Do you think motorcycles are required to just sit at a light all day long? Some lights these days are only triggered by large metal objects, motorcycles are often not detected. The light will never change if a car or truck doesn't come.
https://legalclarity.org/when-can-motorcycles-legally-run-red-lights/
This article only lists some states, but I know it's legal in Minnesota since 2002, so it's definitely not an exhaustive list.
At stop signs, or right turns at lights, most vehicles roll through slowly instead of coming to a complete stop, basically the exact same action a bike takes. At least where I live it's perfectly legal for bikes to run stop signs, so long as it wouldn't be anyone else's right of way. But it's not legal for cars to do it, yet they mostly do.
Edit: passing through a red on a bicycle or motorcycle is also legal in most places with proximity sensors so long as no one else has the right of way. Many lights have proximity sensors that fail to detect bikes, so they have to let it happen or you could be stuck at a light until a car comes.
Sure, but most car drivers also fail to come to a complete stop as well.
Corporations might be largely at fault but regular people can keep voting with their dollars. Corporations have to adjust to demand.
Most of the top polluters in the world are fossil fuel producers. Want to slow them down? Stop driving ice vehicles, take public transit, bike, walk, move closer to work, or unionize and put work from home in your contract. Reduce in home energy waste, if you own a home: improve insulation, check heat loss around the edge of windows, look into solar panels. Most of these things improve you life anyway, lowering your monthly costs makes your life better.
Lobby, get involved in your community, organize.
While it's true that large corporations are major polluters, our continued actions (and inaction) give them the money and power to keep polluting.
Good point to clarify.
Failure to id is a secondary crime, you first need to be lawfully detained/lawfully suspected of a crime, before id can be demanded in 24 states. In the remaining states you need to be arrested before id can be demanded. Driving a motor vehicle is different though. As long as an officer had a reasonable reason for pulling you over, they can id you even if you dispell their suspicions prior to providing ID. If you're pulled over, it's best to always provide ID.
So it's only a lawful order if the police follow the law, if they just walk down the street randomly asking people for id, then failure to comply with their unlawful demands can be thrown out by the courts. Of course the police can just lie and make up a reason they suspected you of a crime, which is why some states have made things like "smelling marijuana" not enough on it's own.
I'm not big into ideological labels, but calling me a liberal without evidence is silly. My beliefs most closely align with socialism and progressivism, but I don't believe in blind ideological thinking.
There is peer reviewed research on this topic all over the web. But even in this wikipedia article, for those that are able to use basic reasoning skills, it repeatedly referenced peer reviewed studies for it's numbers. People use wikipedia because it's easy, not because it's some arbiter of truth.
No one wants to provide a bibliography for some random on the Internet who wouldn't accept new information even if I gave you a time machine that placed you at an execution of an academic or business owner during that time. Waste of everyone's time.
In my admittedly anecdotal experience I regularly hear people arguing a point I made, that days earlier they were fervently fighting against. Either I'm incredibly persuasive, or I think it's really just ego. People can't admit they're wrong, even if they 100% know you are right. Once they forget they had their ego tied into your argument, they seem to often accept new information.
So if both first hand accounts and peer reviewed research mean nothing to you what barrier needs to be crossed to provide proof? Or is anything you haven't already predetermined to be true automatically "western propaganda". Also, what motivation would fleeing refugees have to lie about what made them flee Russia? Why would that supposed lie persist long after a perceived benefit through to their descendents?
My ancestors were Jewish you psycho
I watch twitch, this dude is gross. I'll watch some pretty degenerate twitch streamers, but this guy seems like a grade a nazi.