Cyclist here too, have been for 35 years... The most traffic laws i break involve things that stops me using the only advantage over walking, inertia. That means running on red lights is common but only if it's totally empty crossing.. People who use motors to go forward don't have to use muscles so it doesn't always enter their minds that cyclists rely on rolling forward all the time, stopping as few times as possible. That's why cyclists need to bend the rules pretty often, it just works a lot better for all of us. Of course i could stop at red lights, specially if it's button activated, i could reserve that 20s instead of using 3s making everyone wait... But here it has been a lot more common to use cycles and drivers do behave well on intersections letting that momentum to carry us over and saving time from everyone. We just can't count on it, i would say 80% do it well, it's that 20% that feels hurt if they have to yeild to a puny sack of meat riding on a tubular frame..

Last winter was brutal, instead of snow we had ice that melted a bit during the day and froze overnight. Then it was a case of survival with a bike and things from my teens started to bother me: cars that don't understand they cant tip over and hurt them selves, going thru safe, dry routes became a real fight. When i was school age, i had to to cycle on the road, with cars, no shoulder cause of snowbanks, just four deep tracks that the cars had made. The times the car horns scared me when the motorists blamed me for driving on the only piece of road i could do so, width of maybe 20cm with ice on both sides.. man., you couldn't get out of those without falling spectacularly while the cars of course could, they just were lazy. Now a days there is a cycle road built separately there but the attitude became obvious "roads are for cars, if you don't have one, stay at home..."

One question in Citizens United v. FEC was "what constitutes a campaign contribution?" Michael Moore had just made an anti Bush film, and decided to personally pay to run ads for his film just before an election. The ruling was basically that Michael Moore had just made a campaign contribution. That is, if David Koch's PAC had made a documentary about Obama's birth certificate and ran a bunch of ads for just before the election, that's effectively giving a campaign contribution as well.

Whether the campaign spent the money, or someone spent the money on behalf of the campaign, it didn't matter. An ad is an ad, and ads cost money. However, if you extend this logic, nobody can produce any positive or negative media about a candidate during the election run-up. That is, the NYT couldn't run a photo of Barry O smiling on the front page. That sort of exposure has value, and would thus constitute a contribution. Otherwise, what would stop me from producing a huge pile of fliers with smiling candidates on them and dropping them from my helicopters?

This is how we end up running up against free speech. Personally, I don't think we should put those kinds of restrictions on media. People will always play games, and find ways of couching themselves as other forms of protected media in order to keep funneling huge sums of money into biased political messages. That's just how it works. But I'm not comfortable limiting political speech, least of all around an election run up. The risk for unintended consequences is too high.

I must be a complete asshole. I don't give a crap what "the herd" does. I've never been in a situation where any amount of other people, doing whatever or nothing, stopped me from doing whatever the Hell I wanted to.

As a victim of rape some of you lot sicken me... I came across this as I'm doing some research about how rape is portrayed in the media. Lonestar you should be ashamed, think how you would feel if this was your daughter because it dammed near killed my dad! You are a sad pathetic individual who feels the need to air his views online and despite all I've been through its you I feel sorry for. I will never be as small minded and delusuonal as you are.
And for the record, my sex life with my boyfriend was varied and adventurous, and low and behold it didn't stop me getting raped.
People who feel the need to do this to another human are sick individuals and should take a minute to think about how it ruins the victims life!

It's a play on your name, and because it's a play on your name, that would be fuck MY mother...dude. Damn you're acting like a crybaby lately. It is hilarious coming from the local vulgar bully that attacks others daily, then denies any responsibility for them being upset.
I'm keeping my promise to call out bullying and insulting ways every time I see it. There's a simple way to stop me from commenting about you, stop being intentionally insulting and vulgar here, and I'll leave you alone forever!
You often directly attack personally, you've done it vulgarly and insultingly repeatedly in the last day to me, personally. I decry and berate your intentionally insulting actions, not you as a person. I think watchers have seen this clearly. Many have written me to say so.
There have been no more personal messages since you stopped sending them to me, after telling me directly and clearly to go ahead and post your message publicly...dude. Now you whine about it. I never posted your private messages (except the one you told me to, and that was in it for all to read along with my reply), I also NEVER copied and pasted ANY message publicly. That's a bold faced lie, and I think you know it. You have lost it in my estimation and are having another hissy fit here.
The sift community has chimed in to me, and offered repeated congratulations and thanks for standing up to the local bully, noting that many have left the sift because of your vitriol. Even you have noted that the ignore button was created because of you, yet I'm the problem...uh...yeah.
I am not responsible for your emotional state. Remember that one? Who is it that LOVES to say that again?

Wow. Interesting discussion going on here, and I say "interesting" because there's a lot of conflict between people who share the same vision of what society should be, but place blame for the reasons why it's not (in the context of this video) in completely different pieces from one another.
I've never posted to a thread this long before because I assume that it will get lost in the shuffle/argument/whatever, but I wanted to share how I broke the scene down and what I gathered from the video.
The fundamental problem here, which is subjective so I understand if someone doesn't agree, is that:
"most people" would not be comfortable walking down the street in this neighborhood.
"Most people" want safety, or more specifically; as much of a chance to not fear for their lives while existing.
What would remedy this? The hard rule of law? Or let it pan out as-is. The former has never stopped me from an action that society might not agree with. I don't run people over or shoot guns into the air because I believe in not hurting others, and both those actions either do, or have a decent chance to.
On the other hand, I really believe this is one step removed from a war-zone. Not to mistakenly define this scenario as a binary gradient between order or chaos, but if one group of friends became violently entangled with another group of friends, that's exactly what would result: armed, faction opposition.
Most people seem to argue over the solutions we know of, rather than the problems that exist, but it seems to me that none of those are working.
So I guess my question is: how would you make these neighborhoods "safe" for non-violent people to live in that isn't attributed to some form of government?

All religions are based on ignorance, fear and control. They are simply man made myths, designed to control man. I've looked at the myriad "faiths" over time and, no matter how tempted, always had one thing stopping me getting trapped by any of them. It's called intelligence.

So just to throw it straight out there; I'm a massive biker (though mostly solo so I can't really relate to the gang mindset here). You have no idea what this whole debacle does to my priorities!

So on the one hand provoking the man in the big metal cage (no matter how good the perceived reason) is basically never a good idea if your on a bike. And moreover beating someone to within an inch of his life and cutting him up is very very rarely a good or condonable solution to anything, even if he did just run over a couple of your buddies....

On the other hand......well (and this might only really find any sympathy from fellow motor-bicycleists)..........I can fill in some of the gaps that might explain why one biker felt the need to brake hard in front of him etc. from my own experiences.

Some (very few) drivers go out of their way to fuck with you sometimes over little shit, they get a big head tucked away safely inside their big metal cages and they take it upon themselves to cause you grief in some way or another.
On a regular basis for instance I have car drivers deliverately pull their cars out to try and stop me filtering (lane splitting) despite the fact that A. its totally legal and featured on my fucking licence test! and B. It actually speeds their miserable existence in the traffic flow up as we don't have to take up a car's space (and were fucking gone before most cars are even in gear when the lights change anyway)!

Fortunately I have the perfect solution to this problem, I ride a cheapish looking bike and don't show any signs of stopping for them as they veer over deliberately into my path! You'd be amazed how often they just back off :-D (if not I'm only ever doing 5-10mph so stopping is always an option for that odd psycho)

Not saying I remotely condone the bikers responses, but I do understand how this thing probably escalated. I suspect the bikers had a legit frustration but clearly they dealt with it very poorly. The biker side of the story seems to be that this guy had been deliberately blocking lanes and exchanging insults for a while leading up to when the braking biker escalated things,a situation I've witnessed myself before. Normally prudence makes you leave it alone and back off/accelerate away (or if they are being an extra special twatbag knock off a mirror and accelerate into the distance :-D (never actually done that, but it's seriously crossed my mind a couple of times, Kevlar knuckles are the shit!)). In this case the extra courage that only a 1000 or so fellow kinsmen stood at your side can bring had the usual effect..........Mobs will be the death of us all.

@newtboy is right though, bikers totally killed their own case reacting so aggressively. If they'd followed at a reasonable distance and waited for police to show up things would probably have gone completely the other way legally. Sure the dude that brakes in front of him might get charged but it'd be nothing on attempted vehicular murder/manslaughter running over a handful of bikers. Chasing down and then beating a man half to death in front of his family unfortunately rather overshadows your defence.


Sadly the only sensible conclusion I seem to be able to find is this was ultimately douche nozzles with no self control baiting other douche nozzles with no self control. But I do get it. I also totally get the drivers response once it escalated, I'd have shit bricks and maybe made a run for it through them by that stage too!

I really really really wish I could hear what was actually said between them oh well, back to the fence I go!


EDIT: I just wanted to come back and make it absolutely clear that I also acknowledge that bikes in groups (especially sports bikes and supermoto's as featured here) are just as capable of acting like power drunk fucknuts too. It's entirely possible the bikers started it a way's back and the driver was essentially an innocent man driven to extreme lengths by fear (though I'm still going with straight up hot douche on douche action for now)

Joe Kelly already wrote the perfect Superman/Batman story, just put that on film. I'd like to see a fun DC film for a change - there hasn't been one since Batman '66.

Um, because I don't live there today, (and you have absolutely no idea how long that's been since I moved, do you) it doesn't mean I have no contact with Texans and that I don't spend time there...my entire family didn't move. I am privy to the insanity that happens in Texas on a daily basis, I am a Texas native, I talk to Texans daily, and I can read. Your position that 'if you don't live here, you can't comment on our actions' is insane and just dumb. Today's Texans don't follow that rule and constantly talk shit about other states they've never visited, much less lived in. Some (many) of you talk major shit about the entire nation excepting Texas (Chingalera, I'm looking at you here).
Really, you're claiming it's the it's the right wing Texans that are up in arms about the anti-choice bills that the right wing Texan legislature is forcing into law? That's such utter BS it doesn't deserve a response, but I'll give it one anyway. I'm sure there are some, perhaps even thousands of Republicans in the entire state that agree with the 'liberal douchebags' (I've rarely heard the former not followed by the latter from a Texan) on this issue, and MILLIONS upon millions of their compatriots that believe the opposite. (perhaps you're confusing what I wrote with what your love, chogie, in his typical fashion misrepresented as my position. Only he said ALL Texans are right wing nutjobs, that wasn't me). Fail.
The problem is all the 'hill billy cusin fuckin po dunk Texas trash' and the 'high falootin rich Texas debutantes' vote for the right wing nut jobs even if they don't agree with their positions. (Honestly, most Texans I've talked to usually don't look into the candidate's positions, just their party, to determine who to vote for, and these are well educated people.)
I'll say it once again, there is no utopia (it's the only straw man you have left, so I'm burning it). Because there's no place that's perfect does not stop me from seeing that some places offer more 'freedom' than others, and Texas is not one of those places if you aren't a right wing Christian.

Actually it's pretty easy to disarm someone within 3 feet of you -- the closer they are the better. (Bruce Lee popularized the idea but it's a concept that's been around for a long time.) We did it the other way though so as to break the trigger finger and keep the gun to the outside.
No need for a water pistol -- I would do this experiment.
I would get in front of a student, hands at my side. I WOULD TELL him: "I'm going to smack you in the forehead with my open hand. All you have to do is stop me. Ready?"
Within 3 feet you will always tag them EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW IT'S COMING. The human brain cannot perceive motion and react to it fast enough. Go ahead and try it for yourself...
The Hollywood cliche where one guy has a gun to the other guy's forehead makes me laugh. Dude could easily pluck that gun from him.
Now if the gunman is any further than 3 feet from you... then you ARE in trouble.

My background: I come from an upper middle class background in the UK. I went to a normal primary school, did very well and ended up passing the exams for the local private school. I was from a pretty well off family but my parents never stopped me being friends with anyone and I had friends from all walks of life. When I was in a normal school with lots of normal kids I got on well with most of them and it was all good.

I was thrown out of the posh private school after a year and a half because it was full of the sort of little fucking shits that bitches like this drag up. Every time one of them started braying all I wanted to do was shut them up. I had a lot of fights and was gotten rid of.

After that I went to the only school in the city that would take people who were expelled from another school. The friends I made there, in the shit hole school, are some of the best people I know. Good, honest, successful people.

This bitch makes my blood boil. I'm sure in her circles she's celebrated for her honesty, because everyone knows you shouldn't let your children play with 'common' people.

I've dipped a toe in both worlds at school, and since then I've been a keen dinghy sailor, which is a scene that attracts people from all backgrounds. I know lawyers, doctors, teachers, directors, lorry drivers, sound engineers, metal workers, mechanics, beach bums and stoners who all sail and I know for a fact that the money in the bank has nothing to do with what you're like as a person.

I certainly wouldn't want my kids hanging around with hers.

Fucking hell I'm angry right now!

You know... I'll tell you what. I use my tech knowhow to avoid this, anything I don't want someone else to know, I encrypt the shit out of it. If I NEEDED to make a secure phone call, VoIP over android on an encrypted link. Have I ever needed or done it? nope, I could care less if they evesdrop on the 5 minutes of voice talk I do a month.

That however wouldn't stop me from joining any action to shut the nsa down and prevent these warrantless wiretaps. Just show me the train to hop on and I'll be there.

@enoch @Fletch @Yogi

I've done a complete turn around on this issue for sure. After doing some reading, I believe this to be much ado about nothing. I know I'm taking an extremely unpopular position here, siding against the left, the right, the media and videosift, essentially siding up with Obama and David Simon. Taking an unpopular position has never stopped me before. /vanity

I believe wiretaps are an important tool for law enforcement/counter terrorism, but only if there are proper checks and balances in place to make sure that these searches are constitutionally 'reasonable' and not a means of abuse.

Contrary to media hysteria, Obama can't listen in on your phone calls or read your sexts without a court order. That warrant has been the go to check and balance for decades, I don't see why it shouldn't be sufficient today.

BUT IT'S ALL DONE IN SECRECY. Yeah, that's kind of the point of a wiretap.

BUT WHAT IF THIS POWER IS ABUSED? Then we need to reassess checks, balances, oversight, etc...

My questiosn to you:

Do you all think that surveillance should be a legal tool in criminal investigations?

If yes, what changes do we make to current policy without rendering surveillance toothless?

I'm open to any arguments you want to pose or any reading material you want to share. Am I missing something here? Change my mind.