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.
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 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.
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.
You’re picking and choosing assumptions that suit your preference.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.