, da bastidz!!!!!
____________
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men
stand ready in the night to visit violence on those
who would do us harm.”
-George Orwell
|
quickwilly
Expert Class
Posts: 256
|
posted August 26, 2005 07:05 AM
quote:
disagree tren... if they are of legal driving age and they carry a valid license then they should be able to ride their bikes to school, or drive a friggin 18 wheeler if they wanted..
all street legal and licensed vehicles.
I agree...
I earned the PRIVLIDGE to ride my Sporty to school as a kid. If these students have all there paperwork and liscence in order...let em park on campus.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted August 26, 2005 03:09 PM
 Edited By: trenace on 27 Aug 2005 00:42
Well, as I see it here is the difference:
While minors also enjoy a major right that adults do not -- the right to be taken care of 24/7 and have all their necessities met -- they do NOT have all the rights adults do.
In fact, a parent or those in loco parentis can say "No" to pretty much whatever, regardless that the thing the kid wants to do may be legal. They have that right.
E.g., your kid may be entirely within the law to eat candy but that does not mean you as the parent cannot say, "No you are not going to eat that candy." Your kid may have earned a driver's license but that does not mean that as a parent you cannot say, "No, you are not driving the car to the mall," "No, you are not driving on the freeway," "No, you are not driving at night," "No, you are not driving AT ALL till such-and-such," or whatever, and do your best to enforce it.
An adult woman has the right to wear, for example, an outfit with a bare midriff. Or drink soda or whatever.
That does not mean that a high school cannot say to the kids under their care, no, you cannot wear outfits that show bare midriffs on school premises. Or say they cannot drink soda on school premises.
Or say they cannot drive a car onto school premises, or a motorcycle, or a helicopter or whatever. Regardless if they have a license.
The "EARNED THE PRIVILEGE" argument doesn't apply in my opinion. Wouldn't matter if persons had to "earn the privilege" to wear midriff-exposing outfits, for example, proving at the local City Hall that they're not fat to be allowed to wear them, or paying a fee or whatever. That does not mean the high school has to let the students wear such outfits if they "earned the privilege."
I think there is confusion here between the rights of adults and minors and the authority of parents and those in loco parentis.
If the parents don't like that their kid cannot ride a motorcycle to school, then they have answers: send the kid to another school, vote in different school board members if it's a government school, or express their displeasure to the owners if it's a private school.
If the kids don't like it that really is just too bad. It's irrelevant. Those in legal authority over them, parents or school while the kids are in school, do not have to permit them every single thing the law permits them to do, and it's a mistake IMO to think otherwise.
Now, is it a good policy? That's a different question. But is the school entitled? I absolutely think so.
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC