Good info.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Yeah, that's your fault.

According to those arbitrary rules I consider silly, yes. Even so, I'm not complaining.

TK wrote:

Bike lane is the same as the road.

In an implicit way.

TK wrote:

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.

*shouldn't have had (and please don't tell me that 10 years from now "shouldn't of had" will be the most widespread and correct use)

Also, since the potential implications of the drivers' mistakes or of the driver's involvement in a situation which either driver or non-driver parties commited a mistake outweigh by far those of the non-drivers', the driver should always regardless of situation be more careful and rules should always lean towards favoring those whose implication in an accident is less severe, specially when urban infrastructure allows and/or obligues those who transit roads to share these roads, if at least due to lack of physical barriers, with drivers.

Accidents can happen and blaming anyone is of no use, there should be a good urban planning and a set of rules properly distributing responsability.

Also, US is the first country I know of in which such a rule exists. Elsewher that I know, at least Russia and Mexico, it's almost always the drivers' fault regardless of the situation, which is logical considering the implications of driving a car, forcing the driver to be far more careful.

TK wrote:

I'm surprised you weren't actually arrested for that.

I don't believe law there dictates that such an infraction makes the infractor eligible for arrest, however, if there was then it would mean that the lawmakers are morons and the cops either are less moronic or simply not morons at all.

TK wrote:

I mean, civilians jumping out in front of drivers isn't the driver's fault.

Neither was my situation of this kind, nor urban designs should allow this and considering that it's a possibility regardless of the causes, the only one with the capability (or at least most of it) to prevent a death or serious damage in such a scenario is the driver who is in control of the only factor that can potentially cause death or harm in such situation.

TK wrote:

Drivers are to be careful at crosswalks, yes.

They're to be careful since the first moment they get inside the car to the moment they are about to get outside of it after parking. Anywhere, not only at crosswalks.

They're handling something that could potentially kill someone, including themselves.

TK wrote:

But you were essentially driving down the wrong way down the street.

From the perspective of those silly laws, yes.

I'm now getting convinced that mainstream driving culture within Mexico is actually superior to that within USA and Canada.

Quote :

According to those arbitrary rules

Not arbitrary. Safety.

Quote :

shouldn't have had

Whatever.

Quote :

Also, since the potential implications of the drivers' mistakes or....

You were going down the wrong way on the road. I'd have arrested you, or at least fined a shitload.

Quote :

Accidents can happen and blaming anyone is of no use, there should be a good urban planning and a set of rules properly distributing responsability.

It does. And this incident was your fault. Thus you're punished. Usually it;s the driver's though, since normally pedestrians don't walk into the street. Or ride the wrong way down a road.

Quote :

Also, US is the first country I know of in which such a rule exists. Elsewher that I know, at least Russia and Mexico, it's almost always the drivers' fault regardless of the situation, which is logical considering the implications of driving a car, forcing the driver to be far more careful.

There are several countries, Canada included. And it's not dumb, when you're going the wrong way down the street. He looked out for pedestrians, walkers, since they have priority. Perhaps he missed you, but it's moot, as the law exists for safety reasons.

Quote :

I don't believe law there dictates that such an infraction makes the infractor eligible for arrest, however, if there was then it would mean that the lawmakers are morons and the cops either are less moronic or simply not morons at all.

Driving the wrong way down the street isn't reason to arrest? Not to self, NEVER drive in Mexico.

Quote :

Neither was my situation of this kind, nor urban designs should allow this and considering that it's a possibility regardless of the causes, the only one with the capability (or at least most of it) to prevent a death or serious damage in such a scenario is the driver who is in control of the only factor that can potentially cause death or harm in such situation.

Unless the biker hits a civilian, killing them. Or causes drivers to swerve into traffic or slam their brakes.

Quote :

They're handling something that could potentially kill someone, including themselves.

Bikes can potentially kill too, as has been shown many times over the years here. It's why they're treated as motor vehicles in these situations. And youw ere driving the wrong way. Normally the fault WOULD likely be on the driver. But not if you're driving the wrong way. Unless you came out of nowhere without looking. In which case, it's your fault again.

Quote :

I'm now getting convinced that mainstream driving culture within Mexico is actually superior to that within USA and Canada.

I'm convinced I'd get my ass killed in Mexico. You've convinced me that the laws are so loose there that I'd end up ramming my car into a biker who just shoots out from between two cars, going down the wrong side of the street, making me not only hit them but swerve into oncomming traffic, paniking, and die. Behold, at least three deaths.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

According to those arbitrary rules

Not arbitrary. Safety.

They're arbitrary, the current urban planning there increases the possibility of accidents and those rules, as shown by evidence, do not work.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Also, since the potential implications of the drivers' mistakes or....

You were going down the wrong way on the road. I'd have arrested you, or at least fined a shitload.

You did not adress my point.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Accidents can happen and blaming anyone is of no use, there should be a good urban planning and a set of rules properly distributing responsability.

It does.

What does what?

TK wrote:

And this incident was your fault.

Again, according to silly laws that disregard logic.

TK wrote:

Thus you're punished.

According to a nonworkable societal organizational framework.

TK wrote:

Usually it;s the driver's though, since normally pedestrians don't walk into the street.

It's always the drivers' since they, solely by their quality of drivers, are incontrol of a high-risk factor as a car.

TK wrote:

Or ride the wrong way down a road.

As determined by silly laws.

Logically it was the driver's fault considering that he started without watching whether there was something in the way of the truck before pulling forward. I'm talking about logic, not silly laws.

TK wrote:

There are several countries, Canada included.

More to the little list of countries with ridiculous rules.

TK wrote:

And it's not dumb, when you're going the wrong way down the street.

Again, as determined by silly laws.

TK wrote:

He looked out for pedestrians, walkers, since they have priority. Perhaps he missed you,

Logic dictates that in order to prevent an incident he should ensure there's nothing in the path of the truck, which, as shown by evidence he failed to do.

TK wrote:

but it's moot, as the law exists for safety reasons.

Or for teh reason for which all legal frameworks exist: lack of logic and disregard for reason.

TK wrote:

Quote :

I don't believe law there dictates that such an infraction makes the infractor eligible for arrest, however, if there was then it would mean that the lawmakers are morons and the cops either are less moronic or simply not morons at all.

Driving the wrong way down the street isn't reason to arrest? Not to self, NEVER drive in Mexico.

Who's talking about driving? I'm talking about riding a bike or walking, things pretty different, at least by proportion, to driving a car and performed at differen places within roads.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Neither was my situation of this kind, nor urban designs should allow this and considering that it's a possibility regardless of the causes, the only one with the capability (or at least most of it) to prevent a death or serious damage in such a scenario is the driver who is in control of the only factor that can potentially cause death or harm in such situation.

Unless the biker hits a civilian, killing them.

Is "biking" a branch of the military or bureaucracy? I used to think that, unless noted otherwise, bikers are also civilians by default within urban contexts... Just kidding, I know that you should have written pedestrian.

Either way, I'm talking about a situation in which drivers are involved, making this example moot.

In my personal point of view, there should be several different kinds of lanes all with physical barriers between each other, that would be an efficient urban design. But we have a stupid system that is not based on needs satisfaction or efficiency.

TK wrote:

Or causes drivers to swerve into traffic or slam their brakes.

Occupational hazards - drive a car attain to the consequences of doing so. A car is potentially deadly, it should be handled with maximum caution.

However, one thing is that and other what happened inmy situation.

TK wrote:

Quote :

They're handling something that could potentially kill someone, including themselves.

Bikes can potentially kill too, as has been shown many times over the years here.

And still their killing potential is inmensely inferior to that of a car.

TK wrote:

It's why they're treated as motor vehicles in these situations.

In a blatant disregard for logic characteristic of legal frameworks.

TK wrote:

And youw ere driving the wrong way.

And yet again, according to silly laws.

TK wrote:

Normally the fault WOULD likely be on the driver.

The fault is on the one handling the most dangerous piece of machinery within the situation.

TK wrote:

But not if you're driving the wrong way.

Which I wasn't doing for I was not "driving" per se.

TK wrote:

Unless you came out of nowhere without looking. In which case, it's your fault again.

Facts reveal that the one not looking that there was an obstacle in the way of the vehicle was the driver.

TK wrote:

I'm convinced I'd get my ass killed in Mexico.

Unlikely, unless you caused the accident which is pretty likely. Most Americans and Canadians I know that live here say they simply can't drive here.

TK wrote:

You've convinced me that the laws are so loose there that I'd end up ramming my car into a biker who just shoots out from between two cars,

I wonder how you'd do that if you're going at a prudent speed and driving with caution.

TK wrote:

going down the wrong side of the street, making me not only hit them but swerve into oncomming traffic, paniking, and die. Behold, at least three deaths.

Canadian wacko.

Here in Mexico we have a saying "drive as if everyone else was incompetent for driving".

Funny enough I've seen more car accidents in places like France, USA and Russia than in Mexico, considered that I have stayed relatively few in those places while I live in Mexico, and the vehicular density in those places as compared to Mexico, my experience suggests that Mexicans are actually more cautious drivers.

Quote :

the current urban planning there

What exactly do you mean by urban planning.

Quote :

You did not adress my point.

Indeed I did. You said why you think it should be the driver's fault, and I said you were driving on the wrong side. Thus I adressed.

Quote :

What does what?

Rules distributing responsibility. The rule, for everyone's safety, si that the bike path is treated as the road, and thus goes in one direction, for the safety of other riders and drivers. Those paths aren;t wide. What if another biker was coming your way? Are they to go onto the sidewalk, endangering pedestrians or veer into traffic? Which are they to choose?

Quote :

It's always the drivers' since they, solely by their quality of drivers, are incontrol of a high-risk factor as a car.

So if a kid jumps out from a car parked on the street in front of a driver, where said driver can't see them, it's the driver's fault? Or if they try to cross on a crosswalk when te light is green and someone comes speeding through and hits them, it's the driver's fault?

Quote :

Or for teh reason for which all legal frameworks exist: lack of logic and disregard for reason.

No, for safety.

Quote :

Who's talking about driving? I'm talking about riding a bike or walking, things pretty different, at least by proportion, to driving a car and performed at differen places within roads.

If there's no barrier separating the bike path from the road, then the bikes are just as responsible.

Quote :

In my personal point of view, there should be several different kinds of lanes all with physical barriers between each other, that would be an efficient urban design. But we have a stupid system that is not based on needs satisfaction or efficiency.

Pedestians need to cross streets, drivers who park on the side of the road need to get onto the sidewalk, bikes need to turn left just like cars. Barriers would be stupid.

Quote :

Occupational hazards - drive a car attain to the consequences of doing so. A car is potentially deadly, it should be handled with maximum caution.

And so is a bike! And if a driver swerving to avoid an idiot biker and ends up killing people, it's the BIKER'S fault.

Quote :

And still their killing potential is inmensely inferior to that of a car.

Yet they have killing potential, and thus laws dictating them. Plus thy have the potential to make cars killers, and thus laws about them.

Quote :

The fault is on the one handling the most dangerous piece of machinery within the situation.

No it;s not! Man, I really hope you're never in charge of making laws....

Quote :

Which I wasn't doing for I was not "driving" per se.

You knew full well what I meant.

Quote :

Facts reveal that the one not looking that there was an obstacle in the way of the vehicle was the driver.

Perhaps he did not see you. But t's moot, as you yourself were breaking a pretty big law, meant for the safety of other drivers and bikers and pedestrians, made to not only keep people safe but to continue the flow of traffic.

Quote :

Most Americans and Canadians I know that live here say they simply can't drive here.

Fro what I've heard so far,t hat may be because it;s too dangerous. For everyone.

Quote :

I wonder how you'd do that if you're going at a prudent speed and driving with caution.

What counts, to you, as "prudent speed". And please say it in KPH.

Quote :

Canadian wacko.

Mexican anarchist.

Quote :

Here in Mexico we have a saying "drive as if everyone else was incompetent for driving".

That just goes without saying here.

Quote :

and the vehicular density in those places as compared to Mexico,

Pretty sure we have a higher density than in Mexico.

Okay, confession. I just checked again, and you're right. Turns out the driver IS at fault all the time. HWOEVER nikes do still need to flow WITH traffic when using bike lanes, to prevent accidents as I said above. Are you sure the cop warned you about hitting the guy, and not which way you were going?

I;m not going through this whole thing to edit out those where I say otherwise, so you know just assume.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

the current urban planning there

What exactly do you mean by urban planning.

The way roads are designed and such.

TK wrote:

Quote :

You did not adress my point.

Indeed I did. You said why you think it should be the driver's fault, and I said you were driving on the wrong side. Thus I adressed.

Nope, I said that rules should be so that the driver, regardless of the way the accident happens carries with all or most of the burden of responsability for the accident.

TK wrote:

Quote :

What does what?

Rules distributing responsibility.

In a car vs biker scenario, they certainly do not distribute reponsability in a proportionate way.

TK wrote:

The rule, for everyone's safety, si that the bike path is treated as the road, and thus goes in one direction, for the safety of other riders and drivers. Those paths aren;t wide. What if another biker was coming your way? Are they to go onto the sidewalk, endangering pedestrians or veer into traffic? Which are they to choose?

I'll agree on that situation which goes to my point that the urban planning there is relatively mediocre. However, in a scenario where the accident involves a driver and a non-driver, the driver is to carry most of the responsability simply for being a driver.

TK wrote:

Quote :

It's always the drivers' since they, solely by their quality of drivers, are incontrol of a high-risk factor as a car.

So if a kid jumps out from a car parked on the street in front of a driver, where said driver can't see them, it's the driver's fault? Or if they try to cross on a crosswalk when te light is green and someone comes speeding through and hits them, it's the driver's fault?

Yup, they should consider the whole range of possibilities. If something is obstructing their visibility, such as cars that can cover kids, they should drive more slowly. If the light is green they should still be paying attention to whether there's someone that may cross or not regardless of the light.

To many the green light means nothing, either because they don't know what it stands for or because they can't even see it. Criterion goes first, you can't be dogmatic about fallible things.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Who's talking about driving? I'm talking about riding a bike or walking, things pretty different, at least by proportion, to driving a car and performed at differen places within roads.

If there's no barrier separating the bike path from the road, then the bikes are just as responsible.

Not at all as they represent a far lesser threat.

TK wrote:

Quote :

In my personal point of view, there should be several different kinds of lanes all with physical barriers between each other, that would be an efficient urban design. But we have a stupid system that is not based on needs satisfaction or efficiency.

Pedestians need to cross streets, drivers who park on the side of the road need to get onto the sidewalk, bikes need to turn left just like cars. Barriers would be stupid.

Barriers wouldn't be stupid unless they were applied to the stupid urban design we have currently. If such barriers were to be put the whole urban design would have to change accordingly.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Occupational hazards - drive a car attain to the consequences of doing so. A car is potentially deadly, it should be handled with maximum caution.

And so is a bike! And if a driver swerving to avoid an idiot biker and ends up killing people, it's the BIKER'S fault.

Bikes, again, and this is an undeniable fact, are potentially less dangerous than cars.
The only scenario where it could be the biker's fault is if he was riding the bike right in the middle of the road at full speed in the opposite direction. Otherwise, it's the driver's fault.

TK wrote:

Quote :

And still their killing potential is inmensely inferior to that of a car.

Yet they have killing potential, and thus laws dictating them. Plus thy have the potential to make cars killers, and thus laws about them.

Bikes can only represent a serious threat to life in very special conditions while a car, used in a normal way (specially as they do in the USA) is far more deadly, thus the one who handles it should be proportionally more careful and responsible.

TK wrote:

Quote :

The fault is on the one handling the most dangerous piece of machinery within the situation.

No it;s not! Man, I really hope you're never in charge of making laws....

I'll rephrase: The burden of responsability is proportional to the potential danger that the piece of machinery implies. And again I'll refer to the only case in which I believe a biker could be held responsible.

Else, laws are stupid and, if combined with a mediocre urban design and lack of driving criterion they just create massively idiotic situations.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Which I wasn't doing for I was not "driving" per se.

You knew full well what I meant.

Yup. Still I was not driving.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Facts reveal that the one not looking that there was an obstacle in the way of the vehicle was the driver.

Perhaps he did not see you. But t's moot,

If he did see me, he's an idiot, if he did not see me, he's irresponsible and, while moot according to laws, it certainly is not moot according to logic.

TK wrote:

as you yourself were breaking a pretty big law,

The bigger the law, the more stupid it is.

TK wrote:

meant for the safety of other drivers and bikers and pedestrians, made to not only keep people safe but to continue the flow of traffic.

There's no better way to keep safety than by being as careful as possible, specially when your condition demands it to be so.

[quote="TK"]

Quote :

Most Americans and Canadians I know that live here say they simply can't drive here.

Fro what I've heard so far,t hat may be because it;s too dangerous. For everyone.[/quiote]

The way they drive, for sure. Their driving environments make them comparably less cautious drivers than the average driver here.

TK wrote:

Quote :

I wonder how you'd do that if you're going at a prudent speed and driving with caution.

What counts, to you, as "prudent speed". And please say it in KPH.

I hate imperial units. Prudent speed varies from place to place. In a narrow street where there are lots of parked cars, for example 20 km/h, no more than 40km/h. In a main avenue 60-80km/h. Highway 120-140km/h.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Canadian wacko.

Mexican anarchist.

Thank you for the compliment.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Here in Mexico we have a saying "drive as if everyone else was incompetent for driving".

That just goes without saying here.

That's sane.

TK wrote:

Quote :

and the vehicular density in those places as compared to Mexico,

Pretty sure we have a higher density than in Mexico.

From a New Yorker, I'd have considered it... but from a Canadian. Definitely not. In Mexico city, which by size a relatively small Megapolis, we've got about 10 million cars plus another 4 to 6 million coming and going from outside the city.

TK wrote:

Okay, confession. I just checked again, and you're right. Turns out the driver IS at fault all the time. HWOEVER nikes do still need to flow WITH traffic when using bike lanes, to prevent accidents as I said above. Are you sure the cop warned you about hitting the guy, and not which way you were going?

Ok. So, the cop just told me that I should be riding the bike in accordance to the flow. Also, in another ocassion, other policeman told me and my exgf that we should be riding in the other lane. Just little warnings.

TK wrote:

I;m not going through this whole thing to edit out those where I say otherwise, so you know just assume.

I guess I shouldn't be replying parragraph by parragraph...

Quote :

The way roads are designed and such.

And what do you suggest? Completely redoing the roads? Do you have any idea how stupid that is?

Quote :

I guess I shouldn't be replying parragraph by parragraph...

(Smaks your head.) Gee, you think?

Quote :

To many the green light means nothing, either because they don't know what it stands for or because they can't even see it.

Who doesn't know what it means? Foreigners perhaps, but I don't think there's a country that allows ignorance of the law to be an excuse. As for not seeing it, impossible. They're purposefully set up to be vsible. It's not something that gets hidden. If you can;t see, why are you driving? If walking, they make crosswalk signals with tones. Or jingles.

Quote :

If such barriers were to be put the whole urban design would have to change accordingly.

As opinted above,a nd further explained here, it sounds like you're suggesting tearing up all the roads and demolishing buildings in order to redesign roads. Which, as I say above, is an incredibly stupid idea if that's what you're suggesting.

Quote :

(specially as they do in the USA)

What do you mean by this?

Quote :

The bigger the law, the more stupid it is.

No.... What? So not murdering is a stupid law, but not vandalising something isn't?

Quote :

The way they drive, for sure. Their driving environments make them comparably less cautious drivers than the average driver here.

I disagree. I myself am an incredibly cautious driver. Most are. Certainly there are bad apples, and with more peopel on the road, logically you;d have more of those bad apples ON the road. Price one pays for living in a country with a higher population.

Quote :

I hate imperial units.

All hail metric.

Quote :

In a narrow street where there are lots of parked cars, for example 20 km/h, no more than 40km/h. In a main avenue 60-80km/h.

Sounds perfect. Here in town it's 50kph, but still. That's how it is.

Quote :

Highway 120-140km/h.

WOAH! Where the hell are YOU driving, the autobahn!? Knock 20 and 40 off those numbers man, or you'll kill someone!

Quote :

Thank you for the compliment.

I hate anarchy. Just as bad as libertarianism.

Quote :

From a New Yorker, I'd have considered it... but from a Canadian. Definitely not. In Mexico city, which by size a relatively small Megapolis, we've got about 10 million cars plus another 4 to 6 million coming and going from outside the city

Toronto alone is as big as NYC. Windsor, the nearest big sity, is on the border, next to Detroit. Lots of traffic.

Quote :

Ok. So, the cop just told me that I should be riding the bike in accordance to the flow. Also, in another ocassion, other policeman told me and my exgf that we should be riding in the other lane. Just little warnings.

This is correct.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

The way roads are designed and such.

And what do you suggest? Completely redoing the roads? Do you have any idea how stupid that is?

It's not stupid at all considering how ridiculously disfunctional urban planning is today.

TK wrote:

Quote :

To many the green light means nothing, either because they don't know what it stands for or because they can't even see it.

Who doesn't know what it means? Foreigners perhaps,

Small children could be a good example of people that may potentially not know what the green light stands for. Here in Mexico lots of people from rural areas do not know what the green light stands for. People with some mental condition may forget and/or disacknowledge the meaning of the green light. There are many possibilities.

TK wrote:

but I don't think there's a country that allows ignorance of the law to be an excuse.

Which is another of the many stupidities characteristic of the law. Punishing someone for being ignorant is one of the most idiotic and irrational things a human can do. Yet, of course, it's what this system we have now is built on, among other things.

TK wrote:

As for not seeing it, impossible. They're purposefully set up to be vsible.

Aside from blind and daltonic people, there can be situations in which there are unusual barriers for vision be it a branch of a tree or a sign moved by the wind. Aside from this there's always the possibility for the traffic light to fail.

TK wrote:

It's not something that gets hidden. If you can;t see, why are you driving?

I didn't talk about blind drivers, I was refering to pedestrians. And even so, a lot of people that cannot or can just barely see do drive simply because they can physically hop into the vehicle, start the engine and make the car move in which case is lack of criterion and that's precisely what I'm criticizing here.

TK wrote:

If walking, they make crosswalk signals with tones. Or jingles.

What if they don't work?

TK wrote:

Quote :

If such barriers were to be put the whole urban design would have to change accordingly.

As opinted above,a nd further explained here, it sounds like you're suggesting tearing up all the roads and demolishing buildings in order to redesign roads. Which, as I say above, is an incredibly stupid idea if that's what you're suggesting.

It's not stupid, rather it's the correction of a stupidity.

TK wrote:

Quote :

(specially as they do in the USA)

What do you mean by this?

That the average driver in USA is pretty aggressive and careless in comparison to other drivers, or so would suggest my experience in California, Virginia, Florida, Washington, New York and Maryland.

TK wrote:

Quote :

The bigger the law, the more stupid it is.

No.... What? So not murdering is a stupid law, but not vandalising something isn't?

Both are stupid laws. They definitely do not serve to prevent or solve the problem (in teh first case the problem is impossible to solve so the law is literally moot). The only real problem is that there are actually incentives and/or reasons to kill or vandalise and as facts show laws do not solve or prevent either from happening.

I myself had thought on killing people and it was not law what stopped me, I didn't even think about the law when doing it and I'm not the only one who has considered it and who wasn't stopped by the law. In fact we should actually be fearing those for whom law is the main or only barrier preventing them from killing people.

As for vandalising, the same thing. If you vandalise it's merely because you don't really care about respecting other's space and that itself has an origin which is what is relevant.

TK wrote:

Quote :

The way they drive, for sure. Their driving environments make them comparably less cautious drivers than the average driver here.

I disagree. I myself am an incredibly cautious driver. Most are.

I frankly have never seen Canadians driving, at least not to my knowledge, I was parting from the premise that the average Canadian drives in a similar manner as that of the average American which, after my observations, definitely appears as a much less cautious driver than the average Mexican driver.

TK wrote:

Certainly there are bad apples, and with more peopel on the road, logically you;d have more of those bad apples ON the road. Price one pays for living in a country with a higher population.

Fair enough, for Canada. In the case of USA this arguement makes it worse as despite being less people there they already seem, in average less cautious drivers than in Mexico City where the population is at least 3-5 times that of all the places I've been to in the USA in average.

TK wrote:

Quote :

In a narrow street where there are lots of parked cars, for example 20 km/h, no more than 40km/h. In a main avenue 60-80km/h.

Sounds perfect. Here in town it's 50kph, but still. That's how it is.

Seems reasonable, although perhaps it should be varied depending on how you see the street.
Here "Valet Parkings" (and we're at war with them; they're a special kind of non-cautious driver) drive in narrow streets at up to 70-90km/h. One day all my neighbors and I closed access to the street to all of them for 6 hours and are currently negociating for a law against them (we can do so much).

TK wrote:

Quote :

Highway 120-140km/h.

WOAH! Where the hell are YOU driving, the autobahn!? Knock 20 and 40 off those numbers man, or you'll kill someone!

Here the average speed for Highway is 120km/h although I personally never exceed 100. My uncle, on the other hand is a wacko that drives at 220km/h on the highway. Most accidents here occur at 160-180km/h. I was told by a friend from Spain that the average limit for highways there is 140km/h which seemed somewhat reasonable to me.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Thank you for the compliment.

I hate anarchy. Just as bad as libertarianism.

History shows otherwise. Libertarianism acknowledges the right of private groups of people to de facto govern over others and even compete for this domination, anarchy stands for lack of anyone to govern over anyone - as soon as I come with a gun and demand you to do what I want or I kill you, our relationship is not anarchic anymore, thus within that context there's no anarchy.

TK wrote:

Quote :

From a New Yorker, I'd have considered it... but from a Canadian. Definitely not. In Mexico city, which by size a relatively small Megapolis, we've got about 10 million cars plus another 4 to 6 million coming and going from outside the city

Toronto alone is as big as NYC. Windsor, the nearest big sity, is on the border, next to Detroit. Lots of traffic.

And still, NYC is small compared to Mexico city. Here there are as many cars as people in NYC. We've got about 20+% of all the country's population in Mexico City.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Ok. So, the cop just told me that I should be riding the bike in accordance to the flow. Also, in another ocassion, other policeman told me and my exgf that we should be riding in the other lane. Just little warnings.

This is correct.

Certainly.

Quote :

Small children could be a good example of people that may potentially not know what the green light stands for.

Why are smal children driving? Or walking alone? Obviously the first was a joke.

Quote :

Here in Mexico lots of people from rural areas do not know what the green light stands for.

And it's generally accepted that the general level of education is less in Mexico than America, and that's actually pretty bad.

Quote :

People with some mental condition may forget and/or disacknowledge the meaning of the green light.

So that means we should tear them down amd stop using them?

Quote :

Punishing someone for being ignorant is one of the most idiotic and irrational things a human can do.

I generally have to agree, but letting someone drive on your roads without knowing the rules is dumb, and is something you, who is calling for absolute caution from drivers, should be saying.

Quote :

there can be situations in which there are unusual barriers for vision be it a branch of a tree or a sign moved by the wind

I don;t kow about there, but here they're meticulously kept free of that. You can face serious fines if your sign covers one.

Quote :

Aside from this there's always the possibility for the traffic light to fail.

And there are laws for THIS eventuality as well. It's treated as a four way stop.

Quote :

And even so, a lot of people that cannot or can just barely see do drive simply because they can physically hop into the vehicle, start the engine and make the car move in which case is lack of criterion and that's precisely what I'm criticizing here.

That kind of shit's not allowed. It does happen, but that's why police patrol and have speed traps and such. Those peopel are kept off the road, legally at least, until tey either get a driver or corrective lenses if possible. I thin the government has programs that are supoprted by standard insurance to provide people with drivers.

Quote :

It's not stupid, rather it's the correction of a stupidity.

Well, since that's what you're suggesting, then yes, it IS stupid, and comepletely unrealistic.

Quote :

That the average driver in USA is pretty aggressive and careless in comparison to other drivers, or so would suggest my experience in California, Virginia, Florida, Washington, New York and Maryland.

(Shrugs.) Perhaps. Can't honestly say about America.

Quote :

The only real problem is that there are actually incentives and/or reasons to kill or vandalise

Please tell me the perk to vandalising, beyond the possible fun?

Quote :

I myself had thought on killing people and it was not law what stopped me, I didn't even think about the law when doing it and I'm not the only one who has considered it and who wasn't stopped by the law. In fact we should actually be fearing those for whom law is the main or only barrier preventing them from killing people.

I agree, but the law removes these people fro society so they can be prevnted from doing it again, IE serial killers. Personally I think more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation, and not puishment, though. Europes done well in that regard, generally.

Quote :

I frankly have never seen Canadians driving, at least not to my knowledge, I was parting from the premise that the average Canadian drives in a similar manner as that of the average American which, after my observations, definitely appears as a much less cautious driver than the average Mexican driver.

From what I;ve heard from friends, Americans ARE in fact a tad more aggressive.

Quote :

Fair enough, for Canada. In the case of USA this arguement makes it worse as despite being less people

I though America had a higher population than both our countries combined.

Quote :

Here "Valet Parkings" (and we're at war with them; they're a special kind of non-cautious driver) drive in narrow streets at up to 70-90km/h. One day all my neighbors and I closed access to the street to all of them for 6 hours and are currently negociating for a law against them (we can do so much).

Here, that's what the police are for. Something like that can net you a $500 -$1000 fine, AND suspension of your liscence. Now, while you can still drive without one, if you do ANYTHING that gets you pulled over, even a random stop, guess who goes to jail for the night and gets their car impounded.

Quote :

I was told by a friend from Spain that the average limit for highways there is 140km/h which seemed somewhat reasonable to me.

Seems completely unreasonable to me. There's one highway that goes 120, the QED apparently, but I;ve never been, and am ot even sure where it goes.

Quote :

as soon as I come with a gun and demand you to do what I want or I kill you, our relationship is not anarchic anymore, thus within that context there's no anarchy.

Which in anarchy there's nothing preventing this.

Quote :

And still, NYC is small compared to Mexico city. Here there are as many cars as people in NYC. We've got about 20+% of all the country's population in Mexico City.

So you're basing your one city to how many?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Why are smal children driving? Or walking alone? Obviously the first was a joke.

Because you can't be taking them by the hand all they neither is it good fr the adult nor the child.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Here in Mexico lots of people from rural areas do not know what the green light stands for.

And it's generally accepted that the general level of education is less in Mexico than America, and that's actually pretty bad.

In regards to the education level, more Mexicans can point to Mexico on a map than Americans can point to USA. It's more a matter of need. Most of these people come from places where traffic lights are not even necessary so they never have the need to learn what they stand for until they come to the city.

TK wrote:

Quote :

People with some mental condition may forget and/or disacknowledge the meaning of the green light.

So that means we should tear them down amd stop using them?

I never even implied this, I merely implied that they're not entirely reliable and that they should not be determinant for how one drives or walks - what should be predominant is criterion.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Punishing someone for being ignorant is one of the most idiotic and irrational things a human can do.

I generally have to agree, but letting someone drive on your roads without knowing the rules is dumb, and is something you, who is calling for absolute caution from drivers, should be saying.

Again, I was refering to pedestrians mainly. A driver that does not understand traffic signalization and rules is out of teh question.

TK wrote:

Quote :

there can be situations in which there are unusual barriers for vision be it a branch of a tree or a sign moved by the wind

I don;t kow about there, but here they're meticulously kept free of that. You can face serious fines if your sign covers one.

Anytime wind can be strong enough to bend or slightly break branches transforming them into unexpected obstacles for visibility. Similar things can happen to traffic signs and such.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Aside from this there's always the possibility for the traffic light to fail.

And there are laws for THIS eventuality as well. It's treated as a four way stop.

And how is a four way stop treated?

TK wrote:

That kind of shit's not allowed. It does happen, but that's why police patrol and have speed traps and such. Those peopel are kept off the road, legally at least, until tey either get a driver or corrective lenses if possible. I thin the government has programs that are supoprted by standard insurance to provide people with drivers.

And still that won't prevent them from grabbing a car and potentially causing an accident. Maybe reincidence, but not incidence.

TK wrote:

Quote :

It's not stupid, rather it's the correction of a stupidity.

Well, since that's what you're suggesting, then yes, it IS stupid, and comepletely unrealistic.

Absolutely not, in fact is something that should and will eventually happen, hopefully sooner than later suposing megapoli are not disbanded first.

TK wrote:

Quote :

The only real problem is that there are actually incentives and/or reasons to kill or vandalise

Please tell me the perk to vandalising, beyond the possible fun?

Delimiting gangs' territories, offending dwellers and/or people walking by, protest, expressing messages, art, etc.

90% of the vandalism I know of (and I know lots of people who do it) are due to those causes.

TK wrote:

I agree, but the law removes these people fro society so they can be prevnted from doing it again, IE serial killers.

1. Supposing that it actually succeeds in catching the culprit, which often does not happen.
2. It still does not prevent or dimishes incidence since it doesn't adress the genus. Besides it serves as a palliative for people by making a single mechanism assume the whole responsability of what actually is the responsability of all the society - providing a functional and as less hostile as possible environment for the individuals developing within the collective.

TK wrote:

Personally I think more emphasis should be placed on rehabilitation, and not puishment, though. Europes done well in that regard, generally.

When there's a need to do something, no matter how much rehabiitation, you'll still be doing it.

TK wrote:

From what I;ve heard from friends, Americans ARE in fact a tad more aggressive.

Probably more than a tad. After all, Canadians are internationally regarded as far more calm, conscious and overall pleasant than Americans, no wonder they are internationally more welcome, aside from obvious political considerations.

TK wrote:

Quote :

Fair enough, for Canada. In the case of USA this arguement makes it worse as despite being less people

I though America had a higher population than both our countries combined.

We're talking about cities in specific and density. While USA has circa 300 million people (3 times as much as Mexico and slightly more than 6 times as much as Canada) it's a far larger country than Mexico meaning that there's less poopulational density and meaning that lots of cities will be smaller than at least Mexico's capitol which by itself has as much as half of all the population of Canada.

TK wrote:

Here, that's what the police are for. Something like that can net you a $500 -$1000 fine, AND suspension of your liscence. Now, while you can still drive without one, if you do ANYTHING that gets you pulled over, even a random stop, guess who goes to jail for the night and gets their car impounded.

Here police is supposed to be for that but "they have mercy on people with low incomes" which is quite understandable considering that they have quite a low income themselves. They sometimes even receive some money from these Valet Parkings to just disregard their infractions.

On that ocassion, my neighbors called the police and they sent 6 patrol cars to assist on our blockade and to prevent any clash (we were about to start a small brawl with the Valet Parkings). However they did not even detain any Valet, they just impounded one car and got the manager of the Valet Parkings to pay the fine, which is relatively small - about 60 US dollars.

TK wrote:

Quote :

I was told by a friend from Spain that the average limit for highways there is 140km/h which seemed somewhat reasonable to me.

Seems completely unreasonable to me. There's one highway that goes 120, the QED apparently, but I;ve never been, and am ot even sure where it goes.

I guess it depends on the design of teh highway or the terrain, I mean, whether it's unreasonable or not. For example, here, in highways that have lots of dangerous curves average driving speed is reduced a lot in contrast to flatter highways, sometimes up to 40-60km/h less.

TK wrote:

Quote :

as soon as I come with a gun and demand you to do what I want or I kill you, our relationship is not anarchic anymore, thus within that context there's no anarchy.

Which in anarchy there's nothing preventing this.

If there was anarchy, that would not be happening, but it's not.

In an anarchic system where the populace is organised in different kinds of communities each community has certainly a mechanism to prevent this from happening although the most important barrier to such an event is actually rationality, atking by example anarchistic communities like the workers' unions in Spain, Krondstat, the Free Territory of Ukraine and the Paris commune.

Besides, most people don't act without a reason. If you want people to work for you because you've got a larger gun or bigger muscles and want to force them 1) you can fail and that will cost you physically, 2) the effort to coerce may outweigh the effort of actually trading your work fo theirs or engaging in consensi 3) if you destroy the other you end up in a worse situation as now there's no one to assist you working.

As I say, rationality.

Quote :

And still, NYC is small compared to Mexico city. Here there are as many cars as people in NYC. We've got about 20+% of all the country's population in Mexico City.

So you're basing your one city to how many?[/quote]

I'm sorry I don't quite get the question.

Do you mean that I'm comparing my city to how many others or what?

Quote :

Because you can't be taking them by the hand all they neither is it good fr the adult nor the child.

What? Why can't I take them by the hand? And HOW is that not good?

Quote :

In regards to the education level, more Mexicans can point to Mexico on a map than Americans can point to USA

As I said, when your overal quality of education is less than America's, it's pretty bad.

Quote :

Most of these people come from places where traffic lights are not even necessary so they never have the need to learn what they stand for until they come to the city.

Here it's part of learning to drive, period. It's kinda on the tests and everything. Plus you'd likely be hard pressed to find a town without at least one. My town, Essex, has two.

Quote :

I never even implied this, I merely implied that they're not entirely reliable and that they should not be determinant for how one drives or walks - what should be predominant is criterion.

Thelight is meant to help maintain the flow of traffic, so that everyonemay get to where they're going without impeeding others and without getting killed. THat's their purpose.

Quote :

Again, I was refering to pedestrians mainly.

But for the purposes of biking, in America, you're no loonger considered a pedestrian As I said, the car is stll at fault, but you're not a pedestrian and have rules to follow. You could ave caused an accident.

Quote :

Anytime wind can be strong enough to bend or slightly break branches transforming them into unexpected obstacles for visibility.

What part of "kept clear" aren;t you getting? If that's a danger, guess what gets cut.

Quote :

And how is a four way stop treated?

The first to stop has right of way for turning and moving.

Quote :

And still that won't prevent them from grabbing a car and potentially causing an accident

And so they die, or go to jail. Of course this can;t actually be physically stopped, beyond the threat of jail. But most respect the law enough, rules put in place to protect society, to not.

Quote :

Absolutely not, in fact is something that should and will eventually happen, hopefully sooner than later suposing megapoli are not disbanded first.

Dude, people are not going to just give up their homes like that while they wait for the commies to build them new ones.

Quote :

90% of the vandalism I know of (and I know lots of people who do it) are due to those causes.

90% I know of are for fun. Or gangs, but I did say perk. Meant societal.

Quote :

art

There are companies and stores that allow grafitii artists to tag their walls. In fact we hold competitions and galleries.

Quote :

1. Supposing that it actually succeeds in catching the culprit, which often does not happen.

Often? Yes. USually? No.

Quote :

providing a functional and as less hostile as possible environment for the individuals developing within the collective.

Most serial killers aren;t doing it for money or need, but are rather crazy. Perhaps not straight jacket cray, but generally have severe emotional problems.

Quote :

When there's a need to do something, no matter how much rehabiitation, you'll still be doing it.

Again, serial kilers generally do not have a "need" that societal changes can fix. But drugs and therapy can.

Quote :

no wonder they are internationally more welcome

y teacher told me a story once about a trip to France. At a restaurant the waiter literally spit on him and called him a fucking American. When my teacher told him he was Canadian, the waiter not only appologised and wipped up the spit, but gave him his meal for free.

Quote :

They sometimes even receive some money from these Valet Parkings to just disregard their infractions.

You know Mexico's police are a joke on the international stage, right? LA cops, too.

Quote :

in highways that have lots of dangerous curves average driving speed is reduced a lot in contrast to flatter highways, sometimes up to 40-60km/h less.

Well naturally on curves there's signs telling you to slow down. Makes sence.

Quote :

If there was anarchy, that would not be happening, but it's not.

How would that not hapen?

Quote :

each community has certainly a mechanism to prevent this from happening

So, like, the police?

Quote :

although the most important barrier to such an event is actually rationality, atking by example

When most people kill, rationality isn't in the equation.

Quote :

If you want people to work for you because you've got a larger gun or bigger muscles and want to force them

In anarchy what's to prevent this? As for the failure, th average person will do whatever the guy with the gun wants. The average GROUP will, too. And if the person with the gun has more peopl with guns helping them, well....

Quote :

Do you mean that I'm comparing my city to how many others or what?

I can;t recall, sorry.