In Gloucester in the UK, they apparently have this thing where they roll cheese down a hill and chase it. But in 2009, the British government withdrew its official sanction of the event, because people get hurt chasing cheese down steep hills. Fair enough.
But now they’ve gone after the maker of the cheese, threatening to hold her responsible for any injuries caused by people chasing her roll of cheese.
Now government heavy-handedness aside, should there be special allowances made for old traditions? Different cultures have a variety of fun and stupid ways to get people in traction, one of the most famous being the bull run in Spain. I’m pretty sure everyone knows that there’s a significant risk of injury. Is it really necessary to try to stamp out these old traditions in the name of risk aversion?
It’s going overboard, as long as no one not participating is at risk. It’s their choice. And if you outlaw everything risky you pretty much outlaw life; the real problem is how flimsy human beings are, and there’s nothing the law can do to legislate that away.
Seems to me the solution would be to sell the cheese to someone with the balls to donate it. They should rename the festival “two fingers” with the appropriate signage.
This isn’t a question that any one person can answer. I would veer on the side of yes, as long as the participants are willing, fully aware of the risks, and are not harming others.
For example, BASE jumping is illegal in most countries, yet I do not think it should be given the reasons stated above.
That’s what I was going to say. If she’s been warned against donating it, sell them to ‘someone with a craving for lots of cheese’ for £1 per wheel. And stamp them: ‘THIS CHEESE IS FOR EATING. DO NOT CHASE.’
I looked it up and that’s actually not true. BASE jumping itself isn’t illegal. What is illegal is trespassing on the buildings and antennas and whatnot if the owners don’t give you permission to be there. And since those jumpers may not be taking appropriate safety precautions since they’re not supposed to be there, they may be putting other people at risk.
Similar to idiotic stranded hikers who need expensive teams of people to rescue them, I fully support people organizing/participating in these “traditions” being held responsible for all the medical costs resulting from the inevitable injuries.
jackdavinci: gasp! A free market solution? (Heck, we have to have an insurance policy just to hold a book faire at a hotel! Someone getting a paper cut while turning a page is about the worst that could happen…)
In a way, though, that would just be passing along the regulatory authority to the insurance companies. They could refuse to issue a policy until various safety rules were implemented. By the time they were satisfied, the event would be as innocuous as if a governmental agency had regulated it.
Also, what about individual events? Rock climbing, hang-gliding, skin-diving, etc. The dangerous things that people do, without being part of an organization.
Plenty of other things exist that are more dangerous like extreme climbing parks and water parks and skydiving, and they seem to be able to keep on going.
Well then there’s no one to sue. I’m fine with any injuries being covered by health insurance or national health care. I’m also fine with requiring a license. People are going to do these things anyway, might as well regulate it to make it safer and more cost effective.
I don’t think the government had a say in it at all.
As you can see, the event is still happening and no-one is being arrested or prosecuted.
What did happen (in an increasingly litigious society) was insurance being very hard to get andso no-one is the “official” organiser.
The person supplying the cheese was not forbidden to supply it she was merely told (wrongly in my opinion) that someone could try to hold her liable for damages.
So nothing to do with the government or the law, everything to do with financial liabilities.
So they’re going after the maker of something that was used in an old tradition by people who participated voluntarily and had seen what happened to others who had participated.
I guess they’re going after the brewers and distillers next.
Consider the following:
-wreck diving (you go inside a ship at great depth, dangerous)
-“Free” diving-you see how deep you can go on one lungfull of air…some people drown doing this
-climbing Mt. Everest without oxygen (it is “purer” that way)
-cave diving
These are activities that pose some degree of risk-yet people indulge in them-should they be banned?
If you choose to chase cheese down a hill or to be chased by a herd of bulls it’s on you. Enough of blaming somebody else for one’s own choices. You have a right to be chased by bulls if you like and I have a right to root for the bulls (and the cheese).
The problem with these kinds of events is that Horace the cheese always rolls back uphill and sometimes knocks the other more friendly cheeses on their sides.
I’ve heard all sorts of justifications for motorcycle helmets, heavy taxation of tobacco and even some suggestions for anti-obesity laws/regulations (see New York’s failed effort to ban sugary drinks over a certain size) on the grounds that bad habits are costly to society. Well, on those same grounds why shouldn’t the government work to curtail or outright ban certain costly behaviors?