Originally Posted by 257Bob
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by 257Bob
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by GeoW
Move the friggin wheels off the highways and walking paths.

I looked to see if I could identify this path. It was likely a multi-use path designed for pedestrians and cyclists. It's likely the kind of path that motorists believe cyclists should be relegated to. Now we have a goddam moron shouting that cyclists shouldn't be on the path that was designed and provided for them.

Suck it up buttercup. Cyclists can be in both places no matter how big of a tantrum you throw.

This thread is interesting in that the majority believe that the cyclist is at fault. Almost all believe that due to the vulnerability of the pedestrian, the cyclist has a moral duty to exercise due care. Nobody has suggested that the pedestrian got their due comeuppance for daring to defy the law of gross tonnage with a cyclist. Flighty values are never not funny.

This thread is interesting in that the majority believe that the cyclist is at fault - yes, the cyclist is 100% at fault for not controlling their actions and causing loss of life!

And of course we hold that value set wrt motorists who mow down cyclists, right?

And of course we hold that value set wrt motorists who mow down cyclists, right? - if the motorist is negligent or "at fault" then yes. Most roads in the US were designed for autos, not bikes. Just because the law says you "can" ride on the road doesn't mean you "should"!

Umm, no. They were not designed FOR motorists. They were designed for multi-modal transportation. Period. Laws and signage make this abundantly clear. They were designed with passengers vehicles as the most common denominator. Why wouldn't they be?

How does this sound? Just because you "can" walk on the mult-use path doesn't mean you "should."