3 ms·
No, it absolves the forward operator of everything and blames the rearward operator for everything. You often can't pass another motorist without going into th
by erikpukinskis 9y ago
No, it absolves the forward operator of everything and blames the rearward operator for everything.
You often can't pass another motorist without going into the oncoming lane either.
The fundamental question is whether you see the road as a way for all people, or if you see it as primarily a resource for the wealthy, with the poor allowed provisional access based on their degree of disturbance to the flow of money.
You seem to see denying wealthy motorists the right to travel at their preferred speed as a more serious issue than denying the poor the right to safe travel in any form.
- lovemenot 9y agoI agree with your reasoning about preferential road usage, but would have preferred it without the economic diatribe. Two unpowered wheels does not necessarily imply poorer than four powered wheels. Relative wealth is an irrelevance to your main argument about preferential speed.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y agoI would also bet, the the average car driver on a road is less rich than the average bike rider on a road.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dghughes 9y agoWealthy? I don't see how that got into the discussion. In the winter when it's -20C and snowing here nobody bikes. Actually no my concern is there is no room! The width of the road is barely enough for one vehicle leaving maybe 30cm on either side. Making a law to demand 1m (100cm) separation seems to ignore reality, and math. Also, I could be ahead of a bicyclist and he can overtake me but I am now required by law to make room as he overtakes to my right. Even if there is a vehicle to my left I have to move over or be fined. I understand the purpose of the law but it is poorly written.