No, you have to severely distort what I said to arrive at that conclusion. I said I don’t do those things.
I depicted the various possible scenarios to explain why bike lanes are a good thing. If your solution is to just take away people’s licenses because they passed a bike on the road just so you don’t have to build bike lanes, then you might want to do some introspecting because you’re part of the problem.
You literally said you would have to swerve into a bike if there was a car coming when you were passing at a curve bruh, there’s no scenario where you should be passing at that time period. Its a dumbass argument.
The taking licenses away isn’t because you passed someone, its because your idea of a valid response to you fucking up in this hypothetical scenario is to murder someone.
I said that might be a possibility if I pass too slowly while giving them too much space. I don’t personally pass in scenarios where that is likely to happen.
The point of that argument wasn’t to say “It’s okay to swerve into the cyclist,” so you acting like that’s what I’m saying is a strawman. The point of the argument was to say “Cyclists shouldn’t be upset and act self-righteous every time someone doesn’t crawl past them completely in the other lane of traffic.”
I can go slow, but I’d have to give you less space. Or I can give you more space, but I’d have to go faster. If I go both fast and close, I’d be a jerk, but it’s not going to be neither. It’s going to be one or the other.
The talk of swerving was an explanation of why it would be dangerous to pass slowly in the wrong lane of traffic. To portray it as anything else is extremely disingenuous.
No, you have to severely distort what I said to arrive at that conclusion. I said I don’t do those things.
I depicted the various possible scenarios to explain why bike lanes are a good thing. If your solution is to just take away people’s licenses because they passed a bike on the road just so you don’t have to build bike lanes, then you might want to do some introspecting because you’re part of the problem.
You literally said you would have to swerve into a bike if there was a car coming when you were passing at a curve bruh, there’s no scenario where you should be passing at that time period. Its a dumbass argument.
The taking licenses away isn’t because you passed someone, its because your idea of a valid response to you fucking up in this hypothetical scenario is to murder someone.
I said that might be a possibility if I pass too slowly while giving them too much space. I don’t personally pass in scenarios where that is likely to happen.
The point of that argument wasn’t to say “It’s okay to swerve into the cyclist,” so you acting like that’s what I’m saying is a strawman. The point of the argument was to say “Cyclists shouldn’t be upset and act self-righteous every time someone doesn’t crawl past them completely in the other lane of traffic.”
I can go slow, but I’d have to give you less space. Or I can give you more space, but I’d have to go faster. If I go both fast and close, I’d be a jerk, but it’s not going to be neither. It’s going to be one or the other.
The talk of swerving was an explanation of why it would be dangerous to pass slowly in the wrong lane of traffic. To portray it as anything else is extremely disingenuous.