Entitled Douchebag SF cyclist HITS AND KILLS A MAN, gets probation.

And the same can be said about the idiots on the bikes.
They know there is fog; they know there are CARS that have to get somewhere as well. Let them get up at the crack of dawn as well.

Or just let them surrender the fucking road anytime they encounter the sort of vehicles for which that road was constructed.

And don't give me some folksey anecdote about wooden bicycles in the 19th fucking century. Modern highways are built and reserved for cars unless other means of conveyance are specifically allowed-for.

The point I made is Tamar can't change the weather and she can't change the bicyclists behavior. She should adjust for it.

Bicycles are not allowed on highways. A highway is a type of road but not a street type of road.

Roads are not only designed for vehicles. Nor are they reserved for them.

Yes the bicyclists should follow the law and yes the should ride to the right as far as possible when safe to do so.

Cars on the other hand should also follow the law and if the law says the bicycle can take the lane then the car should learn to deal with it.

Thruways and freeways, yes. But in rural Maine you're talking about two-lanes, which nominally allow for pedestrians and bikers, because even in the sticks not everyone's born on four wheels.

That said, in civilized parts of the world there are things like sidewalks for pedestrians and bike lanes for bikers...

So everyone should adjust for the bike rider? What if the vehicle attempting to "adjust" was an ambulance or firetruck?

Well, yeah. Didn't you get the memo? One fucktard in spandex can inconvenience miles of cars to the point of rage and fury, and he's RIGHTEOUS for doing that, because it's technically legal.

You're being stupid.

As usual.

I will try once more.

In the morning where Tamar lives there is often fog and idiots riding on bicycles in the fog. So she leaves her house a few minutes earlier then usual.

It's not the end of the fucking world.

"End of the fucking world" is not a prerequisite of objectionability.

Certainly not! You object to even the slightest disruption. But then again, Tamar's scenario is not the end of the world.

And it won't be the end of the world if the bike riders did the same thing.

Tamar and Zel aren't the only ones on the road, and y'know, accidents do happen in the earl y morning hours.
And idiots do cause emergency vehicles to have accidents.

Nobody has so far been able to explain why it's okay to inconvenience cyclists, but not okay to inconvenience drivers. Until somebody can do that, I'm going to respond to all the anti-cyclist rhetoric with tough shit.

I have always said that if you want to kill someone and get away with it, then do it with a vehicle. It happens every day.

Perhaps drivers would behave better toward bicyclists if they, in turn, would behave better toward drivers. In short, the bicyclist should get reflectors and bright clothes in the fog (for no other reason than self defense) and not be a jerk when cars are lined up behind them. And drivers need to stop using bikes as bumpers and targets.

Can't make that conditional Liz. Drivers should behave for the sake of their own safety and those around them. Cyclists should behave for the sake of their own safety and those around them. Neither should wait for the other to make the first move.

Challenge the laws of physics at your own peril. There is a heirarchy at work whether you see fit to acknowledge it or not.

In this case, the laws of man have jurisdiction.

The laws of man are subordinate to the laws of nature, and hiding behind
man's law is not a substitute for your own critical reasoning.

I have to question your reasoning that concludes might makes right. Reason being, it flies completely in the face of your usual rhetoric. Your inconsistencies are hilarious.

It's not my reasoning that makes a bicycle inferior to a semi truck, but I can't tell you what to do. You go on and challenge motor vehicle traffic out of your own petulant sense of entitlement, and I will still survive on basic, common fucking courtesy. Refrain from endangering or inconveniencing others*, and everything else will take care of itself.


*No, I neither endanger nor inconvenience, and you would have to ignore half of the things I've said in this thread to claim otherwise, so fuck off.

So your position is that trucks should violate my rights as a road user? Yeah, might makes right, forget about all your lip service to natural rights. Fortunately, truck drivers don't want to kill cyclists, but as long as limp wristed fraidy cats stick to the sidewalk, those of us who have a set will continue to make ourselves visible and work toward safe roads for all.

There are no "rights" specific to the use of a road. Your right not to be harmed or endangered doesn't take on some special status in this context.

I don't give a fuck what you do, shitstain. What I do is done in good conscience and for good reason. That the law permits you to inconvenience others doesn't make you any less of a contemptible little prick for doing it. Inconveniencing dozens of motorists for your own pleasure doesn't make you a ballsy freedom fighter. It makes you a shitty little coward for hiding behind the law.

Tough shit Albert. Explain why it's okay for drivers to inconvenience cyclists but not okay for cyclists to inconvenience drivers. Or shut the fuck up.

Courtesy is aligning with physics in this case. I wish that would happen more often. Ideally, people wouldn't inconvenience each other at all. That you regard any effort to avoid it as an imposition speaks poorly of your character.

Explain this. Justify the argument that I should take a less convenient route in order to satisfy the desire by somebody else to use the more convenient route.

Sorry, if your parents failed so utterly to instill any sense of common courtesy, it's probably too late to fix you.

I've.... ummm.... heard that you can knock a cyclist of their bike with a 32oz Slurpee... I've just heard that. Not that I have ever done that. Ever.

Haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I can't figure out what the other stop sign was that he ran. 16th St., that one's obvious, but there are no other stop signs on Castro or Divis for well over a mile.

You certainly have the high ground on common courtesy and manners.

they get to the right of the road and stop, like EVERYONE ELSE! It's one of the many laws that cyclists are obliged to follow. Not surprisingly, they're the same ones cars follow as well.

And no, you don't "adjust" anything besides your lack of knowledge about the responsibilities you bear driving a car. Among them, wait for it... Bicycles belong on the road. They are not obliged to surrender it to you and your pick up truck.