Driver Plows Through Dozens of Cyclists in Brazil

Typical. You get so mad that all you can do is blubber out insults instead of holding an interesting debate like I was hoping for, making false qoutes and throwing around words like "dumbass" such as a child would. BTW all of my posts on this page were posted within ~30 minutes. I posted in response to your post 6 hours after the fact, yet you responded almost immediately. Pretty big difference there.

I'll go drive my Nissan Sentra, which is obviously a penis extension, while I ponder your obsession with other mens' dicks.

 

I gave you a legit debate, and you where very obviously not interested. I mentioned the differences between bikes and cars, and why a car disobeying those rules is much worse than a bike doing the same.

You're right, I've got all day, I'm suspended from school. I'm hanging out online, in between working out.... and going on several bike rides a day as part of that workout.

Feels fucking awesome, as of late I've been getting more of a runners trip than a runners high. I think I'm going to go do some pullups, toodles.

 

That is not a legit debate. That is stating your opinion and then throwing a fit as soon as somebody disagrees, which I did.

Damn. I wish I was suspended from school....

 

Not quite what happened.

If you throw a fit in which you accuse me (an admittted habitual forum douche) of throwing a fit, it sort of nulls your point about me.

If we're not going to debate opinions, what DO you want to debate?

Are you saying that you disagree with my "opinion" that you can't do anywhere near as much damage if you wreck a bike into someone than if you wreck a car into them, and as such, breaking a traffic rule in a car is much worse than breaking the same rule on a bike?

Either we're debating, or I win, because I insulted you AND posed a rebuttal to your point, all you've done is insult me for my rebuttal, you haven't met it with a counterpoint.

 

The difference between me disagreeing with you and you throwing a fit is that you immediately started going on and on about me being a dumbass, everyone who disagrees with you having a small penis, etc.

Yea, I am disagreeing with your "opinion" on that. If you ride through a red light on your bike and a car swerves to avoid you, it very well could hit another car and you've successfully caused just as much damage as you would have by simply ramming the car with a car of your own. This is a counterpoint that I've already posted multiple times, so I don't even know what to say to your claim that I haven't met your point yet.

Also, I like how you say you insulted me AND posted a rebuttal, as if the insults enhance your argument rather than make you out to be a fool or a douche. Or both, maybe. Depends.

 

back to topic please and thanks

 

I would disagree with you, because:

If you run a red light in your car, another car is considerably more likely, because of the resentment of cyclists that you've demonstraited, to avoid you. A car that sees a bike who doesn't have the right of way may well think "fuck em, shoulda followed the rules of traffic", while a car that sees a car in the way is more worried about not hurting themselves or their vehicle.

In this same way, many people, given the split second choice between hitting a car and a bike would likely choose to hit the bike, because self preservation is the first thing that comes to mind. If they hit the car, they're at slightly more personal risk, and lose their car. If they hit the bike, they tell a cop and insurance douche that a bike cut them off, and no harm done, other than the fact that the biker (who was not a real part of traffic anyway) is now a paraplegic. Guess he shoulda driven a car while breaking the rules, so he could be a real part of traffic.

This, I believe, supports my hypothesis that a bicyclist breaking rules puts a disproportionate risk on that individual, compared to an enclosed, protected motorist, while in the same manner, that motorist breaking rules puts a disproportionate risk on the cyclist.

 

Now you're just fabricating detailed specific cases to support your argument. If a hypothesis is only correct in certain situations that it has had created for it then it's wrong.

Anyway, I agree that we should let the thread go back on topic.