Page 2 of 57 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 566

Thread: Aggressive protesters vs. traffic ways

  1. #11
    I like big buts Sir Caveat's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    Apparently arouses a lot of other peoples hostility too.
    I'm sure it does arouse a lot of hostility among law abiding people. Therefore, such protests are likely to be counterproductive, gaining more broad antipathy that sympathy for the cause. The BLM protests were likely a contributing factor to getting Trump elected.

  2. #12
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    I'm sure it does arouse a lot of hostility among law abiding people. Therefore, such protests are likely to be counterproductive, gaining more broad antipathy that sympathy for the cause. The BLM protests were likely a contributing factor to getting Trump elected.
    What's not law abiding about using a pedestrian crossing? That's a sanctuary from aggressive drivers like that bus driver who was breaking the law right?

  3. #13
    I like big buts Sir Caveat's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    What's not law abiding about using a pedestrian crossing? That's a sanctuary from aggressive drivers like that bus driver who was breaking the law right?
    Geez I can't believe I have to explain this. No it's not a sanctuary. It's not a place for loitering. It's a crossing. It's a place for transit. That "Don't Walk" sign doesn't mean to stand around in the crosswalk. It means wait on the curb and give the automobile traffic an opportunity to pass.

  4. #14
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    Geez I can't believe I have to explain this. No it's not a sanctuary. It's not a place for loitering. It's a crossing. It's a place for transit. That "Don't Walk" sign doesn't mean to stand around in the crosswalk. It means wait on the curb and give the automobile traffic an opportunity to pass.
    American pedestrian laws are a little different to the rest of the world due to extensive lobbying by the motor vehicle industry. In the UK the lights are advisory only and pedestrians have rights to the whole road at all times.

    I don't know... what are the specific laws in the US? Both regarding lawful protest and pedestrians on crossings?

  5. #15
    I like big buts Sir Caveat's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,597
    I like the Little Rascals Taxi (starting at 5:10). It has some interesting road clearing devices (1st one introduced at 6:45).


  6. #16
    I like big buts Sir Caveat's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,597
    Quote Originally Posted by jyng1 View Post
    American pedestrian laws are a little different to the rest of the world due to extensive lobbying by the motor vehicle industry. In the UK the lights are advisory only and pedestrians have rights to the whole road at all times.

    I don't know... what are the specific laws in the US? Both regarding lawful protest and pedestrians on crossings?
    Protest is a form of speech and protesters are generally free to protest on public property. But it's not an unlimited right. The state may place time and place restrictions on speech/protest. I understand that roadways are not generally places where protests are legally authorized without getting a permit.

    It's illegal to cross against a "Don't Walk" sign but I've never seen anybody actually ticketed for that. Whether pedestrians are in the road legally, or not, drivers have a duty to drive with care and to avoid hitting them. As I see it, people who intentionally block the road are doing so illegally and are unfairly taking advantage of the drivers' duty of care, which is cause to consider changing that duty in those aggravating circumstances.

  7. #17
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    As I see it, people who intentionally block the road are doing so illegally and are unfairly taking advantage of the drivers' duty of care, which is cause to consider changing that duty in those aggravating circumstances.
    We had a member of parliament charged for careless driving causing injury when he drove into two anti-TPP protesters who were blocking his car last year, so sounds similar.

  8. #18
    Now we know... Asteroids Champion ACow's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,478
    @Mike and others

    I'm curious to know your general attitude towards protesting/civil disobedience?

    To me, it seems pretty obvious that of course you have to impede. That's the whole point. That if enough people stand up and impede in society, eventually large bodies have to be taken seriously.

    Protesting without impeding seems kind of...well...pointless. Civil disobedience and protest is not "non-interference", nor merely a right of speech shouting to an empty room in a designated area (irrespective of the findings and legal changes post-9/11).

    Its possession of factories, property, buildings, blockades, etc. Now some forms might be aimed at being non-violent, which is to say, not staged with the goal of actively hurting or committing violence directly against people or authorities, but I just can't get my head around this idea of a society of protest without impedance.

    I'm curious to know your opinion on this? Do you protest? What form do you think protest and civil disobedience should take? When do you think impedance is justified?

    I'm guessing you don't protest given what you think protest should be. Hey, that's cool. I don't either. Primarily because both of us think that protesting without impeding would be...well...kind of dumb and empty and pointless.

    Honestly, I think, if we're being honest with each other, what I believe you'd really like is this: I think you support the general state of things, and given that, wish protesters would know their place and get out of the way. You're fine with them protesting as long as it has no effect on you...which is to say, if protesting is relegated to an almost literally pointless activity.
    Last edited by ACow; 01-29-2017 at 12:01 AM.

  9. #19
    Hasta Siempre Madrigal's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Maņana
    Posts
    8,318
    INTPx Award Winner
    Not even watching the video. Traffic flow comes second to a fuckton of human rights, in my opinion. No such thing as a protest that doesn't bother anybody.

    Whenever a driver complains that a protestor broke something on his car, it tells me he was attempting to force his way through a picket and got off lightly.
    Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent. - Mao

  10. #20
    I like big buts Sir Caveat's Avatar
    Type
    INTx
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,597
    You're right @Acow ;I don't protest.

    I support the right of others to protest. I don't agree that impeding is essential to protest. I actually think that interfering with the general public, such as by blocking roads is counterproductive, being likely to create more antipathy than sympathy for the protesters and whatever they're advocating. That's not democracy. That's intimidation. Screw that.

    The Tea party had mass protests, such as one on the mall in DC, and they showed up to express their grievances when their elected representatives met their constituents. They did so without blocking any roads, blockading any buildings, or shutting down anybody else's right to free speech. I think they thereby effectively made their voices heard. The "right to life" people marched in DC on Thursday and to the extent they marched on any roads I'm sure they did it with a permit and there was advanced notice of any road closures to minimize interfering with other people.

    Civil disobedience has its place in the form of violating unjust laws, for example violating unjust segregation laws. Maybe don't pay your taxes. However, I don't agree with civil disobedience that impedes other citizens carrying out their daily affairs. Again, screw that type of civil disobedience.

Similar Threads

  1. Two ways of YOUR "The One Ring"
    By Tlalocone in forum MBTI & Typology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-18-2016, 09:55 PM
  2. Passive aggressive notes
    By Blorg in forum Rants, Raves & Hot Air
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 11-26-2015, 10:06 AM
  3. Ways to antagonise ENTJs
    By Deckard in forum The Pub
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-18-2014, 02:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •