3 ms·
> Expecting bike riders to follow traffic laws is also unrealistic. This is why they often have a massively higher rate of fatalities, This is an unconscionabl
by jMyles 6mo ago
> Expecting bike riders to follow traffic laws is also unrealistic. This is why they often have a massively higher rate of fatalities,
This is an unconscionable degree of victim-blaming. Psychotic-level.
- mattlondon 6mo agoVictims are not the ones running red lights, cutting across pedestrian sidewalks/pavements at 20+ mph, going down one-way-streets the wrong way, screaming at pedestrians to get out the way so they don't have to slow down when pedestrians are crossing on a green man etc etc etc. At least in London the cyclists are absolutely lawless. Yes a lot are injured and some sadly die, but many many many totally ignore the rules (assuming they've even bothered to find out what the rules actually are). It's only got worse with ebike hire (Lime at al) as people will hop on after drinking, or have never even got a driving license etc so have no actual idea on the rules that car drivers have to prove etc before they're let behind the wheel at all. And when they're done with their lime bike they literally just dump them wherever they're done with it, blocking sidewalks/pavements for everyone. This antisocial cycling social-ill is very much at a "scourge" stage in London and is getting a lot of press.
- messe 6mo ago[flagged]
- xscott 6mo ago[flagged]
- messe 6mo ago[flagged]
- xscott 6mo ago[flagged]
- messe 6mo agoThis isn't an example of that. You claimed something in your initial comment. You did not back it up. I'm asking you to back up your initial claim. If you had addressed it you'd have a point, and that would be a correct example of sealioning. But you haven't, so don't accuse me of sealioning. This isn't me arguing in bad faith. This is me asking you to back up the claim you made in your first comment. That's arguing in good faith, if you only you are willing to provide the other side of the argument. Which you have avoided so far.
- tomhow 6mo agoThe “sealion” link and the abusive parts of their earlier comment are unacceptable and I've replied to their comment to make that known. However, these lines in your comment are also clear breaches: > Back up your fucking claim. > Really? Do you actually want to argue your point or is negative attention your fetish? > ^this kind of argument is not fucking productive. > So CITE YOUR SOURCES. Please don't fulminate or post flamebait on HN, or use capitalization for emphasis. The entire purpose of HN is to engage in curious conversation about topics we find interesting, and to avoid furious battle like this.
- 6mo ago