A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Rides
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Critical



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 18th 08, 06:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.rides
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Critical

On Dec 18, 12:12*pm, Bernhard Agthe wrote:
Hi,

Dan O wrote:
Well, I think it might be kind of an over-reaction, if you will, and
probably a bastion of some ad-hoc anarchists, but the way things are
out there it could require some dramatic action to even get people
thinking about sharing the road.


Well, I don't really know about the U.S. but living in an overcrowded
country in Middle Europe, I see basically the same thing all the time:
When I go by bike, I get "mobbed" by car drivers in the worst possible
way: they overtake on my left when I signal to turn left, they use their
horns at me in the middle of an empty street, I've even had a few
drivers pulling into my way while overtaking me and a bus driver trying
to push me out of the road... When I talk to people some say "no bikes
on the street but only on the sidewalk" or similar and when I tell them
I simply cannot use the bike path on the sidewalk because of any one
reason, they tell me I have to do this, anyway...

Government responds with a change in traffic laws - they remove any
trace of minimum requirements for bike lanes from the law. The result is
ever more cars on the road, ever more roads built and car drivers
getting actually more aggressive all the time. But not only cars, also
the number of bike riders and public transport users increased over the
last few years noticeably. What do the authorities do? They talk about
"environmental protection" and build more roads. The public transport
has been improved marginally, but is having serious trouble with
overcrowding and too much use... Actually, try to buy a train ticket for
yourself and your bike - that is almost plain impossible by now.

In my opinion, traffic rules have been good as they are right now back
in the 1950's to th 1970's - but with today's overcrowding and with
*many* people driving cars that don't even speak the local language,
they are too complicated and unusable - even the traffic police and
judges don't know all the rules. For cars I suggest the following:

inside towns 20km/h max speed (~12mph)
outside towns 40km/h max speed (~25mph)
on speed-ways 60km/h max speed (~40mph)
with the cars limited to 70km/h by technical means
Sure, a strict enforcement...

First of all, distances are not too great here, second this would
eliminate many rules and tons of signs and third safety would increase
greatly by the reduced top speeds. And - people would have an incentive
to go by bike: it's faster ;-)

As for anything else, I do not think that even a change in legislation
that would make it mandatory for bicyclists to use the roads would have
any effect whatsoever (riding the sidewalk is forbidden here in absence
of special traffic signs, still everyone does it). Nobody really knows
the laws or cares for them - so I think the laws should be changed that
they are simple and easy-to-understand...

So lets have a few days of holidays and hope for a accident-free 2009 ;-)

Ciao...


In general, I agree with you, Bernard. But there are occasions when it
is not only smart for cyclists to ride on the pavement, if available,
but sensible cyclists will *choose* to do so. A good example is riding
uphill on narrow or busy roads. It does no good to hold up and
frustrate a whole road of motorists with your slower speed than theirs
uphill. On the downhill side, sure, use the road because the speed
differential between the car and the bike won't be that great.

Andre Jute
Rights never come without equally valid duties
Ads
  #22  
Old December 18th 08, 06:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Critical

On Dec 18, 5:06*pm, slide wrote:
Clive George wrote:
wrote in message
....


If I were "the defense", I'd get all over the cyclist aiming for the
cop when the cop was trying to leave the ROW. Might not get him
totally off, but it sure looked like provocation (the raison d'être of
Critical Mass) to me.


The video appeared to show rather the opposite to me. Cyclist is aiming to
miss the cop, cop is aiming to hit the cyclist. I'm actually a bit surprised
at anybody interpreting it any other way.


Sure based only the video part you saw. Nobody who saw the 'edited for
TV' version of the Rodney King beating could imagine anything coming
before which would justify that. However, those FEW who did see the
entirety of the tape universally agreed that the beating of King was
fully justified.

I say this because I and a few others were of the 'no justification' on
the King beating but all of us changed our minds when we saw the entire
tape which was never shown on network TV.


You approve of cops beating up someone because he showed them a finger
or raised his voice to them? Surely the correct procedure is not to
beat up the person with truncheons but to restrain him with the
minimum of violence and charge him with something, affray perhaps. Mr
King had not yet been found guilty of anything. The sayso of a cop
that Mr King "disrespected" him doesn't turn a raised middle finger
into a crime. If cops can decide just anyone is guilty and should be
truncheoned into insensibility, you might be the innocent bystander
who is next for the hospital and multiple stictches, or perhaps being
maimed for life.

Whatever the facts, and without condoning TV "agenda"-editing, those
LA cops were clearly arrogant brutes totally out of control.

American cops, by themselves, sometimes make America seem a third
world country.

Andre Jute
Libertarian

Clearly the TV stations had an
agenda which was fulfilled by their ratings boost in the ensuing riots.

Here, perhaps the bicyclist had been aiming for citizens or police time
after time as he headed toward the police's position. Thus the policeman
viewed him a threat to citizens so felt a need to stop him.

No, I'm not saying that this is the case, only that if it were, it's a
justification for the tackle.


  #23  
Old December 18th 08, 06:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides
slide[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default Critical

Andre Jute wrote:


You approve of cops beating up someone because he showed them a finger
or raised his voice to them? Surely the correct procedure is not to
beat up the person with truncheons but to restrain him with the
minimum of violence and charge him with something, affray perhaps. Mr
King had not yet been found guilty of anything. The sayso of a cop
that Mr King "disrespected" him doesn't turn a raised middle finger
into a crime. If cops can decide just anyone is guilty and should be
truncheoned into insensibility, you might be the innocent bystander
who is next for the hospital and multiple stictches, or perhaps being
maimed for life.

Whatever the facts, and without condoning TV "agenda"-editing, those
LA cops were clearly arrogant brutes totally out of control.

American cops, by themselves, sometimes make America seem a third
world country.


I said nothing about what came before yet you chose to put words in my
mouth that I approve of a 'beating' due to a raised voice or gesture. I
never said nor did I imply anything of the sort.

In the King affair, the beatee / King did much more than raise his
voice. He'd proved time and time again that he wouldn't respond to
anything short of a beating and was a direct threat to the police having
assaulted them time and time again when lesser restraint failed. It
wasn't a 'disrespect' but a really scary attack. If you'd seen the
entire video, then you'd never post what you just did. You are wrong
about the King deal and wrong about putting words into my mouth about
the CM incident.

Since we don't know what preceded the few seconds of now famous CM video
we don't really know. You are assuming the CM rider was innocently
pedaling his way down the street and then was attacked for no reason
whatsoever. I agree that may be the case, but without seeing what
preceded the famous 10 seconds of video we can't know if the attack was
justified or not. When I say 'we' I include you too.
  #24  
Old December 18th 08, 06:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides
TheRebarGuy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Critical


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 2:37 am, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 17, 7:53 pm, wrote:


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3


I saw that video before, and while it notably did not show what the
bicyclist must obviously have done to **** off that cop so badly (I'm
thinking maybe flipped him off and/or maybe weaved around as if to
possibly veer toward him), by the time the bike got close the rider
was clearly not trying to hit the cop, and the cop's actions were
outrageous.


Gee, why should the rider have done anything? The cop clearly just
picked someone in the parade and went for him. Maybe the cop had an
arrest quota to fill, maybe he's just scum with a chip on his
shoulder, maybe he was just cold and wanted the exercise of beating up
someone. American police almost everywhere have appallingly bad
attitudes. I remember one clown who pulled a weapon when he stopped me
for "speeding" and I laughed in his face when he said "Assume the
position." It later turned out he wanted me to stand with my hands on
the car and my feet apart; I didn't know that but "Assume the
position" sounded like a parody of something I had heard on a film set
(I didn't watch television, and the scripts I wrote didn't have lines
like that). For a suspected (he hadn't proved it yet and it isn't even
"alleged" until he tries to charge me) speeding offense!

Andre Jute
You gotta teach American cops civility before you can start teaching
them civics

I have only seen the portion of the video that deals with the cop and the
rider after he passes the person with the camera. Is there another video
showing what may (or may not have) happened before he entered the field of
view?
To sit in judgment without knowing all the facts leads many to the wrong
conclusion


  #25  
Old December 18th 08, 06:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Critical

On Dec 18, 5:45*pm, "TheRebarGuy"
wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...
On Dec 18, 2:37 am, Dan O wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:53 pm, wrote:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/16-3

I saw that video before, and while it notably did not show what the
bicyclist must obviously have done to **** off that cop so badly (I'm
thinking maybe flipped him off and/or maybe weaved around as if to
possibly veer toward him), by the time the bike got close the rider
was clearly not trying to hit the cop, and the cop's actions were
outrageous.


Gee, why should the rider have done anything? The cop clearly just
picked someone in the parade and went for him. Maybe the cop had an
arrest quota to fill, maybe he's just scum with a chip on his
shoulder, maybe he was just cold and wanted the exercise of beating up
someone. American police almost everywhere have appallingly bad
attitudes.

Andre Jute
You gotta teach American cops civility before you can start teaching
them civics

I have only seen the portion of the video that deals with the cop and the
rider after he passes the person with the camera. Is there another video
showing what may (or may not have) happened before he entered the field of
view?


What could the cyclist have done? Showed the cop a finger, called him
a pig? Are those reasons for assault by the police in any civilized
society. Pointed a gun at the policeman, hurled a javelin? How likely
is that?

I see no point in finding excuses for police brutality. In fact, it is
up to the police to prove they acted with reasonable restraint.

To sit in judgment without knowing all the facts leads many to the wrong
conclusion


The likelihood of there being mitigating circumstances for a policeman
moving six or eight feet deliberately to assault someone who at that
moment offers no threat to him or anyone else are so low as to be
dismissed out of hand.

Andre Jute
Observer

  #26  
Old December 18th 08, 06:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides
Clive George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,394
Default Critical

"slide" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:
wrote in message
...

If I were "the defense", I'd get all over the cyclist aiming for the
cop when the cop was trying to leave the ROW. Might not get him
totally off, but it sure looked like provocation (the raison d'être of
Critical Mass) to me.


The video appeared to show rather the opposite to me. Cyclist is aiming
to miss the cop, cop is aiming to hit the cyclist. I'm actually a bit
surprised at anybody interpreting it any other way.

Sure based only the video part you saw. Nobody who saw the 'edited for TV'
version of the Rodney King beating could imagine anything coming before
which would justify that. However, those FEW who did see the entirety of
the tape universally agreed that the beating of King was fully justified.

I say this because I and a few others were of the 'no justification' on
the King beating but all of us changed our minds when we saw the entire
tape which was never shown on network TV. Clearly the TV stations had an
agenda which was fulfilled by their ratings boost in the ensuing riots.

Here, perhaps the bicyclist had been aiming for citizens or police time
after time as he headed toward the police's position. Thus the policeman
viewed him a threat to citizens so felt a need to stop him.

No, I'm not saying that this is the case, only that if it were, it's a
justification for the tackle.


That's an _entirely_ different thing to what was said and what I disagreed
with.

BTW got a link to the longer Rodney King beating video?



  #27  
Old December 18th 08, 07:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Critical

On Dec 18, 5:35*pm, slide wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

You approve of cops beating up someone because he showed them a finger
or raised his voice to them? Surely the correct procedure is not to
beat up the person with truncheons but to restrain him with the
minimum of violence and charge him with something, affray perhaps. Mr
King had not yet been found guilty of anything. The sayso of a cop
that Mr King "disrespected" him doesn't turn a raised middle finger
into a crime. If cops can decide just anyone is guilty and should be
truncheoned into insensibility, you might be the innocent bystander
who is next for the hospital and multiple stictches, or perhaps being
maimed for life.


Whatever the facts, and without condoning TV "agenda"-editing, those
LA cops were clearly arrogant brutes totally out of control.


American cops, by themselves, sometimes make America seem a third
world country.


I said nothing about what came before yet you chose to put words in my
mouth that I approve of a 'beating' due to a raised voice or gesture. I
never said nor did I imply anything of the sort.


Absolutely nothing that either went before or could have gone before
is an excuse for what those policemen did to Rodney King. It was a
vicious attack precisely as you described it. They kept beating him,
as if beating him into submission, long after he curled up and stopped
moving.

In the King affair, the beatee / King did much more than raise his
voice. He'd proved time and time again that he wouldn't respond to
anything short of a beating and was a direct threat to the police having
assaulted them time and time again when lesser restraint failed.


Yes, that is what is wrong with your attitude, which grated on me
enough to make me post on the subject. Who the **** are these cops to
decide anyone "won't respond to anything short of a beating"? That's
for the courts to decide. The purpose of the police is to bring the
person before the courts and charge him with a specific crime. What
did they charge Rodney King with? What was he convicted of?

It
wasn't a 'disrespect' but a really scary attack. If you'd seen the
entire video, then you'd never post what you just did. You are wrong
about the King deal and wrong about putting words into my mouth about
the CM incident.


So many policeman and one attacker... Why is it that police services
elsewhere manage to restrain madmen without them having ruptured
organs or requiring dozens of stitches whereas American police forces
have to apply overwhelming and vastly excessive force? Note that
civilized people have police services (something I point out very
sharply to mine if they are not civil) whereas Americans have police
"forces".

I apologize if you think I put words in your mouth by paraphrasing
your remarks.

Since we don't know what preceded the few seconds of now famous CM video
we don't really know. You are assuming the CM rider was innocently
pedaling his way down the street and then was attacked for no reason
whatsoever.


It is what the film shows. There can be no excuse for a policeman
moving several feet to assault a cyclist who at that moment clearly
offered no threat to him or anyone else. What do you think you'll find
earlier in the video. The cyclist shouting "pig" or throwing a javelin
or pointing a gun? Show us the evidence, if there is any, sonny, but
don't just mouth vague possibilities. It is incumbent upon the police
to prove they acted with due restraint. This copper clearly acted with
no restraint.

I agree that may be the case, but without seeing what
preceded the famous 10 seconds of video we can't know if the attack was
justified or not. When I say 'we' I include you too.


I agree, I don't know. But common sense is a good guide.

Andre Jute
Eyes like everyone else. The difference is that I use mine.

  #28  
Old December 18th 08, 07:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides
TheRebarGuy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Critical


What could the cyclist have done? Showed the cop a finger, called him
a pig? Are those reasons for assault by the police in any civilized
society. Pointed a gun at the policeman, hurled a javelin? How likely
is that?


I see no point in finding excuses for police brutality. In fact, it is
up to the police to prove they acted with reasonable restraint.


To sit in judgment without knowing all the facts leads many to the wrong
conclusion


The likelihood of there being mitigating circumstances for a policeman
moving six or eight feet deliberately to assault someone who at that
moment offers no threat to him or anyone else are so low as to be
dismissed out of hand.


Andre Jute
Observer



Like I said I don't know what might or might not have happpened. I have only
seen the one video. Do you have any links to video of what occured before
hand?

Maybe he (the rider) threw his water bottle at a car or by-stander. Maybe he
ignored a cop up the road. Maybe he tried to run over somebody? We don't
know, based on this video, what exactly happened. To assume that only the
cop is at fault (and I do think there was an over-reaction) is very
judgmental.



  #29  
Old December 18th 08, 07:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Critical

On Dec 18, 6:07*pm, "TheRebarGuy"
wrote:
What could the cyclist have done? Showed the cop a finger, called him
a pig? Are those reasons for assault by the police in any civilized
society. Pointed a gun at the policeman, hurled a javelin? How likely
is that?
I see no point in finding excuses for police brutality. In fact, it is
up to the police to prove they acted with reasonable restraint.
To sit in judgment without knowing all the facts leads many to the wrong
conclusion

The likelihood of there being mitigating circumstances for a policeman
moving six or eight feet deliberately to assault someone who at that
moment offers no threat to him or anyone else are so low as to be
dismissed out of hand.
Andre Jute
Observer


Like I said I don't know what might or might not have happpened. I have only
seen the one video. Do you have any links to video of what occured before
hand?

Maybe he (the rider) threw his water bottle at a car or by-stander. Maybe he
ignored a cop up the road. Maybe he tried to run over somebody? We don't
know, based on this video, what exactly happened. To assume that only the
cop is at fault (and I do think there was an over-reaction) is very
judgmental.


You and Paul (Slide) and I have a very small difference of opinion
here -- more shadings along a scale than a real difference, I imagine,
and more to do with where we live than with the facts of the cases
known or unknown. We shouldn't blow it out of proportion. All the
same, I will say that I see the police as my servants, and everyone
else's servants, whereas far too many Americans seem resigned to
police who are a law unto themselves.

Andre Jute
Officially declared a revolutionary by now fewer than three sovereign
governments
  #30  
Old December 18th 08, 07:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.rides
slide[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default Critical

Clive George wrote:
"slide" wrote in message



BTW got a link to the longer Rodney King beating video?



No. Saw it on TV years ago, not on youtube, etc.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Critical [email protected] General 191 January 4th 09 01:09 AM
Critical [email protected] Techniques 294 January 4th 09 01:09 AM
Police win powers to control Critical Mass cycle rally - FW: Don't be taken for a ride: Critical Mass has NOT been banned Fod UK 2 May 27th 07 03:06 PM
Critical Mass = Critical ASS Jan Mobely Social Issues 0 July 12th 05 07:09 PM
[critical-mass] Promote Critical Mass in NYC This Friday! Jym Dyer Social Issues 3 March 26th 05 10:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.