4 ms·
I like explaining this as “bikes don’t have to stop for no one”. Upon hearing that people are usually momentarily affronted by the apparent insolence, then real
by aendruk 5y ago
I like explaining this as “bikes don’t have to stop for no one”. Upon hearing that people are usually momentarily affronted by the apparent insolence, then realize I mean it literally and laugh.
- notacoward 5y agoYeah, except that pedestrians exist. By both law and convention in most places, they (we) do have right of way over bikes. Horses are often given precedence over both, where that's relevant. Being on a bike doesn't make you king of all roads, sidewalks, and other paths.
- aendruk 5y agoYou misunderstand. :) The phrase is a play on words that literally means if “no one” is there you don’t have to stop for them. It’s a contrapositive description of yielding—the point being precisely to counter the common misconception (and ensuing outrage) that such laws do confer higher right-of-way to cyclists.
- notacoward 5y agoThank you for the clarification. The double-negative form didn't come across that way, perhaps because it's used so often for emphasis (and not even considered ungrammatical in most languages other than English AFAICT).