#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Critical | [email protected] | General | 191 | January 4th 09 12:09 AM |
Critical | [email protected] | Techniques | 294 | January 4th 09 12:09 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 09:14 PM |