Monday, April 25, 2005

hmmm....

So I heard that a father of two died this weekend. He died doing a “stunt” on his motorcycle. My initial reaction was “Bastard…you can’t do shit like that when you’re a parent, you’ve just devastated two kids”. But reaction got me thinking: When you become a parent do you “give up” your right to take risks?
On one hand, it’s a risk just to walk across the street. It’s a risk to get in the car to drive…those are obvious everyday risks that are necessary to take. But it’s also a risk to play hockey or go hiking or go rock climbing. Those risks aren’t as necessary as crossing the street, but can be necessary for enjoyment. Where do you draw the line? To me, driving your motorbike down a residential street at 80km/hr and then deciding to “pop a wheelie” is an unnecessary risk for anyone…especially a father, but then again, I won’t even get on a motorcycle. But for this guy, was it a risk he’d thought about and decided it was worth it? Or was it just an impulsive decision? Perhaps parents give up the right to make impulsive decisions about risk?
I guess since I am not a parent, I just don’t know.

2 comments:

The Rev said...

I don't think there's really that much of a problem with him popping a wheelie. But he shouldn't have been doing it on a residential street...at 80 km/hr. What I saw/heard on the news last night was he started to wobble and went for a slide. Risking the wheelie wasn't a big deal...and going for a slide may not have caused major pain/damage/injury...until he was hit head on by another car. Way to go buddy.

K said...

Wouldn't that entire situation be unneccesary risk taking? I don't know. And why is it that I'm having an easier time seeing this hang-gliding man's activity as acceptable? I just don't get myself...