179
Just a little bit of attempted homicide as a "teaching exercise" (europe.pub)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Apologies, I don't know who Tim Walz is or why it's relevant. Also don't know what it means for the sake of argumentation that a state is a "mini Canada". 🤷‍♂️ No clue what the significance is there. 😅

Also bicycles are literally pedestrians and not vehicles.

🤨 That's weird. According to whom? Not Wikipedia anyway.

A vehicle is a machine designed for self-propulsion, usually to transport people, cargo, or both. The term "vehicle" typically refers to ground transport vehicles such as human-powered land vehicles (e.g. bicycles, tricycles, velomobiles) and animal-powered transports (e.g. horse-drawn carriages/wagons, ox carts, dog sleds). It commonly includes both motor vehicles (e.g. motorcycles, cars, trucks, buses, mobility scooters) and railed vehicles (trains, trams and monorails).

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle

Bikes traveling on a road should adhere to the rules of that road, just like any other vehicle traveling on that road.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    Walz is the guy who ran with Harris against the diarrhea doo doo fecal man. I don't expect anyone outside the US to know who he is.

    My point is that bicycles should never be grouped with cars because of how different they are. Bicycles should probably have their own rules but if they were to be grouped with anything, it's definitely pedestrians and not vehicles.

    There's a guy in my town who gets around on a motorized wheelchair which technically means he's operating a motor vehicle but it would be pretty insane to expect him to follow the same rules as a car driver, so it makes much more sense, for simplicity's sake, to classify him as a pedestrian even though he technically isn't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    I think it's sensible they have similar rules to cars, because bikes are much, much faster than pedestrians. Ride on right side of road, the "right-hand yield rule", following signs that are in place, etc. I don't understand why it's better to have them treated as pedestrians, when they behave so differently from pedestrians.

    But different roads have different rules. Ride on car road, follow car rules. Ride on pedestrian road, follow those rules. It's about context and predictability, again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    I think we are running into culture differences here. In the US we don't have separate roads for different types of traffic except for in cities sometimes. And even then you get drivers who get super pissed about having less road to hog cause the city added the skinniest little bike lane and walkway. Most places in the US do not differentiate between car roads, bike roads, and walking roads, so much so that I've never even seen a pedestrian only road before unless sidewalks count.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Indeed, and I touched on this before that it's very America to have such poor bike infrastructure, unfortunately. But in light of that, it would make even more sense to have bikes follow the same rules when riding on the same roads. I don't know, that's just my thinking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent