nspace wrote:
This is what I don't get either. They are preventing you from getting to your destination at the rate in which you would prefer. The situation only becomes unsafe when your own impatience causes you to make a bad judgement call to pass in an unsafe manner.
So you would prefer we didn't have laws about impeding traffic? Perhaps you'd like it if people were allowed to drive a horse and carriage down the 401 at 15km/h during rush hour.
prickly_pete wrote:
How is a bicycle preventing you from safely using the road?
You can easily pass safely if you slow down. I know, that would mean the hardship of moving your foot 4" to the left, applying the brakes, then moving your foot AGAIN to accelerate. Ain't nobody got time for that - I think you have a point!
ROFL.
This whole discussion was about roads where there isn't room to safely pass without going into the oncoming lane. If there's a lot of traffic, passing is often not safely possible, yet people end up doing it anyway, and this creates a very unsafe situation for everyone, including those in the oncoming lane. So you end up with either a very unsafe situation, or a massive traffic jam cause by one lycra wearer.
glocklover wrote:
Drunk bitch hits cyclist, not the cyclists fault at all.
Things are not black and white. If a "drunk bitch" is driving down the road in her lane and a pedestrian jumps in front of her car at the last moment, who is at fault? It's hard to know the degrees of fault for each party to this accident without knowing exactly what happened and how intoxicated she was.
nspace wrote:
We are living in a time where we are tying to have less cars on the road?
In the minds of progressives and fabian socialists, sure.
nspace wrote:
Are you implying that cyclists don't pay to keep roads up kept? (Because I will destroy that notion at your leisure, just ask).
Cyclists make up a tiny minority of property tax payers, and they don't pay the gas tax for cycling. So yeah, their contribution to roads is negligible.