We have previously discussed the problem in some countries like China where drivers routinely drive on sidewalks. Russia is also notorious for some horrendous drivers. One group however has started a campaign to confront drivers, leading to some tense confrontations on sidewalks as the videotape below indicates. It raises an interesting legal question of this type of citizen action. The line between citizen action and vigilantism can blur if it involves property damage, even though this is relatively slight. Indeed, there is admittedly a certain satisfaction in seeing these cars marked with a large sticker after such reckless conduct.
The campaign is a Russian youth movement. The confrontations and blocking of sidewalks seems perfectly legal. The question is placing the large sticker on the windshields which are clearly difficult to remove. They also block the vision of the drivers. That would lead to potential problems in the United States, even though few would have any sympathy. It would also constitute a form of trespass to chattel. One defense may be that the sticker was used only for those cars that refused to back up and were moving toward the youths.
Ken Rogers: “As you seem to have trouble understanding what I wrote, try what Cheryl had to say. It’s essentially the same thing as I said, but without the explanation of why it’s desirable: “They need to plant posts at each end like we do here. Space enough for people to pass through but not vehicles.””
What you wrote doesn’t make sense.
It seems reasonably likely that the people with the stickers would strongly prefer that obvious solution. You need to imagine why they did what they did instead of installing bollards everywhere themselves.
If bollards are the solution, how do you get bollards installed in a place where (in appears) the standard is to have no bollards at all?
Note that they made a video that you were able to see. It has 2 million views. It’s possible that a large number of that were Russian. If so, they may be Russians who now see a problem that they ignored or accepted before.
With the video, they make a case for bollards (indirectly) and make it clear that the behavior leading to needing bollards is asinine (possibly mitigating the problem before bollards can be installed everywhere).
The problem could be that bollards aren’t seen as worth the expense OR people don’t see that there is even a problem.
The video might be a way of addressing both those things (in an affordable way).
davep – bollards are a blight on humanity. Lighted bollards are targets for teen-age thugs on bike to practice their baseball swing.
Men Rogers: “Blocking the access of cars to a walkway from just inside the walkway (out of vehicular traffic) at the intersection, with one of many available vehicular (but not pedestrian) traffic barriers (https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/traffic-barricades), or with people holding up signs would prevent the problem at the outset, wouldn’t it?”
No, of course not because that that really isn’t the “problem” they are addressing. It would seem obvious that the goal isn’t to prevent just the driving they happen to be present for.
Ken Rogers: “The long-term solution to the problem, however, needs to be much less volunteer-labor intensive, and that would seem to be something like a permanent barrier erected by the city (or a neighborhood organization or the activists in the video), through which pedestrians, but not cars could pass, with a sign on it saying something like, “Pedestrians Only.””
That’s obvious. Do you really that idea didn’t come across to them? It’s possible that what they are doing is trying encourage this better solution.
Ken Rogers: “I realize that these particular solutions would preclude the thrill of confrontation and potential violence, but virtually any barroom on a Saturday night affords ample opportunity for both, if one goes in with the right attitude.”
These aren’t the same thing (in more than one way).
davep
As you seem to have trouble understanding what I wrote, try what Cheryl had to say. It’s essentially the same thing as I said, but without the explanation of why it’s desirable: “They need to plant posts at each end like we do here. Space enough for people to pass through but not vehicles.”
Ken
They need to plant posts at each end like we do here. Space enough for people to pass through but not vehicles.
Cheryl, An excellent idea, but you have to remember that this is Russia. Common sense and effective governance for the people is lacking.
Randy,
OK, you’ve answered my question regarding your primary motivation, which is pretty clearly to punish evildoers where ere they may drive or otherwise move about among law-abiding good-doers.
You didn’t seem to think it was silly “to decide tactics from afar” when you wished that the activists had had hammers to use on the miscreants’ cars, but never mind.
Blocking the access of cars to a walkway from just inside the walkway (out of vehicular traffic) at the intersection, with one of many available vehicular (but not pedestrian) traffic barriers (https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/traffic-barricades), or with people holding up signs would prevent the problem at the outset, wouldn’t it?
The long-term solution to the problem, however, needs to be much less volunteer-labor intensive, and that would seem to be something like a permanent barrier erected by the city (or a neighborhood organization or the activists in the video), through which pedestrians, but not cars could pass, with a sign on it saying something like, “Pedestrians Only.”
I realize that these particular solutions would preclude the thrill of confrontation and potential violence, but virtually any barroom on a Saturday night affords ample opportunity for both, if one goes in with the right attitude.
Ken
P.S. I’ll overlook your scurrilous rape-intervention remark because I don’t want to dignify it with any additional response. 🙂
Ken, I did that. The management said they didn’t know what to do to enforce the parking requirements and didn’t know who to penalize if they did since the
cars all changed parking places every night.
Paul, that’s really funny! Great idea.
Tyger – or you can just key their car. 🙂
Tyger,
If I were managing an apartment complex, I’d certainly have on file the license plate numbers of the residents, both to ensure that the spaces were being used only by residents and their guests, and to ensure that residents didn’t take up two or more spaces by the way they parked.
With that information, parking space enforcement would be easy-peasy, no?
I hope it’s obvious that I’m just trying to save you some money on soap, here, El Tygre. 🙂
Ken
Randy,
If your primary interest is in pedestrian safety, rather than punishing evildoers, do you have a problem with the activists’ blocking the walkway at the intersection before the cars could enter it?
Ken
Ken, It is silly to decide tactics from afar and with limited knowledge of the situation. In general, it is damn stupid to try and do anything on a heavily travelled road or intersection where you can be hit from all sides. I don’t know if they did that or not, but the prime consideration is to stop drivers who had no legal, moral, or common sense reason for driving where pedestrians are only allowed. The people were enforcing the law. The drivers were flagrantly endangering others. I guess you would not intervene if a woman was being raped since it would endanger oneself or result in injury to the rapist, and involve violence. I have no concern for the crooks, sorry. Violence is sometimes GOOD and needed.
Ken, I had tried that. The notes were ignored and the same cars parked in two spaces night after night. When I complained personally to the driver as he or she was getting out of the car and could easily have moved it, they told me they were using two spaces so they wouldn’t get their car doors dinged and ignored me. Hard feelings, nothing. They had no feelings for others. When it became a bigger pain-in-the-ass to have to clean their windows than to do the right thing and park in only one space, they parked in one space. Once the management found out who was doing the soaping, they applauded me for it. I used soap precisely because it did not damage the car in any way but it obstructed the driver’s vision enough that it had to be cleaned off with water before the car could be driven. Simple but effective counter-measure to being ignored. The management already had rules, and reminder flyers they sent out, that said tenants could not use two spaces at the same time. The people who did not want their car doors dinged still had the option of parking in the far north end of the property which was so far away from the buildings few people used it. The offenders were just being selfish and inconsiderate of others around them.
Tyger,
Thanks for your clarifying response.
Inasmuch as you tried the friendly/polite approach and the “space-hogs” blew you off, I think you were justified in taking other action. The only thing I might have done differently would have been to first appeal to the management to threaten to revoke the offenders’ parking privileges, rather than just putting out the flyers. That way, the risk of a physical confrontation between you and the neighbor or a “protective” husband or boyfriend would have been reduced.
Ken
Tyger – when people take up two spaces I leave them a note on their windshield saying “Sorry, I scratched your car!!!” and don’t sign it. They go nuts looking for the scratch. 🙂
From a legal standpoint I do not see the placement of these stickers as being illegal in the sense they could argue Necessity because the men did so when the drivers used their vehicles to strike other persons and drive off. It is a valid self defense in my view.
In fact, a couple of these drivers could be arrested for any Russian equivalent of Reckless Driving and Reckless endangerment.
@randyjet
“I applaud those courageous folks who are trying to keep folks safe, and only wish that they had some hammers to knock out the windows of the cars that tried to run them over. They seemed quite reasonable and let those who did the right thing go with no stickers. It was only those who refused to do the right thing who got a sticker.”
You don’t “keep folks safe” by showering them with glass, otherwise physically harming them, or doing costly damage to their cars. You also don’t keep folks safe by precipitating physically violent confrontations between drivers and pedestrians.
What distinguishes your attitude from that of the many US cops whose violently authoritarian behavior we’ve seen on video and read about in many different venues, including Professor Turley’s website?
Ken, I have no desire or responsibility to keep crooks safe. Once they decide to cause harm or run over people with a car, they forfeit any right to be left alone or safe. This is part of the problem that crooks and these drivers think that they are safe from the consequences of their actions. Your prescription is peace at any price and that only leads to more bad behavior and wars.
Randy,
How do you interpret my suggesting more effective ways (without endangering pedestrians, drivers, or the activists) of dealing with the problem of drivers on unmarked walkways, as calling for “peace at any price”?
Again, what distinguishes your attitude from that of a violently authoritarian cop who’s more interested in punishing “bad guys” than in resolving public safety issues?
Ken
Ken, Given the situation under discussion, where the pedestrians took reasonable actions to stop the danger of drivers running down folks on the sidewalk, the people did all kinds of non-violent actions to stop this. The problem is that those who were driving on the sidewalks in some cases ran down people. Now if you do not take some action to stop that kind of thing, then you ARE seeking peace at any price. The danger is from the crooks, NOT the people seeking to uphold the law. One has to be prepared to back up ones lawful position with some force. Otherwise there is no law that a person has to obey unless they wish to do it. In Russia the legal system is not what it is in many countries where there is a real legal system and FORCE to back it up. The fact is that police cannot be at all places at all times. Thus the citizens do have the right and have the means to enforce the law in conjunction with the police.
Back in the 80’s I lived in a huge apartment complex with a limited number of parking spaces. Adequate, but not a lot of extras available. This was made worse by many people using two spaces by parking on the white lines. I often
had to walk a couple of blocks to get to my apartment instead of parking near the entrance to my building. I finally got fed up with this and carried a bar of soap with me in my car. When there were no nearby spaces available, I would
go through the lot writing “VIOLATION — two spaces!” on the windshield of each car that was on the white line. Soap was easier to apply than paint, got the message across just as well, and easily washed off with water. But it was a pain in the ass for the driver to have to do so before he or she could go to work in the morning, since they could not see well through the soap. (Soaping the windows was an idea I got from our Halloween pranks years earlier.) People got mad at the management thinking it was them doing it, but they claimed no knowledge or responsibility for it. After a month or two, the incidence of people taking up two spaces diminished drastically. By then, the management saw how effectively it had solved a problem that many people had complained about, and they printed up large stickers and started putting them on the cars parked on the white lines themselves. Sometimes, vigilantism works to get problems solved permanently. This video shows it worked in Russia, too.
Inasmuch as your soaping the car windows did no damage to the cars, but did seem to get across the message, it strikes me as being physically harmless enough, but the hard feelings generated could perhaps have been avoided.
I’ve had to deal with similar situations over the years, but did so by leaving a note in plastic under a windshield wiper, politely pointing out the problem the car owner was causing, and asking him/her to be, in the future, more considerate of his/her neighbors. It always got the job done, and without angering my neighbor.
Tyger,
I just read a news article about the triple homicide in North Carolina, in which the alleged killer’s wife reportedly said that the motive for the crime was a longstanding parking dispute in their and the victims’ condominium complex.
If that’s true, it graphically demonstrates that our discussion of the least confrontational ways to deal with disputes among neighbors wasn’t academic.
Ken
I drove around Russia in 1984 and I found that the drivers and roads were the worst in the world back then. It seems that nothing has changed. As for road markings, they are basically non-existent, and superfluous since the drivers don’t obey them in any case. Prior to that, I thought that Turkish roads and drivers were the worst, but the Russian beat them hands down. Most of those obnoxious drivers were probably drunk too which is why they were so belligerent. After dark, most of the drivers are drunk.
I applaud those courageous folks who are trying to keep folks safe, and only wish that they had some hammers to knock out the windows of the cars that tried to run them over. They seemed quite reasonable and let those who did the right thing go with no stickers. It was only those who refused to do the right thing who got a sticker.
I can see why drivers would think they could drive on these pedestrian walkways, due to their width. I’ve seen alleys here and in Europe that were much narrower than these Russian sidewalks, but through which cars are legally permitted to drive.
I couldn’t tell from the video if there were any signs at the intersection of the road and sidewalk, designating the sidewalk as such, but if not, that’s where I’d be advising drivers, not hundreds of feet after they’d already turned onto the sidewalk.
The safety issue for pedestrians is obviously a real one, but I have to question the advisability and safety of the tactics displayed in the video.
If the DA ever wanted to prosecute, which I doubt, this is why jury nullification is a good thing.
Russian traffic videos are fascinating. I’m afraid I don’t see any way that doesn’t end in gunfire in this country
Nick
Tidbit from a four year Masters in Architecture degree. Plinth, Pediment, Diaphanous, Phenomenal Transparency, dah, dah, dah……
Humiliation is always a good way to change behavior. 🙂
Isaac, I had to Google “bollard.”
Great video.
Seems like it was the women who were the most aggressive and foul mouthed.
Glad to see the citizens speak/act.
Good for them. The next step is bollards. Fine the drivers and use the money to pay for the bollards. Make the fines commensurate with the value of the car and the person driving. Two Hondas’ fines or one Range Rover fine per bollard. A lawyer pays for three bollards. A government employee pays for five bollards, etc. Those paying for them could have a little plaque with their name inscribed, a sort of ‘adopt a bollard’ or ‘adopt a sidewalk’ thing. Photo the license plate, the driver, and the incident. Take the info to court and fine the *@#*@))(@ Or bury the whole mess in mindless legal mumbo jumbo.
“CITIZENS ARREST..CITIZENS ARREST!!” Gomer Pyle arresting Barney Fife.