4 ms·
I'm not even sure how to respond to this type of lumping. > Good drivers and reckless drivers are both traffic. Doesn't mean they are both automatically justif
by mattbk1 6y ago
I'm not even sure how to respond to this type of lumping.
> Good drivers and reckless drivers are both traffic. Doesn't mean they are both automatically justified.
- rank0 6y agoYour original point seems to be: "bicyclists are not disrupting traffic because they are part of traffic" My counter point is that "being part of traffic does not preclude you from disrupting traffic. See reckless driver example." Did I misunderstand your original comment?
- mattbk1 6y agoIt seems like you got it. I'm trying to parse how you choose to blame people on bicycles for disrupting traffic but not people in cars.