Comment by debt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by debt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com