Originally Posted by
pacificaslim
Honestly, no, it does not make sense. I can't imagine going through life with your attitude.
Hmm, I could have sworn that when I pointed out that cyclists are the ones who are in the best position to determine when it is and isn't safe for them to move over that you responded that that wasn't so. And by doing so implied that motorists were somehow because they were motorists had a better idea of when and where it's safe to move over.
How does my wanting to protect my safety infer that I have some sort of "attitude?" As I said given that cyclists have the most to loose if an area that someone thinks is "safe" turns out not to be safe, how does that infer that a person has an "attitude?"
Originally Posted by
pacificaslim
[btw, no one has claimed motorists will make the determination: i was just arguing against the idea that any particular cyclist alone has the "right" to determine what is a "safe" place to pull over or to move to the right side. A particular cyclist may be unreasonable in their opinion and be overruled by common sense, and the court system (when ticketed).]
Okay, if a cyclist isn't the best person to judge when and where it's safe to pull/move over and it isn't going to be a motorist, than who is going to make the determination? You do know that the same road feels very different depending on the type of vehicle one is using to travel on it, right? A road that feels as smooth as silk to an 18-wheeler is going to be bumpy to a person in a 'Vette, and will be even worse for a cyclist, you do get that, right?