Grabthar

We're hearing it was a sick ostrich.

Not even a fucking involucre?

Weird. I don't think I have driven a modern car that lets you put your hands around the wheel at 9 and 3 because that's where the centre/airbag attaches. Most also have a third point at 6, so 10 and 2 or 8 and 4 seems more appropriate. Are you only supposed to rest your hands on the outside of the wheel now?

Love this! I think these two would make a great add to any bar.

Pour one out for Leslie Horwinkle.

For the record, for many years I used to live a few kilometers from work and commuted by bike. I gave it up after passing the second fatal collision on my route. I still try to be objective about traffic law. Given that you attach some importance to specifially cycling experience when adjudicating the obvious for anyone with any road experience, I don't think you are capable of having a reasoned discussion over traffic rules where bicycles are concerned, but I hope that I am wrong.

The author tries to defend this exception to the normal stop rules as being unique from all the other road rules that sacrifice expedience for safety by saying there are only consequences for the cyclist when they get things wrong. That assertion is objectively wrong. It doesn't take much experience to know that vehicles making emergency maneuvers to avoid someone who screwed up can kill people, and that is true whether it is a car, bike, or person who thought it was safe to proceed but were wrong.

And you'll notice that I have not made a value judgment regarding the change itself. That's because it's immaterial. I'm merely pointing out that there actually are consequences to consider that extend beyond the cyclist. The person cited in the article handwaves these consequences, saying it only impacts the cyclist who gets it wrong because a bicycle isn't big enough to hurt people. Anyone who has seen a stroller roll out into traffic can attest to the chaos that will actually happen next. Sorry, but I just can't stand to see an alleged expert missing something that big in his argument and everyone just nodding along. If you want such a change to happen, it needs to stem from an intellectually honest discussion.

No, if you read the article you would know that the person making the case for the rule change thinks it would be justified because there are only consequences for the person on the bike. But he is demonstrably wrong, which is my point. That is what was being discussed in the original post I replied to. Not how the rule works. Just that there are indeed consequences to getting it wrong. If you don't understand it, try reading the article and the comments again.

Read the comment. Helps if you understand the rule itself isn't relevant to the consequences for getting it wrong.

Simply not true though. Someone who doesn't want PTSD from turning a human being into a big red crayon is going to make panic maneuvers, which could very well cause a different fatal crash. There are lots of "good" arguments as to why we should be able to ignore traffic signs under certain circumstances, but they all require that humans consistently get it right. Take the extra seconds to stop and make the roads safer for everyone, or if that is so much of an imposition, please just take the bus.

Caring, sharing, underwear that no one should be wearing

FFS, stop feeding me tennis balls!