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

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].

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

> 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'.

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?

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.

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.