Good info.

http://www.ridelust.com/protect-your-rights-how-to-deal-with-the-police-if-you-get-pulled-over/

Now, I know someone will say it, so I will first. I agree that there needs to be more rules against the general douchery of cops, (They tend to be douches) but haveing competeing forces, well, I have no conceivable idea how that would work and don't agree with, or think it would be preferable in the slightest. And by no idea, I mean if one pulls you over, are they going to check you against their registry and let you go if you're not a subscriber, or something? The hell?

Ok, a couple of things:

While apparently useful for United States citizens, I have to wonder how useful it is for foreigners visiting the US. Are we also protected by the same laws as US citizens or what? (I don't know about the US constitution but the Mexican constitution immediately grants the same constitutional rights to foreigners visiting Mexico as it does to Mexican citizens). Particularily I'm interested on knowing how to deal with Floridian cops since I'll be visiting Miami in a couple of weeks.

Also this text is written by Libertarians... look at the comment of "private protection companies that have to compete one against each other" or that "since they're not pressured by the market forces they are not compelled to make their customers happy" seems like they're missing a bit the point of what police and overall the whole state apparatus is for.

I agree on the libertarian bit. I said that. As or foreigners, it's all the same rules. It's just you might not be finned, you might get deported instead.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I agree on the libertarian bit. I said that. As or foreigners, it's all the same rules. It's just you might not be finned, you might get deported instead.

Well supposing that your premise is that the only difference is that instead of fine you get depotation, then it's false, so supposing that the remainder of your premise is true then it's exactly the same rules.

I say this because when I was in Virginia and was hit by a truck the policeman was just going to fine me (but he decided just to give me a warning. Yeah also according to Virginia's law it was my fault as I was riding my bike in the opposite direction).

That police officer reminds me of my vice principal, and you know, I think this will help me a lot.

I think the police should shoot when they are intimidates, in the leg or arm ofcourse, they should act harsher, and not give tickets to granny's or whatever.

grannys need tickets. I think their should be stricter laws in place for elderly drivers, like they need to get a driving test every so year to make sure they can still drive.

and excessive force is bad. Id be fine with the cups punching some one who's messing with them, but shooting?

CoolKidX wrote:

I think the police should shoot when they are intimidates, in the leg or arm ofcourse, they should act harsher, and not give tickets to granny's or whatever.

What.

Quote :

Well supposing that your premise is that the only difference is that instead of fine you get depotation, then it's false, so supposing that the remainder of your premise is true then it's exactly the same rules.

No, what I said is MIGHT.

As for your Virginia thing, well... if you were going the wrong way, yeah. That is a law. Sorry.

Quote :

I think the police should shoot when they are intimidates, in the leg or arm ofcourse, they should act harsher, and not give tickets to granny's or whatever.

What? Did you just say they should be harsher and shoot more people?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

As for your Virginia thing, well... if you were going the wrong way, yeah. That is a law. Sorry.

A law as stupid as the urban planification there. Although I wa snot complaining, just simply making a reference to the fact that, at least in Virginia they first fine a foreigner for such an infraction.

Not stupid, really. It's flow of traffic. Bikes are treated like any motor vehicle.

In USA bicycles count as pedestrians. Or are you talking about Motorcycles, they have the same laws as any other motor vehicle.

I was under the same impression that Canada was like that too, and this link is referring to the US isn't it?

Maybe America IS different. I know that here, bikes, even on sidewalks must flow with traffic. Period.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Not stupid, really. It's flow of traffic. Bikes are treated like any motor vehicle.

Stupid urban planification requires stupid laws. Aside from Hungarians, US drivers are the least careful I know of.

It's not stupid, it's for pedestrian's and driver's, as well as biker's, safety.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

It's not stupid, it's for pedestrian's and driver's, as well as biker's, safety.

My argument is that urban planification itself there is stupid leaving no place but for stupid reglamentation.

Here in Mexico, for example, you have to check both sides and always, no matter what, if you hit a pedestrian as a driver it's your responsability which forces drivers to be far more careful. It's definitely a better reglamentation as it makes drivers be more cautious and contemplate more possibilities like vehicles coming from a direction opposite to which they should which although rare it's still possible.

Ah, but we have right of way. That's where the blame comes from. Otherwise, one must look to see if they have rightof way, and if they don't and simply assume, then it's their fault.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Ah, but we have right of way. That's where the blame comes from. Otherwise, one must look to see if they have rightof way, and if they don't and simply assume, then it's their fault.

And here the pedestrian always has the priority. The only case in which the pedestrian may be at fault is when green light is on for cars.

Okay. Here it's different. And God help you if you jaywalk.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Okay. Here it's different. And God help you if you jaywalk.

Pretty inhumane.

Not really. The rules are there to allow everyone, pedestrian and vehicle, to, as safely as possibly, continue on their way. Oh, and I forgot to mention that pedestrians on crosswalks always have right of way IF AT A LIGHT. If there's no light, they only have right of way if already on the street.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Not really. The rules are there to allow everyone, pedestrian and vehicle, to, as safely as possibly, continue on their way. Oh, and I forgot to mention that pedestrians on crosswalks always have right of way IF AT A LIGHT. If there's no light, they only have right of way if already on the street.

Rules should be so that the driver has to take extreme precaution, far more than pedestrians. The position as driver of a vehicle implies far more responsability than the position as pedestrian - mistakes, malfunctions on the vehicle or unexpected problems can potentially have far more serious implications than anything the pedestrian, by his quality as pedestrian, can do. Therefore rules should always limit drivers more, in all senses. Else, all persons are pedestrians (or equivalent) while not all are drivers so the rules' balance should always lean considerably in favor of pedestrians.

And they do, depending on the situation. Actually, you never explained what exactly happened. How did he hit you? Jump the curb? Did you jump out in front of him? What exactly happened?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And they do, depending on the situation. Actually, you never explained what exactly happened. How did he hit you? Jump the curb? Did you jump out in front of him? What exactly happened?

I'm not talking about that situation, I'm talking in general. I believe that, without exception, the driver should always be more careful and rules limiting of him.

As for my accident, this happened on the highway. I was riding the bike within the bike's lane (the space between a white line painted on the road and the sidewalk[soil,grass,whatever] for bikes to go through) towards the house wher I wa staying. In front of me there was this construction equipment warehouse and a truck was about to exit its parking lot. The driver of the truck waited for the highway to be clear of incoming cars. Meanwhile I thought I could go around it by its left side as no cars were coming. As soon as I was about 1m away from it, the driver pulled forward and hit me.

Yeah, that's your fault. Bike lane is the same as the road. And the driver IS to be more careful, but even if he didn't look YOUR way, he shouldn't of had to, since you are not supposed to be driving in that direction. I'm surprised you weren't actually arrested for that. I mean, civilians jumping out in front of drivers isn't the driver's fault. Drivers are to be careful at crosswalks, yes. But you were essentially driving down the wrong way down the street.