What do we know for certain from this photo? Is the cyclist on an interstate not for cyclists? Does the right line go where the cyclist needs to go? We know a little of nothing for certain from this pic.
What do we know for certain from this photo? Is the cyclist on an interstate not for cyclists? Does the right line go where the cyclist needs to go? We know a little of nothing for certain from this pic.
Well. You prove my point. You imagine that you’re in a group where your rights are being taken away. Motor vehicles don’t really have a right to drive on roads. Motor vehicle drivers need a permission slip to drive. And when they drive, the vehicles must be registered. If you had an equal *right* to the road, you’d have to do the same.No, I resent those that suggest taking cyclists rights away, those that designate them second class users, say they should get out of their way, and slur cyclists as playing in the road.
Oh no. I think that was me who called you second class road users. But it’s you who imagines your rights are being taken away. I think cyclists should yield right of way to motor vehicles when driving on roads. It’s safer.You don’t get how your posts are indicative of “suggest taking cyclists rights away, those that designate them second class users, say they should get out of their way,“. Wow!
A ton of posts that cyclists don’t pay taxes for roads, roads are not designed for bikes, but you don’t get why cyclists can see you are not for protecting their rights…
Especially when I explicitly stated, "I don't view bicyclists as second-class."Oh no. I think that was me who called you second class road users. But it’s you who imagines your rights are being taken away. I think cyclists should yield right of way to motor vehicles when driving on roads. It’s safer.
The bicycles are by toys in every Walmart I’ve ever been in. And the vehicle in the picture is not capable of registering for road use.
Lol. I am quite pleased with my ability to say something that he ascribes to you!Especially when I explicitly stated, "I don't view bicyclists as second-class."
But, he's arguing with the voices in his head that he has ascribed to me.
This is the point that he just refuses to concede - perhaps is incapable of doing so. The logical conclusion of of stating "roads were built for motor vehicles" (and/or "roads were paid for by motor vehicles") is that "yet, because bicycles may also use the roads, bicycles must be accommodated."I think if driving is a privilege, something we’re permitted to do, it’s not actually a right. But that’s a matter of semantics for another discussion. And what it is for bicycles, it’s better described as an accommodation. Roads were built for motor vehicles. But bicycles may use those roads. And because of the accommodations, new roads get bike friendly grates where needed.
What do we know for certain from this photo?
Is the cyclist on an interstate not for cyclists?
Does the right line go where the cyclist needs to go?
Except that at least one rider is a moron.We know a little of nothing for certain from this pic.
What do we know for certain from this photo? Is the cyclist on an interstate not for cyclists? Does the right line go where the cyclist needs to go? We know a little of nothing for certain from this pic.
The City of Edmonton’s summer construction season wraps up this week, and Groat Road Bridges is one of the major projects that caps off the season with an exciting milestone. The road is open to two lanes of traffic in both directions, and a wider shared use path is also ready for pedestrians and cyclists.
Is it okay if we hate that one?So. At least one is a moron.
The bicycles are by toys in every Walmart I’ve ever been in. And the vehicle in the picture is not capable of registering for road use.
I said: “Those that call bicycles toys are just ignorant idiots”, do not see the word comfort in there at all.Newer technology would certainly add comfort. Anyone that thinks different is in your words in this thread, is an ignorant idiot.
not enough to sue for, and he left in a hurryYep, he should not do that. Did you get damage?
Well. You prove my point. You imagine that you’re in a group where your rights are being taken away. Motor vehicles don’t really have a right to drive on roads. Motor vehicle drivers need a permission slip to drive. And when they drive, the vehicles must be registered. If you had an equal *right* to the road, you’d have to do the same.
I think if driving is a privilege, something we’re permitted to do, it’s not actually a right. But that’s a matter of semantics for another discussion. And what it is for bicycles, it’s better described as an accommodation. Roads were built for motor vehicles. But bicycles may use those roads. And because of the accommodations, new roads get bike friendly grates where needed.
That is wrong, it should have been made right if it was the cyclist fault.not enough to sue for, and he left in a hurry
I have no idea why he is riding there, just don’t know the area."ASK! And Ye Shall Receive!! Blessed be printcraft, for he is good." - princraft 3:28
https://dialogdesign.ca/news-events/groat-road-bridges-open-to-traffic/
Oh, I got it now, because new technology in the bicycle world has nothing to do with the humans comfort in mind. But yet new technology everywhere else it does.I said: “Those that call bicycles toys are just ignorant idiots”, do not see the word comfort in there at all.