You’re picking and choosing assumptions that suit your preference.
That’s pretty rich considering you’re assuming OP (on a bike) specifically mentioned two designated bike lanes, decided to ride in the road instead, then told all of us so we would know he’s a jerk.
If they were riding in the road they wouldn’t have mentioned the bike lanes at all so they looked like the “good guy”
“So I was stomping on some kittens right, then this guy cut in line at Walmart right in front of me! What a jerk”
Why would someone include the part of the story that made them the bad guy?
You are the one assuming whatever fits you’re narrative the best. You must drive a BMW and are here to troll bike riders.
Op had an option to not be in danger then. They were in the car lane to feel the drama.
That’s you making a wild leap to blame the bike.
I’m using what’s called occums razor. Op mentioned the bike lanes. Op didn’t say anything about being in the main road.
It’s more reasonable to assume they were using the bike lanes they mentioned. It’s unreasonable to assume they were in the road and only mentioned the bike lanes to us in order to make themselves look bad. That doesn’t make sense.
Op said they were on a bike. Op said there were two designated bike lanes. Ok said car nearly hit them.
One of two things must be true.
Car entered the bike lane. A thing that happens often.
Op was riding in the traffic lane instead of the two designated bike lanes, then posted about it, and specifically mentioned the two bike lanes they were not using for no reason other than to make themself look bad. A thing that doesn’t happen often.
You see how short one explanation is compared to the other? Yeah the short explanation is probably what happened. It’s the most likely explanation.
It does happen often. Many Cyclists often do not obey road rules. ‘Rules are for thee and not for me.’ And it’s hilarious you think anyone that entitled has any self observation enough to think they would look bad while doing so. Riding a bike should absolutely require a license to be out on the road.
And BMW drivers are well known for their courtesy on the road? Oh right even car drivers know people who drive bmws think they are special and do whatever they want.
I’ve seen bmws get plowed by distracted drivers. But that’s the thing: Cars aren’t empty machines. They are operated by humans. As are cyclists, cyclists who should also practice the rules of the road.
As a fellow cyclist myself , I am disappointed by your intellect on this one.
Nor did the cyclist. Two wrongs don’t make you right.
Again there is no reason to assume the cyclist isn’t in the bike lane or is breaking any kind of law. You just decided entirely on your own that they must be in the road.
I saw a car driving on the bike path just yesterday. Not even a bike lane, I completely separate path on the side of the road separated by a big ditch. They drove on the bike path to avoid traffic lights.
Are you Food Safety Certified from a credited organization? No?
Then obviously your cooking must be poisonous.
I however am food safety certified. I cannot cook at all. Suck at cooking. I do know proper temps, and how to store food. I still cannot cook.
Having a license only PROVES you know the rules. Having one doesn’t mean your GOOD at thing or even that you will FOLLOW the rules. It just proves you KNOW the rules.
Likewise not having a license doesn’t mean you DONT know the rules or WONT follow the rules. It only means you haven’t proven to a licensing body that you do.
I don’t have a medical license, but I know you shouldn’t take opioids every day of your life or you’ll get addicted to them. Clearly many doctors did not know that or did not care.
Edit: hell one more fun one.
When I was in school we had a state issued standardized test called the TAAS test. I got a perfect score every single year. Got every single question in the entire test, every category, correct. 100 percent.
However I was failing most of my classes. Did I know the material or did I not? One certificate said I exceptional and perfect, the other certificate says I was far below my peers.
“2 designated bike lanes”
Op had an option to not be in danger then. They were in the car lane to feel the drama.
I love the drama of getting hit by cars on the way to pick up my kid
So you admit you don’t use the designated bike lanes
do you buy your cars based on how many children you can mow down? or is it anyone not in a 4ton death machine?
Wow you’re so deeply obsessed with me. It would be Flattering in a way but creepily unhealthy how much this has encompassed your life for a week now.
Do you buy your bike by how many stop signs you can run through?
So you’re assuming the bike was in a car lane instead of a car trying to drive in the designated bike lane?
Considering the car was going 70 in a thirty it doesn’t sound like he obeyed the rules of the road.
You’re picking and choosing assumptions that suit your preference.
Nor did the cyclist. Two wrongs don’t make you right.
That’s pretty rich considering you’re assuming OP (on a bike) specifically mentioned two designated bike lanes, decided to ride in the road instead, then told all of us so we would know he’s a jerk.
If they were riding in the road they wouldn’t have mentioned the bike lanes at all so they looked like the “good guy”
“So I was stomping on some kittens right, then this guy cut in line at Walmart right in front of me! What a jerk”
Why would someone include the part of the story that made them the bad guy?
You are the one assuming whatever fits you’re narrative the best. You must drive a BMW and are here to troll bike riders.
And where did they say the car drive in the bike lane? They didn’t. This is your narrative.
That’s you making a wild leap to blame the bike.
I’m using what’s called occums razor. Op mentioned the bike lanes. Op didn’t say anything about being in the main road.
It’s more reasonable to assume they were using the bike lanes they mentioned. It’s unreasonable to assume they were in the road and only mentioned the bike lanes to us in order to make themselves look bad. That doesn’t make sense.
Op said they were on a bike. Op said there were two designated bike lanes. Ok said car nearly hit them.
One of two things must be true.
Car entered the bike lane. A thing that happens often.
Op was riding in the traffic lane instead of the two designated bike lanes, then posted about it, and specifically mentioned the two bike lanes they were not using for no reason other than to make themself look bad. A thing that doesn’t happen often.
You see how short one explanation is compared to the other? Yeah the short explanation is probably what happened. It’s the most likely explanation.
It does happen often. Many Cyclists often do not obey road rules. ‘Rules are for thee and not for me.’ And it’s hilarious you think anyone that entitled has any self observation enough to think they would look bad while doing so. Riding a bike should absolutely require a license to be out on the road.
And BMW drivers are well known for their courtesy on the road? Oh right even car drivers know people who drive bmws think they are special and do whatever they want.
Go home troll.
I’ve seen bmws get plowed by distracted drivers. But that’s the thing: Cars aren’t empty machines. They are operated by humans. As are cyclists, cyclists who should also practice the rules of the road.
As a fellow cyclist myself , I am disappointed by your intellect on this one.
Again there is no reason to assume the cyclist isn’t in the bike lane or is breaking any kind of law. You just decided entirely on your own that they must be in the road.
I saw a car driving on the bike path just yesterday. Not even a bike lane, I completely separate path on the side of the road separated by a big ditch. They drove on the bike path to avoid traffic lights.
If we’re going by anecdotes, I saw a cyclist ignore a red last week and in the past month several ignore stop signs.
We aren’t going by anecdotes. We are going by what’s most reasonable to assume.
Reasonable to assume a cyclist that aren’t required to hold a license to be out on the road won’t obey road rules.
That’s not reasonable to assume. Let me prove it?
Are you Food Safety Certified from a credited organization? No?
Then obviously your cooking must be poisonous.
I however am food safety certified. I cannot cook at all. Suck at cooking. I do know proper temps, and how to store food. I still cannot cook.
Having a license only PROVES you know the rules. Having one doesn’t mean your GOOD at thing or even that you will FOLLOW the rules. It just proves you KNOW the rules.
Likewise not having a license doesn’t mean you DONT know the rules or WONT follow the rules. It only means you haven’t proven to a licensing body that you do.
I don’t have a medical license, but I know you shouldn’t take opioids every day of your life or you’ll get addicted to them. Clearly many doctors did not know that or did not care.
Edit: hell one more fun one.
When I was in school we had a state issued standardized test called the TAAS test. I got a perfect score every single year. Got every single question in the entire test, every category, correct. 100 percent.
However I was failing most of my classes. Did I know the material or did I not? One certificate said I exceptional and perfect, the other certificate says I was far below my peers.
Which one was right?
Jfc. Learn to stop at a stop sign.