I’ve ridden bikes in many cities, including yours. So you are still lumping me with those who break the law.
So, if they don’t obey the law when it’s not enforced, enforcement wouldn’t have any effect?
I didn’t say it wouldn’t have any effect, what I did say was “I question its effectiveness.” In other words, I’m dubious of the police’s ability to enforce these laws to any meaningful degree, but assuming that weren’t an issue, I’m skeptical of the this seriously modifying bicyclists’ behavior. After all, people still speed don’t they? Jaywalking’s still rampant in Seattle too, even after a period of supposed cracking down on that.
I’d say it’s about the same. But the cyclist on the sidewalk is only in danger when crossing the road; whereas the cyclist in the road is in danger all the time.
Did you highlight the part where I said that I was behind the child when I honked? You didn’t, because it wasn’t there. I was just past her, because I wanted her to understand who was honking and why. My intention was to educate, not scare.
Look, I get it: I’m a convenient target for you to focus all of your pent up anger at motorists that have thrown things at you. Have at it. It is the pit. Pretend that I throw beer cans at children if it makes you feel better.
Behind, next to, just past… same thing can happen either way. Add the fact that you had no business honking at them because they were legally riding in the street. Quit backtracking and trying to justify yourself. You’re a dick.
Your confusion leads me to believe that you meant something other than what you wrote originally. You wrote:
Perhaps you can clarify what “it” refers to in that sentence, and then we will know if we’re talking past each other.
double post, for some reason
I had interpreted his statement as him attacking me for thinking that I was arguing that it wasn’t legal for him to ride in the street.
As far as I can tell, everything I wrote conveyed what I intended.
Obviously it didn’t. So you can’t tell me what the word “it” refers to? I can’t address your concerns then.
What the fuck? I JUST DID!
:smack: of course not. You’re too busy talking shit to each other. Carry on.
One of my first posts had a disclaimer to this affect, but nobody cares. Everybody wants to imagine that everybody else is talking about a situation exactly like their own.
False analogy. We’re comparing street cyclist with sidewalk cyclists. A street cyclist, no matter how careful, is more likely to be involved in an accident that a careful sidewalk cyclist.
No. I specifically said that sidewalk cyclists should maintain a moderate speed in order to prevent such accidents from occuring. If an accident does occur though, the impact will be far less damaging than if the bicycle had collided with a truck, motorcycle or automobile. In that respect, cycling on the sidewalks is a great deal safer.
Huh? You are insane.
At least I can read.
I don’t think you know what “false analogy” means.
I have already proven this false. Did you not read my relevant post and view the links I provided?
What does this have to do with anything? I never suggested you said otherwise.
Like I said, your argument appears to be that it’s correct to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk because the pedestrians you hit would probably only be injured and not killed. What part of that isn’t the point you’re making?
No, it’s not. I have cited a survey showing you’re wrong. All you have done is make a bald assertion.
Even if it were true, it’s still a specious argument. You would be arguing that it’s safer for the bicyclist, but it still would be less safe for pedestrians. In other words: “I will risk injuring others to lessen my risk of being killed.” The trade-off you are proposing, i.e. risking injury because death is worse than injury, isn’t valid, because you’re trading your risk of death for another’s risk of injury.
No, you really can’t. I don’t know why I’m bothering, but as an example, in the sentence:
“I bought a cat but it ran away.”
The word “it” refers to “a cat”.
Your answer to the question “What does ‘it’ refer to?” was:
Do you see the difference? Your answer should have been one, or at most several words, not 39 words.
I had to purposefully over explain because you’re a fucking idiot who apparently can’t comprehend anything of substance, as support by your continued ignorance regarding this so called “it.” I’m impressed you’re able to spare enough brain power to type a message without falling over from forgetting to breath.
Edit: Oh, and you have continued to neglect one of my questions twice now, where you grossly exaggerated/misinterpreted what I was saying. Good job, fucko.
I didn’t ask you to over-explain it. I asked you a very simple question, which you cannot answer. “It” is a pronoun. Pronouns take the place of nouns in sentences. If you use the word “it” and can’t explain what noun it is taking the place of, then you do not know how to communicate in the English language.
Still haven’t answered my question regarding your gross exaggeration of my statements.