You not liking a court ruling!?!?The court stripped a specific permitted group of legal protections still enjoyed by other permitted groups. The whole “intended” part is utterly ridiculous, hundreds of thousands of suits have been filed by litigants that were not “intended“ users or uses and they won.
This is wrong, “Roads must be maintained to be sufficiently safe for vehicular traffic”, they are for permitted use, unless otherwise codified in the laws.
This was the state Supreme Court trying to save bankrupting parts of the government…
Got anything on the merits? Probably not, as usual…You not liking a court ruling!?!?
Probably a BritYou're on the wrong side of the road
You're on the wrong side of the road! Entitled cyclist and karen got what they deservedIn this short you will see Entitled Karen public freakout moments, Ent...youtube.com
You're on the wrong side of the road
You're on the wrong side of the road! Entitled cyclist and karen got what they deservedIn this short you will see Entitled Karen public freakout moments, Ent...youtube.com
I see that crap (wrong side of the road) all too often. I do not get over for them, I just stop in my lane leaving no room on the right of my truck until they pass on the correct side of the road.You're on the wrong side of the road
You're on the wrong side of the road! Entitled cyclist and karen got what they deservedIn this short you will see Entitled Karen public freakout moments, Ent...youtube.com
It absolutely is as simple as explained upthread.Got anything on the merits? Probably not, as usual…
Just wrong on the merits. Permitted, intended, if the entities in charge of the roads leave an unsafe condition and someone is injured car, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, pedestrian, etc. they should have equal access to sue the entity that was responsible for the unsafe condition. One use should not have any rights over another legal use.It absolutely is as simple as explained upthread.
Intended use: roads are designed and maintained for motor vehicles.
Permitted use: use at your own risk.
If they’re gonna start making roads to standards that cyclists need, I’m afraid we’ll need you and the other cyclists to pay for that.
So by that logic many lawsuits are erroneously decided. McDonalds should have said coffee cups are intended for the hand and cup holder, not the lap. Slam dunk…Yes.
Faulty analogy.So by that logic many lawsuits are erroneously decided. McDonalds should have said coffee cups are intended for the hand and cup holder, not the lap. Slam dunk…
Actually they're both on the wrong side of the road. Pedestrians are supposed to walk against traffic, on the left side of the road. Bicycles are supposed to ride with traffic, on the right side of the road.
What traffic? It wasn't a street, it was a bike/walking path.Actually they're both on the wrong side of the road. Pedestrians are supposed to walk against traffic, on the left side of the road. Bicycles are supposed to ride with traffic, on the right side of the road.
Then how was the cyclist on the wrong side? I'd say bicycles constitute "traffic". I think the same rules generally apply.What traffic? It wasn't a street, it was a bike/walking path.
Who's in the wrong? I mean, look at the thread title. The walker was just foolish. She should have stepped out of the way and pushed the rider over as she passed. And then kicked her dogs.
People go both ways on the path. Your logic says pedestrians and cyclists would always be going against each other. That would be brilliant. What do you want to bet there is a sign somewhere that says how people show handle the situation?Then how was the cyclist on the wrong side? I'd say bicycles constitute "traffic". I think the same rules generally apply.
It's a multi-use path. So pedestrians, skateboarders, rollerbladers, anyone on the path traveling by any legal means, is traffic. Traffic should be on the right side of the path.Then how was the cyclist on the wrong side? I'd say bicycles constitute "traffic". I think the same rules generally apply.
That's the way it works on regular streets. Pedestrians and vehicular traffic (yes, even bicycles) should always be going against each other.Your logic says pedestrians and cyclists would always be going against each other.