upvote
Ah, in that case, you would certainly be excused for trying to kill one or two of them.
reply
Just don’t forget to get your wax touched up afterwards, spandex scuffs your hood a surprising amount!
reply
You don't understand. He has seen some cyclists blow a stop sign, so he is entitled to endanger the life of any cyclist he comes across.
reply
He didn't say that, and you shouldn't put words in his mouth like that.
reply
I am not putting words in his mouth. I am pointing out the logical error in this memetic argument that cyclists are tired of reading again and again.

Whenever we mention that drivers harass and kill cyclists, there is somebody retorting that "cyclists don't follow the rules of the road", as if it somehow justified road violence against all cyclists, law abiding or not. It is a complete non-sequitur that pops up every time we point at the main source of death and dismemberment in our cities: drivers. [0] [1]

[0] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=351000...

[1] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=131001...

reply
> "cyclists don't follow the rules of the road"

Boy, have I got news for him about car drivers...

reply
I read it as doing a mimic of the bad logic in the argument he replied to in order point out the flaw there via sarcasm. Random anecdotes don't prove anything about large classes of people, whether cyclists or car drivers.
reply
If nxm isn't saying that, I cannot imagine what the point of their comment was? Would you care to explain what you think it was?

Why would anyone ever type that comment as a response to the comment above?

reply
It is exactly what he is saying. He's justifying "drivers intentionally try[ing] to drive [GP] off the road or hit [GP]."
reply
Come on now, I don’t think it was meant as a justification of that inexcusable driver’s behaviour.
reply
What was the comment trying to say?
reply
the downvoted comment sounded like textbook whataboutism to me. those who responded have their antennae up for rhetorical fallacies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

reply
Classifying something as a textbook whataboutism is typically itself a rhetorical fallacy. It is rare for it to be used in the sense of identifying a real problem. Normally when it gets invoked someone has an argument, often a reasonable one, and someone else wants to pretend it isn't a valid but can't come up with a logical inconsistency.

In this case nxm's comment has formal problems - it is just irrelevant. True or not, it doesn't justify mowing down cyclists.

reply
I don’t think they enjoy sharing the road with you any more than you do with them. Maybe we could encourage our elected representatives to install more bike friendly infrastructure like bike trails and bikeways
reply
I live in a place that has what I consider to be the best cycle infrastructures possible. Every road has a cycle lane next to it, usually at least 20ft away from the road, in tree lined purpose built areas, large amounts of grass between the road and the cycle lanes, they form a grid that matches every road in the city. Where they cross the road, there are underpasses or bridges. At no point does a cyclist ever need to be on a road, often you can't even see the roads.

There are still some cyclists (specifically middle aged men in spandex, never women, never dressed normally) who insist on cycling on the road, giving the finger to every passing car, who will loudly tell you to fuck off if you point out that literally next to them, about 20ft off the road, there is a cycle lane. built just for them, so they can cycle safely.

Anyway, this comment is in support of the comment of johnfn. No amount of training or testing will stop the arseholes being arseholes. But it is also to point out that arseholes are not restricted to a particular form of transport.

reply
[flagged]
reply
Think about what you’re saying. You want more traffic?
reply
Roads should be built to handle the throughput needed of them for the next several years. Adding more cars doesn't add more traffic if throughput of the pipe is big enough.
reply
I await your check for the purchase price of an automobile. I can also do Venmo if you prefer.
reply
I'm not interested in issuing an automobile loan to you, but there are others who specialize in this. Even dealerships themselves can help you finance it.
reply
I'm guessing this is sarcastic, but you never know.
reply
Oh wow! Sounds dangerous.

Do more cyclists kill drivers, or do more drivers kill cyclists?

reply
cyclists kill (and hurt) pedestrians, just like drivers
reply
Can you back that up with numbers or do you just expect people to take your word that cyclists have killed about as many people as WWII?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

https://www.academia.edu/115164883/Car_harm_A_global_review_...

reply
Vending machines kill (and hurt) people, just like guns.
reply
[flagged]
reply
Fewer than drivers, given that drivers tend to ignore the rules of the road more per a Danish government study:

* https://politiken.dk/danmark/art7185605/Rygterne-om-cykliste...

* Via: https://archive.is/https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/...

And perhaps more drivers should take up some cycling as it would make them better drivers (per a UK insurance company)

* https://archive.is/https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/...

Or using motorcycles or scooters: 2013 and 2015 UK insurance reports found riders better motorists than drivers, as did a 2014 UK police chiefs survey.

reply
Ridiculous and trivially provably false. (maybe Danish are different)

Go to any intersection in SF or LA. Set up a camera. Count the number of cars and cyclists that break a traffic law. Cars will be 5-10% breaking the laws. Cyclists will be 95-97% breaking the laws.

reply
> […] Set up a camera. […]

That's what a bunch of researchers did in Florida and found cyclists more compliant:

> According to the study, bicyclists were in compliance with traffic laws 88 percent of the time during the day and 87 percent of the time at night. The observed compliance rate for drivers who interacted with participants was slightly lower, at 85 percent during the day. (There weren’t enough nighttime driver observations to report a compliance rate.)

* https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-b...

* https://web.archive.org/web/20180127052846/http://www.fdot.g...

reply
My apartment overlooks a three way intersection. Drivers block the box almost every light cycle in rush hour. The most common traffic offense I see bikers make is riding on the sidewalk, which they obviously do because they fear being killed by drivers.
reply
Please go do it then. I've done this in San Diego, it was 19/20 failing to stop for cars, the one who did failed to stop behind the painted line. There were only 2 cyclists and they also slowly rolled through the intersection.
reply
So, 100% bike offenders. Less than 100% car offenders. You proved my point.
reply
Yeah, it's not like drivers text while driving, go over the speed limit, fail to signal, fail to fully stop at stop signs, run red lights, tailgate, or park in the bike lane, right?
reply
Source: "I made it the fuck up"
reply
This is a great example of confirmation bias.
reply
According to the data, not very many.
reply
The bike derangement syndrome in the US is truly something to behold.
reply
And motorists definitely don't do any of those things.
reply
Far out, dude! Have I got a story for you! This one time, I saw tons of high-speed metal on wheels recklessly do that, too!
reply
[flagged]
reply
Those rules exist because of cars. Before cars, we didn't have red lights or stop signs, and we didn't need them.

If we got rid of the cars, we could get rid of the silly requirement that everyone needs to come to a complete stop at every intersection, which only makes sense in a world where people drive 2000 pound death machines.

reply
Most people don't know the traffic laws both of your stats are way to low.
reply