Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

well this is my view any ways

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

well this is my view any ways

Old 03-21-13, 05:23 PM
  #26  
kardar2
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Redding, CA.
Posts: 188

Bikes: Giant trance II MTB, Centurion Accordo

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dougmc View Post
They won't.

But you're confusing "no law requires it" and "it's a good idea".

It's a good idea to have ID with you. And your medical insurance card, some money, a cell phone if you've got it, tools to change a flat, etc.

But it's not against the law to not have these things with you.

Talking about carrying ID specifically, if the police don't stop you (and you don't end up unconscious), it doesn't matter. If they do stop you, they might ask who you are. Lying might earn you a trip to the local jail. But they certainly still can give you a ticket without ID.

The ID might be convenient in such situations (especially for the police), but there's also the benefit of "flexing your rights" (to not carry it) that might not be valuable to you, but could be valuable to others.
No I was not saying he had to carry it. I was just wondering why he wouldn't in case of an accident thats all.
kardar2 is offline  
Old 03-21-13, 05:26 PM
  #27  
kardar2
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Redding, CA.
Posts: 188

Bikes: Giant trance II MTB, Centurion Accordo

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
I am curious just how many hours have you volunteered teaching bicycle safety classes at your local schools?
none....... one of my points that I was making why make laws that don't get enforced.
kardar2 is offline  
Old 03-21-13, 05:31 PM
  #28  
kardar2
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Redding, CA.
Posts: 188

Bikes: Giant trance II MTB, Centurion Accordo

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Robert C View Post
No, but it might work to get kids off of bicycles entirely. A lot of parents would not accept their personal responsibility in the case and "punish" the child; or, not go and pick up the bike at all.

This would work well to convince parents that bicycles are not only dangerous (they probably knew that in the first place) but will do nothing but land their kid in trouble with "the law." Further, in a poverty stricken area like Northern California, it will cost the family money they really can not afford. Most will see the best route will be to be getting rid of the bicycle.

Without doubt the child is doing what they were told. You can waste money on child, rider, education programs all you want; but, as long as the parents do not ride for transportation they are going to tel the child that if they, the children, are ever seen riding where they "can't see the cars coming at them" then both will "I tan your hide" and that it will be the last time that they see the bicycle, by their mother, then they are going to make what appears to be the rational decision. They are going to ride facing traffic.

For reference, I worked as a Welfare caseworker in Shasta County (Redding, CA) and as a Child Protective Services Investigator in a nearby county (Modoc). Northern California is not San Francisco; or, the wine county you see on TV. It is a deeply impoverished area soaked in alcohol and meth, with the corresponding violence that comes from economic frustrations.

As far as the helmet goes, the children will wear a helmet if it is 1. Given to them by the police after completing a training program (as a reward) and 2. They see the police wearing them when they ride bicycles. The parents will seldom purchase one; or, when they purchase it, they will do so with such a derisive attitude that they will signal to the child that it is silly.


One of the funniest/sad things happened when, as a CPS Investigator I mentioned a bike helmet to one parent. She told me that the child had fallen off his bike and broken it and they couldn’t afford to replace it; and, “it’s just a piece of Styrofoam, it isn’t going to do him any good anyways.” . . . Yep, low cognitive utilization. . .

Yes, I went and got him a helmet and talked to both him and his parents about safe bicycling (I think I used a brochure that the DMV publishes on safe riding, I kept a stack of those in my car box.). Having a CPS Investigator doing safe riding counseling is expensive and outside of the normal duties of an investigator; however, if the family is not involved in the training, the training is a waste of time. The child will be told to “never do that.”

All that being said, a punishment based system will leave the child severely punished and the bicycle banished. If the goal is to break the interest in cycling at an early stage, insuring a lifelong disdain, the recommended approach may work well. Certainly children will not be injured, on bicycles, if we just keep them off of bicycles. However, if the goal is to promote safe cycling than there needs to be a non-punitive, whole family, education based approach.
excellent point thank you for you insight.
kardar2 is offline  
Old 03-21-13, 06:01 PM
  #29  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
Originally Posted by Roushe View Post
Contrary to the popular belief that you do not have to show ID to a cop, a few states and quite a few localities have laws or ordinances requiring that a person not only show ID on demand, but possibly other details as well. For example, in Alabama, a person can be required to provide an "explanation of his actions".

It's called a "Stop and Identify" law and when certain circumstances exist, a LEO can legally demand you provide ID or else detain/arrest. Here is a list of states that require a person to at least verbally identify themselves when asked.

Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005)
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1) (loitering)
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §901.151 (Stop and Frisk Law); §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A); La. Rev. Stat. 14:108(B)(1)(c)
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6
New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §140.50
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24
You are confusing verbally identifying ones self by name and birth date with having to show an ID card. Any law that requires showing an ID card during a lawful Terry Stop, is a violation of case law under the Supreme Court, Hiibel v State of Nevada.

Terry Stops also require reasonable suspicion for the stop. Any stop and ID laws that do not require reasonable suspicion or probable cause, are themselves a violation of law.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.

Last edited by CB HI; 03-21-13 at 06:07 PM. Reason: typo
CB HI is offline  
Old 03-21-13, 06:04 PM
  #30  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
I am curious just how many hours have you volunteered teaching bicycle safety classes at your local schools?
Originally Posted by kardar2 View Post
none....... one of my points that I was making why make laws that don't get enforced.
You missed my point. Why not do something positive to teach the kids safe cycling in schools rather than demand cops take their bicycles away from them? See the difference?
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 12:57 AM
  #31  
plustax
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 222

Bikes: 90's Campione,90's trek multitrack,2005 trek 3700

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by kardar2 View Post
No I was not saying he had to carry it. I was just wondering why he wouldn't in case of an accident thats all.

Why would I want it? Anyone I want to talk to is going to know who I am. If I get hit and wake up there is no problem. If I get hit and don't wake up there is no problem.

I like to travel light as well. Having an ID is uncomfortable (a wallet is even worse). One more thing, why do you assume I'm, male?
plustax is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 01:31 AM
  #32  
wsbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 317
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Robert C View Post
No, but it might work to get kids off of bicycles entirely. A lot of parents would not accept their personal responsibility in the case and "punish" the child; or, not go and pick up the bike at all.

This would work well to convince parents that bicycles are not only dangerous (they probably knew that in the first place) but will do nothing but land their kid in trouble with "the law." Further, in a poverty stricken area like Northern California, it will cost the family money they really can not afford. Most will see the best route will be to be getting rid of the bicycle.

Without doubt the child is doing what they were told. You can waste money on child, rider, education programs all you want; but, as long as the parents do not ride for transportation they are going to tel the child that if they, the children, are ever seen riding where they "can't see the cars coming at them" then both will "I tan your hide" and that it will be the last time that they see the bicycle, by their mother, then they are going to make what appears to be the rational decision. They are going to ride facing traffic.

For reference, I worked as a Welfare caseworker in Shasta County (Redding, CA) and as a Child Protective Services Investigator in a nearby county (Modoc). Northern California is not San Francisco; or, the wine county you see on TV. It is a deeply impoverished area soaked in alcohol and meth, with the corresponding violence that comes from economic frustrations.

As far as the helmet goes, the children will wear a helmet if it is 1. Given to them by the police after completing a training program (as a reward) and 2. They see the police wearing them when they ride bicycles. The parents will seldom purchase one; or, when they purchase it, they will do so with such a derisive attitude that they will signal to the child that it is silly.


One of the funniest/sad things happened when, as a CPS Investigator I mentioned a bike helmet to one parent. She told me that the child had fallen off his bike and broken it and they couldn’t afford to replace it; and, “it’s just a piece of Styrofoam, it isn’t going to do him any good anyways.” . . . Yep, low cognitive utilization. . .

Yes, I went and got him a helmet and talked to both him and his parents about safe bicycling (I think I used a brochure that the DMV publishes on safe riding, I kept a stack of those in my car box.). Having a CPS Investigator doing safe riding counseling is expensive and outside of the normal duties of an investigator; however, if the family is not involved in the training, the training is a waste of time. The child will be told to “never do that.”

All that being said, a punishment based system will leave the child severely punished and the bicycle banished. If the goal is to break the interest in cycling at an early stage, insuring a lifelong disdain, the recommended approach may work well. Certainly children will not be injured, on bicycles, if we just keep them off of bicycles. However, if the goal is to promote safe cycling than there needs to be a non-punitive, whole family, education based approach.

hey Robert...appreciated your remarks. I did some checking online about the counties you mentioned. They are low populated, especially Modoc, and have low median incomes. Redding's population of about 100,000 people, is close to the same as the city in Oregon where I live, Beaverton, but the county Beav is located in has more than twice the population as Shasta, and it's one of more than three counties in a huge metro area that has more than 1,789,580 people living in it. Median income is certainly higher.

Didn't mention the above to particularly draw conclusions or speculate about how those contrasts may or may not explain people's ideas about what constitutes safe biking. I suppose there's instances in the Portland Metro area too, where young, unsupervised or uninformed kids may be doing things like riding against the flow of traffic, but I don't think it's common. I'd say it's a good guess that the general consensus amongst adults here, is that sort of thing is a very bad idea. My casual observation is that, especially amongst very young kids, helmet use is the rule rather than the exception. Redding has a fairly large population. Probably has some serious traffic too. If it's true that old notion about riding against traffic being safer, somehow still persists in that city, your own experiences and conclusion aside, I suppose that's a bit of a head scratcher.

I was trying to be low key in suggesting that the OP's idea about police issuing citations to young kids that were out of compliance with traffic laws, helmet use, wasn't such a good idea, but probably in most situations, it wouldn't be a good idea. There's far more positive ways to introduce young people into how to use their bikes on the road safely...bike festivals, fairs, so called 'bike rodeos' where people can learn about bike helmets, basic riding and whatnot.
wsbob is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 04:57 AM
  #33  
Roushe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 75

Bikes: Fuji Sunfire

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
You are confusing verbally identifying ones self by name and birth date with having to show an ID card. Any law that requires showing an ID card during a lawful Terry Stop, is a violation of case law under the Supreme Court, Hiibel v State of Nevada.

Terry Stops also require reasonable suspicion for the stop. Any stop and ID laws that do not require reasonable suspicion or probable cause, are themselves a violation of law.
Hibel was asked 11 times for identification, not to identify himself. He was asked for identification. He was convicted and SCOTUS upheld the conviction. Most stop and identify states only require verbal identification, but many localities require ID. You might want to re-read the SCOTUS decision again. Here is a case summary written up by a LEO website... https://www.policeone.com/columnists/...to-provide-ID/

There are also many other cases that also affirm the police may arrest you for refusal to provide ID. There is no constitutional basis for refusal to present your ID to an officer if you have one. SCOTUS ruled that requiring ID does not violate the 4th amendment.
Roushe is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 05:12 AM
  #34  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,025

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
let's shake the 8 year olds down for ID too - little miscreants.

ID, background checks, tickets, and confiscate their bikes. And what do they deserve if they panic instead of complying when the squad car hits the rollers?

TAZER em.

----------------------------------------

What a grand plan.


I can't for the likes of me understand why this isn't SOP at law enforcement agencies around the country.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-22-13 at 05:18 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 05:23 AM
  #35  
curbtender
Senior Member
 
curbtender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 6,956

Bikes: Marinoni, Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Schwinn Speedster, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina, Miyata team Ti, MB3

Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1025 Post(s)
Liked 657 Times in 435 Posts
From the few stories I've heard, a cop will usually bring the child home and educate the parents. Pretty much were the responsibilty lie's.
curbtender is online now  
Old 03-22-13, 05:40 AM
  #36  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
Originally Posted by Roushe View Post
Hibel was asked 11 times for identification, not to identify himself. He was asked for identification. He was convicted and SCOTUS upheld the conviction. Most stop and identify states only require verbal identification, but many localities require ID. You might want to re-read the SCOTUS decision again. Here is a case summary written up by a LEO website... https://www.policeone.com/columnists/...to-provide-ID/

There are also many other cases that also affirm the police may arrest you for refusal to provide ID. There is no constitutional basis for refusal to present your ID to an officer if you have one. SCOTUS ruled that requiring ID does not violate the 4th amendment.
You really depend on a cop to correctly interpret complicated case law and get it right without twisting it to their own advantage?

Although your link waffles back and forth, it even implies a verbal identification is acceptable, but then they try to cover their ass for when they screw up and arrest someone without an ID card.

provide their identity either verbally or by providing a driver's license or other form of identification?
Hiibel refused to both produce an ID card and verbally give his name. The verbal part is what caused SCOTUS to uphold the original conviction. Somehow lots of cops and those who do not carefully read the full decision get it wrong.

Here is the actual case decision. Read it and see if you can figure out that SCOTUS clearly state that all a citizen must do is give name and birth date.

https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...invol=03-5554#

PS - every year or two, someone like you pops up making the same wrong claim.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 05:57 AM
  #37  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1314 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
For those that find the actual SCOTUS decision too hard to sort out, here is a law review done by lawyers (not cops)


https://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/.../54/stulin.pdf

II. THE CURRENT CONTROVERSY:
HIIBEL’S DECISION TO COMPEL IDENTIFICATION
COMPROMISES TERRY AND ERODES PRIVACY RIGHTS
Hiibel forced the Supreme Court to finally take a stance on the
constitutionality of state “stop and identify” statutes.50 In a line of cases
that preceded Hiibel, the Court had invalidated most such statutes for
vagueness, but quietly left the door open for a statute narrow enough to
pass constitutional muster.51 In deciding Hiibel and validating Nevada’s
“stop and identify” statute, the Court set the standard by allowing officers
to obtain a suspect’s name, but nothing more
.52 However, with what it
deemed an inconsequential decision, the Court departed from substantial
precedent against compelled identification, and in turn redefined Terry on
several levels.53
Although police use of computer databases to aid in their investigations
is increasing, a discussion of this technology is notably absent from the
Hiibel opinion.73 Instead, the Supreme Court makes a point of hinging its
view that “stop and identify” statutes are constitutional on the fact that they
only request a name, and do not seek broader forms of identification.
74
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.

Last edited by CB HI; 03-22-13 at 06:05 AM.
CB HI is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 06:52 AM
  #38  
kmv2
Senior Member
 
kmv2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 705

Bikes: Bianchi circa late 1980s, Surly Cross Check, Kona Blast

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
You missed my point. Why not do something positive to teach the kids safe cycling in schools rather than demand cops take their bicycles away from them? See the difference?
Agree.
kmv2 is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 12:21 PM
  #39  
dougmc
Senior Member
 
dougmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,039

Bikes: Bacchetta Giro, Strada

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roushe View Post
Here is a list of states that require a person to at least verbally identify themselves when asked.
You do realize that one can usually verbally identify themselves without carrying ID, right?

Yes, it is certainly possible that carrying ID may keep you out of jail if you verbally ID yourself and the cop doesn't believe you, but the law generally does not require that you have it with you -- it's merely convenient.

(Though I wonder what the state of the law is in Arizona. Did that law pass that says that if the cop thinks you might not be (i.e. your skin is not white enough) in this country legally that you must be able to prove it?)

Last edited by dougmc; 03-22-13 at 12:24 PM.
dougmc is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 12:49 PM
  #40  
gcottay
Senior Member
 
gcottay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Green Valley AZ
Posts: 3,770

Bikes: Trice Q; Volae Century; TT 3.4

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
As curbtender mentioned, some LEO's will take unsafely riding young children and their bikes home for a chat with parents.
gcottay is offline  
Old 03-22-13, 01:10 PM
  #41  
okane
Senior Member
 
okane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,039
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
I thought the only place you were NOT required to show ID is at the polls when you vote!

Last edited by okane; 03-22-13 at 01:45 PM.
okane is offline  
Old 03-23-13, 09:09 PM
  #42  
buzzman
----
 
buzzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Posts: 4,574
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Robert C View Post
No, but it might work to get kids off of bicycles entirely. A lot of parents would not accept their personal responsibility in the case and "punish" the child; or, not go and pick up the bike at all.

This would work well to convince parents that bicycles are not only dangerous (they probably knew that in the first place) but will do nothing but land their kid in trouble with "the law." Further, in a poverty stricken area like Northern California, it will cost the family money they really can not afford. Most will see the best route will be to be getting rid of the bicycle.

Without doubt the child is doing what they were told. You can waste money on child, rider, education programs all you want; but, as long as the parents do not ride for transportation they are going to tel the child that if they, the children, are ever seen riding where they "can't see the cars coming at them" then both will "I tan your hide" and that it will be the last time that they see the bicycle, by their mother, then they are going to make what appears to be the rational decision. They are going to ride facing traffic.

For reference, I worked as a Welfare caseworker in Shasta County (Redding, CA) and as a Child Protective Services Investigator in a nearby county (Modoc). Northern California is not San Francisco; or, the wine county you see on TV. It is a deeply impoverished area soaked in alcohol and meth, with the corresponding violence that comes from economic frustrations.

As far as the helmet goes, the children will wear a helmet if it is 1. Given to them by the police after completing a training program (as a reward) and 2. They see the police wearing them when they ride bicycles. The parents will seldom purchase one; or, when they purchase it, they will do so with such a derisive attitude that they will signal to the child that it is silly.


One of the funniest/sad things happened when, as a CPS Investigator I mentioned a bike helmet to one parent. She told me that the child had fallen off his bike and broken it and they couldn’t afford to replace it; and, “it’s just a piece of Styrofoam, it isn’t going to do him any good anyways.” . . . Yep, low cognitive utilization. . .

Yes, I went and got him a helmet and talked to both him and his parents about safe bicycling (I think I used a brochure that the DMV publishes on safe riding, I kept a stack of those in my car box.). Having a CPS Investigator doing safe riding counseling is expensive and outside of the normal duties of an investigator; however, if the family is not involved in the training, the training is a waste of time. The child will be told to “never do that.”

All that being said, a punishment based system will leave the child severely punished and the bicycle banished. If the goal is to break the interest in cycling at an early stage, insuring a lifelong disdain, the recommended approach may work well. Certainly children will not be injured, on bicycles, if we just keep them off of bicycles. However, if the goal is to promote safe cycling than there needs to be a non-punitive, whole family, education based approach.
What a well reasoned, insightful post. Reminds me of an excellent article many years ago by Bruno Betelheim titled "Punishment VS Discipline", which basically pointed out the true meaning of discipline, which is to model after- children just need good models of behavior. Harsh penalties, laws and punishing behavior are ultimately counter productive and there is plenty of evidence of their lack of efficacy in improving behavior like the kind described by the OP.

The kind of shoot from the hip, take no prisoners, throw their bike on the back of a cop car and make them beg to get it back attitude often makes the one imposing such admonishments feel virtuous and powerful but ultimately they don't work. It tends to build resentment and disrespect for the law and those who impose it.
buzzman is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dagray
Advocacy & Safety
11
10-06-19 02:12 PM
balto charlie
Advocacy & Safety
74
02-11-13 07:03 AM
Brittain
Advocacy & Safety
11
08-19-11 12:37 PM
bwhite829
Commuting
11
07-03-10 09:15 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.