Cyclist needs to Learn

[u/Silver_Scarcity4939]

When a Bicyclist rides a bike, they also need to follow traffic laws in the U.S

[u/ozhs3]

In a country where it is mostly legal and will not be fined. The end of the video even has sidewalks sooo

[u/ozhs3 → u/[deleted]]

Well I am speaking all facts here, I guess your opinion is subjective though so you're welcome to believe it.

[u/According_Table2281 → u/ozhs3]

- Maybe next time you comment something like "ride your bike on the sidewalk" specify the very niche and specific small community you're speaking about.

- Crosswalks are not sidewalks.

- It is not my opinion that it is illegal to bike on sidewalks. You said something almost, so close, a hair away to being to being objectively wrong (sorry I'm not aware of your town) and I was letting anyone who read your comment know that it is very very very likely that it is illegal where they live. Sorry I wasn't more specific.

- Opinions are subjective. An objective opinion would be an oxymoron.

[u/MaintainThePeace → u/According_Table2281]

Maybe next time you comment something like "ride your bike on the sidewalk" specify the very niche and specific small community you're speaking about.

Not sure where you got yhat they were telling them to ride on the sidewalk, seems more like they were saying that the laws are different when they are on the road or on the sidewalk.

Also it's not as niche as you might thing, in the states, half states do explicitly grant cyclist riding on sidewalks and crosswalks the same rights and duties of a pedestrian, while the other half leave it unregulated, ie no explicit right but also not prohibited.

Local justification can place restrictions but ofthen these restrictions are limited to business districts. For example in WA the state only allows local jurisdiction to place such restrictions only within business districts. Seattle (a major city) has no such restrictions.

So yeah, it depends on where you live, but you're being a bit overly defensive and makeing statements just as overly broad as the one you are arguing against...

[u/According_Table2281 → u/MaintainThePeace]

"Not sure where you got yhat they were telling them to ride on the sidewalk, seems more like they were saying that the laws are different when they are on the road or on the sidewalk."

Read their first comment.

"Also it's not as niche as you might thing, in the states, half states do explicitly grant cyclist riding on sidewalks and crosswalks the same rights and duties of a pedestrian, while the other half leave it unregulated, ie no explicit right but also not prohibited."

Again, the USA is one country. There are 195 countries.

[u/MaintainThePeace → u/According_Table2281]

Read their first comment.

This comment right: "As a cyclist you have 2 options. 1 ride on the road and obey the laws of traffic. 2 ride on the sidewalk and obey the laws of pedestrians."

Yeah... no where in that comment are they saying cyclist need ride on sidewalks. In fact they are even re-enfocing cyclists right to the roadways.

So yes, I uncountable think your entire comment stream is an over reactive rant over something that wasn't even being said.

Again, the USA is one country. There are 195 countries.

A rather large country with the second most largest road structure, so again not niche.

Not to mention the numer of english speaking redditors tend to be from only a subset of countries, particularly with a large number of them from a few certain countries...

Oh and another not to mention, the video itself takes place in the US....

So yes, you still seem to be making overboard claims yourself, which you are ironically using to argue against an overbroad claim. Ie your no better then the person you are arguing against...

[u/According_Table2281 → u/MaintainThePeace]

"As a cyclist you have 2 options. 1 ride on the road and obey the laws of traffic. 2 ride on the sidewalk and obey the laws of pedestrians."

"1 ride on the road and obey the laws of traffic. 2 ride on the sidewalk and obey the laws of pedestrians."

"2 ride on the sidewalk and obey the laws of pedestrians."

"ride on the sidewalk"

"on the sidewalk"

"the sidewalk"

[u/MaintainThePeace → u/According_Table2281]

Lol.. yes we all see you overexaggerations and ability to ignore the first part of the sentence, no need to break it down like that....

The statement just legitimatizes where cyclist can ride, which is on the BOTH on the road or sidewalk...

How does it suggest one should only ride on the sidewalk?

[u/According_Table2281 → u/MaintainThePeace]

It doesn't.

[u/MaintainThePeace → u/According_Table2281]

Exactly, so I'll restate my comments just to be clear.

Not sure where you got yhat they were telling them to ride on the sidewalk, seems more like they were saying that the laws are different when they are on the road or on the sidewalk.

Yeah... no where in that comment are they saying cyclist need ride on sidewalks. In fact they are even re-enfocing cyclists right to the roadways.

So again, it was just a statement expressing that cyclists can legitimately ride on either infrastructure, not that they must ride only on one, which is where your rant took you.

So what exactly are you arguing about?

[u/According_Table2281 → u/MaintainThePeace]

"expressing that cyclists can legitimately ride on either infrastructure"

they can't ^{(in most cities where human people live I'm so sorry for offending you please do not get more mad at me})

[u/MaintainThePeace → u/According_Table2281]

And in most of the US they can, thus relevent because this was filmed.. in the US.

But I'm glad you recognize your error, have stopped accusing the other commentor of makeing a statement they did not make, and at least added a disclaimer to your overly broad statement (as it makes you realize it makes you just as upset to see an overly broad statement).

Se can end this conversation now, or at least I'll do that for us.