Hacker News Reader

The post has absolutely nothing to do with cyclists being above the law.

Neither do your personal anecdotes about cyclists. Try not make generalisations about groups of people based on your narrow experience.

Cyclist breaks the law and then feels entitled to talk down the arresting officers? I can't say it's the first time I've heard this story.

Replace the word 'cyclist' with 'driver', 'woman', 'jew' etc. See where I'm going with this? Your anecdotes are not evidence of a larger problem. All that you're doing is exposing your personal bias.

Personally I notice a lot of bad drivers, but I'm not going to then leap to the ridiculous conclusion that drivers think they're above the law. Because there is larger percentage that I don't notice doing the right thing, just like with [insert chosen group here].

We're talking about people with a preference for bicycles not their religion, race or gender. And, yeah, you could replace it with driver, that one at least is valid.

I don't know if you've heard of this rift between cyclists and motorists but it gets pretty heated and intense in urban areas. Typically the people pushing for legislative changes and updates to infrastructure are cyclists. Typically, those cyclists are the militant ones and NOT your "A-to-B style cyclists, just going to and from work with a bike, yeah a bike lane would be nice but whatever"-style cyclists. Many of the militant cyclists hold an attitude similar to parent, which is "yeah I broke the law but fuck the police" which makes it very difficult to enact any change.

I'm talking specifically about the militant cyclists which, like I said, are also the ones attempting to push the cause, enact positive changes, for cyclists.

So.

We can't have MILITANT cyclists(again the ones doing the walking when it comes to updating infrastructure etc.) pervade an attitude that they're above the law because surprise no one will take them seriously and thus no positive changes for cyclists.

>We're talking about people with a preference for bicycles not their religion, race or gender

You're missing the point. I'm talking about your personal experiences not speaking to a larger issue.

You've clearly had negative interactions with cyclists that have helped you arrive at your view, that isn't in dispute here. What I'm trying to say is don't apply your narrow vision on what is a diverse group of people, the majority of whom obey the law and make a positive contribution to society.

Again; Your personal observations do not equate to evidence of a widespread problem, just as my negative interactions with red haired people does equate to evidence of a MILITANT Ginger brigade out to do harm.

In your desire to complain about cyclists (rightly or wrongly) you are blind to the abuse of a citizen that happened here.

You're overlooking the fact that the cyclist in question ran a light and then tried to school a cop. Being arrested under the circumstance is not abuse - on the contrary it's just about standard procedure. Do you really expect you can give a cop lip - while being cited for a traffic violation - and skip away?

When you have an altercation with a cop, give at least the respect you expect to receive.

Do you really expect you can give a cop lip - while being cited for a traffic violation - and skip away?

Yes, because I live in a country where--supposedly, anyways--I am given the right of free expression. Telling a cop anything short of a threat, especially as it concerns the laws and especially especially when it is the cop being wrong about the laws, should be a non-issue.

You're a damned fool if you think that this being "just about standard procedure" is anything other a really bad sign.

There's a time to exercise your right to free expression, and a time to shut up and let a cop do her job. If you're being wrongly or unjustly persecuted, speak up. When you're pulled over after committing a traffic violation, you ought to shut up.

It bears repeating: treat people with the respect you expect to receive. Cops are no exception.

Let's be fair about this. You have a right to mouth off to a police officer as much as the police officer (in this case) had a right to arrest the offender. Neither are necessarily constructive, but simply allow stubborn people to prove some point. Practically speaking, one has to ask if proving that point (whether it's a point about morality or about power) is worth the risk of negative consequences.

You are conflating several things and speaking rhetorically, not logically.

Here's what you want: "Vehicle operator runs a red light and is arrested"

>All because you blew a red light, which by the way is basically instantly a ticket if you're in a car, and couldn't immediately admit wrongdoing and move on. Sorry, if you were a buddy of mine telling me that story, I'd tell you you were a moron for deciding to "educate" the police officer.

So, the "american way" you propose is to BEND OVER and take abuse and injustice from police officers?

You sure are pragmatic -- but I would hate to live in your world.

The abuse and injustice is irrelevant at that point because it hasn't happened. What 'debt' is saying is that it was a stupid reaction to getting stopped for a red light violation, not that the abuse that followed was justified. Those two views are not contradictory.

>What 'debt' is saying is that it was a stupid reaction to getting stopped for a red light violation

Besides getting stopped for a traffic violation he was asked to provide something that was not mandatory by law. Even worse, the policemen cited the law wrongly (and for something quite basic). This is indefensible.

But that's beside the point. I take offense with the notion against his "stupid reaction" in general.

What this talk about "stupid reaction" reveals is a citizenry that is conditioned to receive all kinds of abuse from police officers and to blindly obey orders, to avoid getting on their nerves.

He should be allowed to have any kind of "stupid reaction". He should be allowed to voice his protests and discuss the matter without being hailed to jail. There's nothing "throw him in jail" about "trying to educate a police officer".

In every country with a civilized police force (at least in Western Europe), that is in any country where police is catering to citizens and not barking at peasants, you CAN have all kind of "stupid reactions" when talking to the police and you don't get beaten or thrown in jail for it (at least not as a regular occurence -- it might happen from time to time).

That you can casually get shot for reaching for your mobile phone or tased just because you said something to protest being asked to leave some place, is something that just does not happen.

Even the "hands on the dashboard" and "don't get out of the car when pulled over or you'll might get shot" routines are unheard of.

Perhaps it's time to demand more courtesy from the police, instead of taking for granted having to be all too cautious whenever they appear.

It's very easy to sit at your computer and say these things. But once you've been in solitary for no real reason, for hours and hours, with no knowledge of when you're going to get out, your opinion changes about how you should deal with police. I had the same experience. Give us your ID! I declined reasonably, stating my states law on the matter. They then started harassing me, pushing me around. "You don't have any rights." etc. Taken to county, solitary for 18 hours. I'd like to avoid that in the future.

My bad, there was an explanation of the way the law worked in this case and for some reason I thought it was in our thread (and I was talking under the assumption that you had seen it too).

> He should be allowed to voice his protests and discuss the matter without being hailed to jail

"while according to the New York Civil Liberties Union, you are not legally required to carry ID, they say "Lastly, an officer cannot write you a summons if you do not provide i.d; instead he must arrest you. That means that if you are stopped for a violation such as loitering and do not provide i.d., you will be arrested"

He wasn't arrested as punishment, but as policy (they can't just write you a ticket if there's no way to identify you on a bike). There are cases of polices taking people at their word that they give the correct name, but for obvious reasons that's a courtesy. This re-casts the story from "police spitefully violate the law in response to shit-talking" to "police (spitefully) refuse to extend voluntary courtesy and instead go by the book, in response to shit-talking".

Now obviously the way he was treated _after_ arrest was an abuse of the system, and there are no arguments here about that. But 'debt' is correct in that you shouldn't expect to be rude to someone and then turn around and demand that they violate by-the-book law to do you a favor.

As far as the rest of your comment, I really feel pretty much the exact same way; I just don't think it contradicts the advice given by 'debt'.

How is this in any way related to the parent comment? He did not contest the traffic offence at any point. He did contest the requirement to carry ID and was then punished for raising his rights.

My point is, why contest anything in that moment? You just broke the law and could've potentially caused serious bodily harm to someone. I feel like there's a small window an officer gives you to get out of the ticket. They walk up. They ask you what you did wrong. You tell them. Everyone moves on. Sometimes they write a ticket or a warning. Parent dude completely and intentionally overcomplicated the situation. Wasting his own time and the time of the officers.

In terms of practicality "shut up and don't ask questions" is certainly going to be minimum hassle. But when the police threatened additional punishments for not having his ID he was perfectly justified in questioning them on the legitimacy of that claim. Acting within your rights shouldn't be punished because it's inconvenient.

I agree, but like some other commenter said about hackers needing a reality check; only the most disconnected of people would attempt to "educate" a police officer about the law. Why would he do that? I'm not justifying the officer's reaction, but, really, what did he think was going to happen? Most officers probably just aren't in the mood to deal with your shit; I'm not saying that's a good thing I'm just saying it's the reality of the situation.

Aside from all that, aren't us hackers trained to never say a damn word to a police officer let alone "educate" them about anything?

The OP did write "stupidly". So you aren't arguing with him.

No. When faced with an officer, you record the interaction, note the badge number, and comply with orders, and the only question you ask an officer is "officer, am I being detained, or am I free to go?"

If the officer is wrong, unless your life is in immediate danger, you comply and you sort it out later. Call your lawyer to complain when you get home.

Well said.

What I hear you saying is that you enjoy the somewhat arbitrary primate street rules that apply to interacting with people who have more power than you, and you'd rather live by those rules than laws.

Those primitive and brutish rules are sometimes easier to understand and follow compared to the complex legal spiderweb we have created.

How about his duties first? I may very well to be mistaken, but to me the story sounded like he was ok with paying a fine and then doing the same again. Alas, for whatever the reason there is indeed hollier-than-thou vibe among cyclists. As other comment mentioned police can hold you if you broke the law and have no id.

Shamefully public lack of empathy and holier than thou attitude, "bro".

I'm empathetic towards how shitty the process he went through, that sucks. But there's no need to make a bad situation worse which is what he "stupidly" did; so says him.

> The whole idea that bicyclists somehow are above the law in terms of traffic signals needs to end. We need to start stopping at red lights and stop signs if we're ever to be taken seriously.

I would like this too. I've seen multiple accidents caused by selfish and arrogant bike riders, motorcyclists and pedestrians.

This is in addition to the single persons -- it's always just one in the vehicle -- who drive gigantic SUVs and assume that it's my job to stay out of their way, even when I have the right of way and am trying to do something like drive from point A to point B down the street. Silly me, I should be second-class to them because I didn't buy a giant SUV.