this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
719 points (97.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

9527 readers
369 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So you're assuming the bike was in a car lane instead of a car trying to drive in the designated bike lane?

Considering the car was going 70 in a thirty it doesn't sound like he obeyed the rules of the road.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

So you’re assuming the bike was in a car lane instead of a car trying to drive in the designated bike lane?

You're picking and choosing assumptions that suit your preference.

Considering the car was going 70 in a thirty it doesn’t sound like he obeyed the rules of the road.

Nor did the cyclist. Two wrongs don't make you right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Nor did the cyclist. Two wrongs don't make you right.

Again there is no reason to assume the cyclist isn't in the bike lane or is breaking any kind of law. You just decided entirely on your own that they must be in the road.

I saw a car driving on the bike path just yesterday. Not even a bike lane, I completely separate path on the side of the road separated by a big ditch. They drove on the bike path to avoid traffic lights.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

If we’re going by anecdotes, I saw a cyclist ignore a red last week and in the past month several ignore stop signs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

We aren't going by anecdotes. We are going by what's most reasonable to assume.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Reasonable to assume a cyclist that aren’t required to hold a license to be out on the road won’t obey road rules.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

You're picking and choosing assumptions that suit your preference.

That's pretty rich considering you're assuming OP (on a bike) specifically mentioned two designated bike lanes, decided to ride in the road instead, then told all of us so we would know he's a jerk.

If they were riding in the road they wouldn't have mentioned the bike lanes at all so they looked like the "good guy"

"So I was stomping on some kittens right, then this guy cut in line at Walmart right in front of me! What a jerk"

Why would someone include the part of the story that made them the bad guy?

You are the one assuming whatever fits you're narrative the best. You must drive a BMW and are here to troll bike riders.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

And where did they say the car drive in the bike lane? They didn’t. This is your narrative.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Op said they were on a bike. Op said there were two designated bike lanes. Ok said car nearly hit them.

One of two things must be true.

Car entered the bike lane. A thing that happens often.

Op was riding in the traffic lane instead of the two designated bike lanes, then posted about it, and specifically mentioned the two bike lanes they were not using for no reason other than to make themself look bad. A thing that doesn't happen often.

You see how short one explanation is compared to the other? Yeah the short explanation is probably what happened. It's the most likely explanation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

It does happen often. Many Cyclists often do not obey road rules. ‘Rules are for thee and not for me.’ And it’s hilarious you think anyone that entitled has any self observation enough to think they would look bad while doing so. Riding a bike should absolutely require a license to be out on the road.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago

Op had an option to not be in danger then. They were in the car lane to feel the drama.

That's you making a wild leap to blame the bike.

I'm using what's called occums razor. Op mentioned the bike lanes. Op didn't say anything about being in the main road.

It's more reasonable to assume they were using the bike lanes they mentioned. It's unreasonable to assume they were in the road and only mentioned the bike lanes to us in order to make themselves look bad. That doesn't make sense.