>>1002217>But you're still avoiding responsibility for your actions by claiming that the car is at fault when a texting cyclist pushes another cyclist onto the road and into the path of cars.But, it is, though. We're not talking fault, we're just talking damage, really.
So, yeah, boo fucking hoo, ya face harsher charges as a driver because you have the capacity to cause greater harm. (With an inverse capacity to cause harm to yourself, unlike a cyclist.)
So, is it a danger? Yes, but why? Because of the cars, ultimately.
You pay attention, see a cyclist not paying attention, and you drive accordingly. If that means slowing down, stopping, turning off on another road to put the problem on someone else, so be it.
You're always a part of the problem, being out on the road in a car. It's the responsibly you assume.
>If I'm passing slower cyclist in the bike lane and they swerve as I pass which bumps me into the path of cars then it's that inattentive texting cyclist who is accountable. No, it's you, clearly. You saw a cyclist, right? Because you NEEDED to pass him.
Now, you saw the cyclist, so you saw his phone, either the light in the dark, or by his hand position. So, you're telling me YOU saw a cyclist, and YOU saw that the cyclist might do something squirrel, and YOU still thought it was a safe pass?????
If I see a ball roll into the road while I'm driving, I assume there's a kid there short after chasing it, I don't just keep fucking driving.
>Demonstrating, yet again, that you'll go to great lengths to excuse your texting habits. I'm not that guy, and you shouldn't be texting, HOWEVER, you must know that the real danger here IS the car, and you must be willing to take more responsibility while driving something like that. It's no the 'fair', but it is.
He's a retard for texting and riding, for sure, but now you've made it deadly just by existing.
