As much as some people hate bicyclists...

[HansGruber]

Yeah let's not forget about the ones who wake up tomorrow with their hate doubled, and get ideas about bringing bricks and pipes to the next rally. Let's fight fire with fire shall we, so we all get burnt?

Violence never solves anything.

 

[Black Z Eddie]

http://img560.imageshack.**/img560/699/slowertraffickeepright.png

/thread

[Of course it may be different for right-hand side vehicles]

 

[prizrak]

Yeah let's not forget about the ones who wake up tomorrow with their hate doubled, and get ideas about bringing bricks and pipes to the next rally. Let's fight fire with fire shall we, so we all get burnt?

Violence never solves anything.

There are some black people in this country who might disagree with you.... (Civil War, end of slavery type deal...)

 

[narf]

By the same token it could have been a firetruck trying to get through.

An emergency vehicle would kindly ask to get the road back for a wee minute. I'm quite certain those cyclists would move over for a siren. After all, that's why emergency vehicles have sirens.


Interesting side-point: Who is to blame when an emergency vehicle collides with another traffic entity (car, bicycle, pedestrian, etc) while crossing a red light intersection? Often the emergency vehicle is at least partly to blame. Even emergency vehicles need to make sure they hit noone, even if the one hit did something wrong (in this case, not make way for an emergency vehicle).
Disclaimer: The above point applies to German traffic law. I can't be bothered to look up Brazillian laws.

See? He gets it. It's fuckin' simple. It's basically about these cyclists acting like adults instead of spoilt children and sucking it up and taking responsibility for their actions.

They probably are fine with taking responsibility for their actions. Bearing the responsibility (in this case, have your property damaged, get injured, or get killed) for someone else's actions (in this case, the Golf driver's actions) is what they have trouble with.

 

[argatoga]

I take it you have never seen Citizen Kane.

 

[prizrak]

An emergency vehicle would kindly ask to get the road back for a wee minute. I'm quite certain those cyclists would move over for a siren. After all, that's why emergency vehicles have sirens

Wouldn't be too sure with the critical massholes... (I've seen cyclists try to cut in front of speeding firetrucks)

Interesting side-point: Who is to blame when an emergency vehicle collides with another traffic entity (car, bicycle, pedestrian, etc) while crossing a red light intersection? Often the emergency vehicle is at least partly to blame. Even emergency vehicles need to make sure they hit noone, even if the one hit did something wrong (in this case, not make way for an emergency vehicle).

From an experience of one of my friends and a cop car that ran a red light without slowing down even a little bit and caused her vehicle to spin. You are up a shit creek w/o a paddle.

I take it you have never seen Citizen Kane.

Or he has and is using it with original intent

 

[narf]

Wouldn't be too sure with the critical massholes... (I've seen cyclists try to cut in front of speeding firetrucks)

I'm sure you've seen a lot of things. However, that does not give us a reason to assume these cyclists would act that way.

From an experience of one of my friends and a cop car that ran a red light without slowing down even a little bit and caused her vehicle to spin. You are up a shit creek w/o a paddle.

Like I said, my point applies to German traffic laws. The law states that special rights need to exercised with care for safety. Several legal cases have interpreted this in ways such as "if an emergency vehicle approaches an intersection on a red light it needs to make sure every other car has seen them and is about to make room for them". Some judges have even said that in their specific case the emergency vehicle should have slowed to walking pace before entering said intersection.
In short, there are a lot of cases where the emergency vehicle was blamed for an accident even though it had the right of way due to its siren.
Obviously this does not apply to all cases - mostly the other guy is to blame, for example for loud music, not paying attention, whatever. All I'm saying is this: Even though you may have the right of way (emergency vehicle with siren vs crossing car, Golf on a road vs cyclists) you still have to make sure you do not endanger anyone else. Hence no matter how annoying cyclists are, they still do not deserve getting driven through.

Personal safety is YOUR responsibility.

If you annoy me in some nonviolent way and in return I hit/stab/shoot/drive over/etc you - is that your responsibility or mine?

 

[thevictor390]

A key distinction here is that the Golf driver ran these people down with malicious intent. It would be very different if the road blockage had caused an accident - the bikers would be completely to blame. In reality, the vast majority of the fault here has to be on the driver. It's no different than if he took a baseball bat and ran into a crowd beating people up. Even if that crowd had been heckling him or caused some other nonviolent disturbance.

 

[argatoga]

Or he has and is using it with original intent

So he is showing approval for a remark he knows is terrible?

 

[narf]

A key distinction here is that the Golf driver ran these people down with malicious intent. It would be very different if the road blockage had caused an accident - the bikers would be completely to blame. In reality, the vast majority of the fault here has to be on the driver. It's no different than if he took a baseball bat and ran into a crowd beating people up. Even if that crowd had been heckling him or caused some other nonviolent disturbance.

A lot of fault would be with the driver even if he only ran into the cyclists due to gross negligence rather than malicious intent. His punishment would be significantly lower, but the amount of blame on the cyclists (however large it might be) would be unaffected.

 

[thevictor390]

A lot of fault would be with the driver even if he only ran into the cyclists due to gross negligence rather than malicious intent. His punishment would be significantly lower, but the amount of blame on the cyclists (however large it might be) would be unaffected.

You're right there - it would be up to the specific situation, i.e. which party was negligent. But it would still be very different from what happened in reality, and I still contend that this driver committed multiple attempted murder over a traffic violation, and people are defending him.

 

[narf]

You're right there - it would be up to the specific situation, i.e. which party was negligent. But it would still be very different from what happened in reality, and I still contend that this driver committed multiple attempted murder over a traffic violation, and people are defending him.

Indeed, I see no reason for defending the driver or suggesting similar actions are the correct behavior in such a situation.

As for the negligence, in order to determine whether the cyclists actually did act with some level of negligence we would need to know the specifics of that street and of local laws. For example, 15 or more cyclists riding together may ride double file in Germany. In such a case the simple point of "they took up more roadspace than I want them to" would be baseless.
I've read that these gatherings tend to illegally cross red lights as a huge group, if the car hit them in that situation there would clearly be negligence on the cyclists' side - that's not the case here, the car travelled on the same road as them. Judging by how cars parked on either side of the road all face in the same direction they also are not cycling in the wrong direction, apparently it's a double lane one way street. The cyclists didn't speed or cut anyone off out of nowhere.
A lot of things cyclists often get blamed for were not done here, hence I see no grounds for negligence on the cyclists' side further than "being annoying".

 

[mpicco]

There are some black people in this country who might disagree with you.... (Civil War, end of slavery type deal...)

Black men fought for both sides. I think you should research a bit before making such a statement.

Also isn't aggressive driving an infraction on most countries too? Trying to use your car as a weapon to shove aside or make your way through traffic, be it bicycles, cars, or ice cream trucks causing a traffic jam?

I get it how annoying it can be getting behind a very slow driver, or even two slow drivers blocking both lanes, but nothing gives you the right to ram them off the street.

 

[prizrak]

If you annoy me in some nonviolent way and in return I hit/stab/shoot/drive over/etc you - is that your responsibility or mine?

Another one who can't see a point.... To stay safe is YOUR personal responsibility. If you walk around in a high crime area in $100,000 suit, flashing a Rolex with a wad of cash in your hand and you get mugged it's your own fault.

Or you can look at this scenario... Say I walk around the city coming up to every guy bigger than me on the street and calling him a "fag". Eventually SOMEONE will take it in a way that will cause them to attack me. It could be someone violent, or someone having a bad day doesn't really matter. Would you really have any pity for me?

The point that you clearly missed from my post is that these people were intentionally causing an aggravating situation. Now I'm sure plenty of times people just got annoyed and moved on but in this one case they pissed off the wrong guy. I didn't say the guy was justified in doing what he did or that it was a valid response, I simply stated that if you are going to intentionally annoy people you need to realize that there will be consequences and in some cases very severe ones.

Black men fought for both sides. I think you should research a bit before making such a statement.

You should learn to read period. Civil War (despite having black people on both sides) resulted in end of slavery across the entire country and also preserved the union (instead of having 2 countries we have one). This was achieved through violence not peaceful negotiations. Your entire point is invalid, violence solves plenty of things. Next time you think otherwise I suggest you try to talk your way out of someone trying to beat you over the head, let me know how it works out.

So he is showing approval for a remark he knows is terrible?

Or is using it sarcastically.

and people are defending him.

I think only Austere actually defended the guy outright, so far it seems that people are in the same camp as I am. To spell it out again:

IT WAS WRONG OF THE DRIVER TO DO WHAT HE DID BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT CYCLISTS SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED AS THERE ARE PLENTY OF VIOLENT PEOPLE OUT THERE.

 

[mpicco]

You should learn to read period. Civil War (despite having black people on both sides) resulted in end of slavery across the entire country and also preserved the union (instead of having 2 countries we have one). This was achieved through violence not peaceful negotiations. Your entire point is invalid, violence solves plenty of things. Next time you think otherwise I suggest you try to talk your way out of someone trying to beat you over the head, let me know how it works out.

Martin Luther King, Malcom X, John Lennon and many others agree with you there. [/sarcasm]
"Talk my way out of someone hitting me over the head"? Just because that someone thinks like you and finds it that violence is the way out of his frustrations, or his lack of money, or whatever.

THERE ARE PLENTY OF VIOLENT PEOPLE OUT THERE.

Yep. From what I read from your posts, people like you.

 

[Austere]

It's not insane because it's the same thing, only on a very different scale.

Yeah... In the same way that a paper cut and a fatal gunshot wound are the same thing, only on a different scale.

Noone gives a shit about what you think is a legitimate protest and what isn't, it's called freedom of speech.

Then the guy in the Golf was also extending his right to freedom of speech.



Scanning the rest of the thread now.... Civil war, people are talking about John Lennon for some reason.... This thread has gotten even worse since I went to bed last night. I don't see any point in me continuing but you guys go ahead if you want to.

 

[mpicco]

Then the guy in the Golf was also extending his right to freedom of speech.

There's a difference between freedom of speech and the right to hurt other people. One exists, the other one doesn't.

 

[thevictor390]

I think only Austere actually defended the guy outright, so far it seems that people are in the same camp as I am. To spell it out again:

IT WAS WRONG OF THE DRIVER TO DO WHAT HE DID BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT CYCLISTS SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED AS THERE ARE PLENTY OF VIOLENT PEOPLE OUT THERE.

I didn't mean that to exclusively refer to this thread. I agree that this kind of violence is a risk you take when you participate in a mass, obstructive protest.

 

[TC]

There was an old saying for when you wanted someone to piss off and die. You'd tell them to go play in traffic.

Watching that video made me feel a bit sick. But like others have said, you fuck with people too much and it'll only be a matter of time before someone snaps and goes off the deep end. Luckily no one in this incident became a nominee for the Darwin award.

 

[prizrak]

Martin Luther King, Malcom X, John Lennon and many others agree with you there.

By any means necessary - ring a bell?
The other two were shot... (Also I'm not sure what Lennon accomplished other than being a Beetle)

"Talk my way out of someone hitting me over the head"? Just because that someone thinks like you and finds it that violence is the way out of his frustrations, or his lack of money, or whatever.

So you would stand there and take it? Or would you defend yourself with violence?

Yep. From what I read from your posts, people like you.

My posts? Point out the posts where I PROMOTE violence as opposed to EXPECT it? Also an FYI last time I got into a physical confrontation was in HS, when 3 other students decided that they should pick on my friend (he was a nerdy kind of kid). When I politely asked them to get the fuck off my friend's case one of them sucker punched me. Yes there was violence after that...

I didn't mean that to exclusively refer to this thread. I agree that this kind of violence is a risk you take when you participate in a mass, obstructive protest.

Oh ok, I understand now