We really do see an entirely different world.

What I see originally happening here is a dispute/conflict between two citizens. The driver and the cyclist. There was a collision that damaged the car and maybe the cyclist. The cyclist is a minor, and the only account we get on video is the driver fairly insistent they were the ones that got hit when the cyclist ran a traffic sign. Blame on that doesn't matter to the video though because the police aren't meant to address blame and never attempt to.

Do we agree on the above preamble view of what happened at least? I think we do, so I'll pick up with that assumed.

The cyclist does not want to cooperate with the required exchange of information for insurance and liability purposes. So presumably the driver got the police get involved. This is exactly what I think we all should want. Rather than expecting the parties involved resort to their own use of force, we want to defer that to trained police officers. This is preferable for either party to simply being victimised with no recourse for injury to the cyclist if the driver's at fault or damages to the car if the cyclist is.

I again would hope we are still on the same page at this point, lets call it point B?

If I understand right, we now diverge in that I believe when office says come here to the cyclist, the cyclist is in the wrong for instead dodging around the officer and trying to take off on their bike. When the officer immediately stops them from that physically and tells them they are being detained, the cyclist is again wrong for actively resisting for the entire remainder of the video.

You seem to think the officers would be angry to see their child in the video, and we agree on that. We disagree on whom they would be angry with though. I'm pretty sure the officers would angry with their kid for consistently resisting the officers and would likely be telling their kid they are lucky the officers were as gentle as they were because they absolutely didn't need to be.

I don't know who to credit the analogy to, but this feels to me like an instance of the police being the wolf hounds protecting the us sheeple. Their use of violence and force looks scary to us and we just wish those mean, nasty and violent wolfhounds would be replaced with more mild mannered sheep. It's not until an actual wolf comes along that all of sudden we wonder were those hounds are because we went to get as close under their shadows as we can.

The reason it comes to mind is because having 3-4 officers spending hours begging, pleading and otherwise trying to non-violently persuade a cursing, kicking, resistant teenager to take accept pretty basic instructions is not what I want. I get the impression you would prefer that, but I do not. I want the officers sitting at nearby coffee shop bored and eating donuts instead. When they come to deal with this incident, I want them back to those donuts as quickly as possible. The reason being, when a wolf somewhere starts up a domestic dispute, or starts beating up someone in the street, or breaking into somebodies home I want the police unhindered and ready to their 'real' jobs.

>> ^Barseps:

>> ^Payback:
I don't think that driver was from Russia.
Just going by all the other dash cam vids...

You just might be right there. "Russia" removed.
He's cursing in Russian, cars are russian, traffic signs are like in Russia. Make your own conclusions.

Since he has a dash cam it must be Russia. Lol. In fact it is St. Petersberg. The traffic sign they pass under says Murmansk Hwy 4.5km.

To my mind the cam guy is not significantly tailgating until the lead guy starts dicking around and I'm not sure there was even any contact. But regardless stopping in a travel lane especially in traffic like this is a really dumbass move.

I guess if you're dumb enough to stop like this you're dumb enough to assume that everybody behind you will stop safely.

Edit: Of course dash cam guy was pretty dumb to open his door without checking behind so I guess there is enough dumb to go all around.

Nothing is woman-proof.

>> ^laura:

It's a good thing he took over when he did; one more stop light or traffic sign and she might have popped a tire! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Oh wait, they're Polyglass tires, which are woman-proof. Whew.

That's the other type of rubber.

>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^laura:
It's a good thing he took over when he did; one more stop light or traffic sign and she might have popped a tire! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Oh wait, they're Polyglass tires, which are woman-proof. Whew.

Now If I only I could find women proof relationships. Just a way for two men to be together and do the things they do with women but you know with other guys.

>> ^laura:

It's a good thing he took over when he did; one more stop light or traffic sign and she might have popped a tire! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Oh wait, they're Polyglass tires, which are woman-proof. Whew.


Now If I only I could find women proof relationships. Just a way for two men to be together and do the things they do with women but you know with other guys.

You've come a long way, baby.>> ^laura:

It's a good thing he took over when he did; one more stop light or traffic sign and she might have popped a tire! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Oh wait, they're Polyglass tires, which are woman-proof. Whew.

It's a good thing he took over when he did; one more stop light or traffic sign and she might have popped a tire! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Oh wait, they're Polyglass tires, which are woman-proof. Whew.

That's utter bullshit. A basketball hoop is CLEARLY not a sign.

If the case is made that people might run off the road and hit the "sign" (basketball pole), then one of two things need to happen:
1) Force everyone in the state to re-take their driver's license tests, since they obviously have issues staying on the road.
2) Remove all roadway lighting fixtures, utility poles, traffic signs/signals. They are a similar hazard.



Reference: http://www.deldot.gov/information/media_gallery/2005/illegal_signs/index.shtml

--
DelDOT is enforcing laws designed to keep the State's Rights-Of-Way clear from illegal and dangerous signs. The law is simple:

DelDOT must remove any sign posted in the Clear Zone (in medians and approx. 10' from the edge of the roadway), including those attached to utility poles anywhere along the roadway.
Any sign in the State's Rights-of-Way that is not in the Clear Zone will also be removed.
Exemptions apply outside the Clear Zone only for signs posted during a period of 30-days prior to and 30-days after an election, in a district in which an election is held.
Sign owners are subject to fines of $25 per sign and a recovery fee of $15 per sign.
Confiscated signs will be disposed of after 30 days. The fines still apply.
--


http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/198005/
" Last fall, DelDOT sent letters to at least eight residents in the Radnor Green and Ashbourne Hills subdivisions saying their street-side basketball hoops violated the state’s Clear Zone law, which prohibits hoops, trees, shrubs and other objects from being within seven feet of the pavement's edge in subdivisions."



edit: I also see at least 3 trees and several shrubs within 7' of the roadway that would also fall under their Clear Law, why is no one pulling those out? Oh, because elderly people don't have to slow down for kids who are playing in the roadway near shrubs...

>> ^dannym3141:
I'd just like to point out that it's a bit of a novelty-reaction type thing. You take away all the signs, people are used to signs, so they're more careful. As time goes by, there's no signs, but it's not new or different, so they think they know how the road and/or system works, so they get careless, and accidents go up.
Just a theory.


or a hypothesis

The problem with bicyclists in Oregon (Yes I Live there) is that they think they don't have to follow the rules of the road since they are on a bike, and that they ALWAYS have the right of way.

Case in point: I came to a 4-way stop intersection and stopped. I saw a bike coming up on the left. I proceeded to go through after stopping at the the intersection and he blew right through the intersection without stopping. Needless to say, I almost ran him over. When I turned to follow him and ask why he didn't stop, he told me he doesn't have to obey stop signs because he was on a bike. Since we were only 100 yards from the police station, I invited him to go with me to have a conversation with a police officer about this and he denied the invitation.

I see this type of behavior all the time from bike riders here, blatantly ignoring traffic signs and lights not following the rules of the road.

Not that this guy was right my any means, he was a moron. But it does get aggravating having to constantly avoid idiots not paying attention because they think they don't have to, or that they own the road simply because they are on a bike.

>> ^dannym3141:
I'd just like to point out that it's a bit of a novelty-reaction type thing. You take away all the signs, people are used to signs, so they're more careful. As time goes by, there's no signs, but it's not new or different, so they think they know how the road and/or system works, so they get careless, and accidents go up.
Just a theory.


Exactly what I thought. It's the Hawthorne effect at play, drivers are simply temporarily being more diligent and attentive as they acclimatize to the new adjusted road rules. I don't dispute though that removing excessive signs allows drivers to focus more attentive on the happenings on the actual road though, neither do I dispute that it forces drivers to actively focus on the action of driving rather than relegating it to the routine subconscious, although that's not necessarily a bad thing.

^bamdrew
'zebra crossings', hah


I bet getting those damn Zebras to cross somewhere else took more than just removing some signs...

>> ^MINK:
lithuania is trying to create a signocracy. she used to be so pure and chaotic.
when friends come to stay they are freaked out by the method of crossing the road, i.e. cars don't stop unless you actually start walking across the road, but if you look confident enough, they ALWAYS stop.
pedestrians have priority over cars turning right or left at crossroads, so that means drivers ALWAYS look for pedestrians.
It makes total sense to have less signs, but for some reason we prefer to have a system that LOOKS organised but kills people, instead of trusting ourselves.


I love doing that in Toronto. I can stop 4 lanes of traffic. Of course, sometimes I'm shepherd to 100 first-year university students who I'm instructing to crouch down and tie their shoes.

Well, haven't done it recently, but it was awesome when we did.

>> ^MINK:
>> ^jwray:
It's a pain in the ass for pedestrians to try to cross busy 35mph roads that have no stop signs or stop lights.

did you even see the video?


Yes, and I'm talking about where I live, of course. You must have more considerate drivers over there.