I say: “Blessed are the cheese-makers.”
No, “they” are not doing anything. “they” do not exist. No-one is “going after” anyone.
Have you read the story?
At first they came for the cheesemakers, and I said nothing, because I do not make cheese. . .
There’s a distinction to be drawn between prohibiting some unsafe tradition and refusing to hold an organizer harmless in a civil action. The nature of unsafe activities is that people don’t realize how dangerous they are or don’t care, and then look for someone to blame after the fact. If you roll things down hills and encourage people to chase them, sooner or later someone is going to fall and blame you. Are you liable for their injuries? Probably not, but the litigation is going to cost you nonetheless.
Um, ‘they’ are the “heavy handed police” who “threatened her” by telling her that she “would be wholly responsible if anyone got injured”.
How is this not they going after her?
Isn’t it obvious to anyone who stops to think for 5 seconds or so tripping and falling is an inherent danger of running down a hillside? Frankly I’m not seeing too many hidden dangers in this activity. You could trip and fall, or potentially be crushed by the cheese wheel if you actually can run fast enough to catch it. As long as no one’s being forced to participate, why all the fuss?
Crushed by a small wheel of cheese??
So how is it her fault, anyway?
Is her cheese especially chasable?
Extra-round or something?
Won’t these drunken Brits just chase something else?
Why can’t she just cut a slice out of each wheel? Or cut them in half?
You mean other than the fact that it is in no way “going after her”?
If people stopped to think for 5 seconds before doing things, nobody would ever be injured.
To be fair, some activities do have risks which aren’t immediately obvious to an inexperienced person. Jut not this one. 
Spot on, whenever we run a large event we have to ensure that we are covered by some kind of insurance. The problem we often encounter is that we may insurance but as we are using public land it opens up the local council to lawsuits.
Freaken’ lawyers stoppin’ me from chasin’ mah cheese!
Gromit, that’s it! Cheese! We’ll go somewhere where there’s cheese!
you are right to put those in scare quotes as that is precisely what didn’t happen and is precisely what wasn’t said.
Since you speak in the singular, I assume the bullrun you’re thinking of is the one in Pamplona (there’s similar traditions in many other places, Pamplona’s is probably the safest), which became official in 1915, when the local government decided to regulate it after there had been a death in 1914; we do know that local boys had already been assisting/impeding (depends on who you ask) the cowherders as they brought the bulls to the ring back in the Middle Ages, but not whether there had been any deaths between that letter where a bishop complained about the barbaric practice (sic) and 1914.
I don’t think it makes sense to try and forbid everything that’s dangerous, but putting some kind of regulations in place can make sense. We do regulate road traffic, for example. Safety regulations for the Pamplona runs include:
- no running under the influence; if the cops or your fellow runners figure you’re under the influence they’ll kick you out and they’re not obligated to be polite,
- appropriate shoes (see above),
- the fences (and anybody who’s not using them properly is at risk of being informed in a very rapid, very clear and possibly bruise-causing fashion),
- the floor gets specially treated to minimize the probability that the bulls will fall down,
and others.
As someone who is most definitely not a lawyer, it seems to me the issue is with creating laws that genuinely protect the public while also containing a thousand specific exclusions for situations that those who don’t think much about it consider to be “common sense” issues. Who decides what is “traditional” enough, what is safe enough, what is traditional enough but not quite safe enough, and what is a bit too unsafe but really traditional so we’ll let it continue anyway?
Yes it is if there’s a consensus that the tradition is retarded. For example, a drunken race down a 45 degree incline might be due for retirement. (I made up the drunk part as I was espousing a hypothetical.) A blind worship of butt-headed traditions is idiotic according to MfM traditions.
That said, Europe also has less of a safety culture than the US, by my impression. Liability concerns would stamp out that nonsense in the US way before the local constable got involved.
For another example of a very old and highly dangerous tradition, check out the Falles. I’m surprised the city hasn’t burnt down by now. Applying my framework though, as there is a local and national consensus to maintain this (rather entertaining) tradition, I don’t see why it can’t be kept, risks of massive conflagration and CO2 emissions notwithstanding.
Speaking generally, the state could also require liability insurance for, say, scuba divers. Expensive accidents would result in a lump sum paid to big guv by the insurance co.
That’s why democracy is a good idea, rather than handing the government over to the Chinese Communist Party.
I’m not sure if you mean democracy is the answer to the difficulties I suggested or the reason for their existence. Either way, I suspect the Chinese government could do a much better job on these issues - they could simply decide one person has authority on the issue and whatever they decide goes. The accountability we have in democracies is what leads to red tape, rigid standards, form-filling and records, as well as the ease with which one can sue afterwards. Democracy and accountability are good things, but they do come at a price - one that I’d argue is rather small in comparison to what other generations have had to pay for it.
I’ll just address this idea: why should the age of the tradition have any effect on what we do currently? If something is a stupid atrocity of an idea, the fact that it’s an ancient stupid atrocity is irrelevant. Similarly, if an event’s awesomeness outweighs its public dangers, the fact that the event is only a few years old is irrelevant.
History gives us additional information with which to evaluate risks and benefits of our decisions, but we should base our decisions on their effects in the future, not on their similarity to past decisions.
If some base jumper makes a miscalculation of the prevailing winds and breaks his legs while leaving his footprints in the hood of my car, I’m going to want to know when he’s going to pay for the repair to my hood.
But that’s just me.
I think OECD democracies have done a better job with trading off the air pollution against the benefits of more consumer durables than the Chinese or Russian government has. Weighing the value of tradition really isn’t that hard in a practical sense: the media jabbers, interest groups sqwauk and the government passes laws. I’m not especially impressed with unsubstantiated claims of excessive government red tape. I for one see a fair amount of profligacy in the private sector: the difference is that corporations have well paid PR flacks and advertisers whereas governmental defenders are divided by partisanship.