- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://rss.ponder.cat/post/116914
He dreamed of a cycling revolution. Then an SUV crushed him
cross-posted from: https://rss.ponder.cat/post/116914
He dreamed of a cycling revolution. Then an SUV crushed him
As a concept SUVs should not exist.
They are unstable, heavy and slower to react than normal cars, also the proportions of the design of the SUV are ugly.
So should my family of 7 be forced to sell our 7-seat SUV because you personally don’t like it?
Think about things before you say them.
That’s missing the point. The point is that this inhuman prick felt entitled to drive in the bike lane, ran over a cyclist’s foot, then killed the cyclist for having the audacity to object to having his foot run over.
None of that had anything to do with SUVs. Trying to make it about SUVs is, in my view, often a derailment tactic to distract from the real issue of driver entitlement. Fair warning, I will have very little tolerance for that in this thread.
I won’t argue that the driver’s behavior is the main issue, however smaller and lighter vehicles with lowers hoods are more forgiving in accidents involving pedestrains and cyclists. The design of trucks and SUVs are more dangerous, which then makes agressive drivers even more dangerous as well. We’ll never be able to fully eliminate entitlement and roadrage, but we can limit the designs of vehicles on our streets and the lisencing requirements for them.
Ok, first of all, I fully agree with you, this is a horrible tragedy regardless of what type of car or bike was involved.
I didn’t try do shift blame or derail anything, calm down, I just woke up when I wrote that.
Don’t treat people don’t confess their undying support for your cause as the enemy, that is letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Maybe you weren’t trying to do anything, but I’ve seen too often what happens when comments like yours get posted. The result is not productive, and I’m sick of it to the point that it’s become kind of a pet peeve. My goal was to head that off as gently as possible but also as unequivocally as necessary.
Anyway, being calm and giving you the benefit of the doubt is why you got a reply and not a mod action. Well, that and the need to mention the “fair warning” part, which was directed at everybody, not just you.
Edit: by the way, “horrible tragedy” carries a connotation of it being an accident. This wasn’t that. This was a monstrous purposeful act by someone whose mind had been corrupted by driving.
Since there are no connotative dictionaries I cannot definitively say you are incorrect, but I’m willing to climb out on that limb anyway. You are incorrect.
The “horrible tragedy” is the loss of a 27yr old that was completely unnecessary. A murder is still a horrible tragedy.