[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 60 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: Ft.jpg (35 KB, 380x259)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
name one reason cyclists shouldn't be required to have insurance for when they cause an accident and damage a car that someone has worked hard for?
>>
>>1096603
>2002 RSX
>worked hard for

Top kek, angry cager
>>
>>1096603
Potential to cause harm without being dead is low
>>
>>1096603
completely agree. all road cyclists who insist on using the motorway instead of the fucking sidewalk should be required to have a license with road cycle endorsement, a license plate (registered bicycle), and insurance.
>>
File: 1371640339134.png (325 KB, 382x417)
325 KB
325 KB PNG
>>1096603
>>1096635
I don't get what you get out of trolling the smallest board on all of 4chan.
I have never seen a board with such a high bait:post ratio
>>
>>1096603
>6603▶>>1096604 >>1096607 >>1096635 >>1096637
>name one reason cyclists shouldn't be required to have insurance fo
Cyclists hate responsibility and obeying the rules. They want the benefits of being considered a vehicle without any of the obligations.

>tl;dr
cyclists are mentally women/children.
>>
>>1096637
im not trolling and im not OP
>>
Because nobody should be discouraged from riding a bike. Even dangerous riders do more good than bad.
>>
>reee the government cucks me so it should cuck you as well
Cager tears is all the electrolytes I need during my bike tours.

Thanks for paying for roads and my bikepaths though what would I do without your hard earned money.
>>
>Freedom loving American's ironically hate one of the last free things
>>
>>1096688
It's not about being american. It's just regular human jealousy. I suffer so you should too. Government regulation is bad when it fucks over me, but government regulation is good when it fucks over people I don't like. Crab mentality?

Anti-bike sentiment of americans (and many other cager culture countries) is a completely different pair of shoes.
I've heard americans will sound the horn at you if you pass through them to the fucking redlight. Come on.
>>
>>1096683
Same for helmets. Mandatory helmets laws does not make riding safer, just decreases the number of cyclists. And bicycle safety scales with numbers. The more bikers the safer it becomes.
>>
>>1096635
off yourself
>>
>>1096689
>I've heard americans will sound the horn at you if you pass through them to the fucking redlight. Come on.
this happens to me at least 4 times every day, it's funny to me now
>>
>>1096603
Because I rarely share the road with cars and damage I might bring upon an other cyclist can easily be paid with the change in my pocket.

How much damage could a cyclist cause to a car? And are those costs worthy of getting an insurance for? No. I doubt a cyclist could kill anyone with his bike either.
>>
>>1096658
>cyclists are mentally women/children.
*tips fedora*
>>
>>1096635

>insist on using the motorway instead of the sidewalk

It's illegal to use the sidewalk here in glorious, progressive Canada. We have to use the road.
>>
>>1096744
Same for most towns in the US
>>
>>1096737

>I doubt a cyclist could kill anyone with his bike either.

>Walking along sidewalk full of pedestrians
>Hear that chain rattle of a bike hopping up a curb
>Cyclist whips passed me
>rockets into a group of people
>Straight into some man
>Man's head basically whiplashes onto the concrete
>Everybody is looking around asking what the fuck
>See cyclist struggle up and lunge for his bike
>Dash over and grab hold of the bike
>Cunt starts fighting
>Man's friends chime in and we hold the bitch down
>Look over and his victim is unconscious
>Others in his group are tending to him and I hear an ambulance is on its way
>Beat Cop is on the scene at the same time
>We hand over the cyclist
>Man still hasn't come to
>I gave my statement and hung around
>Paramedics don't seem to happy about the guys condition
>They very gingerly get the guy in a neck brace and on one of those strap boards and load him into the ambulance
>Other cops arrived and they walk the cyclist to the station by his scruff

I dunno man, if you could kill a man by tripping him you could kill him in many ways
>>
File: bikecrash.jpg (81 KB, 768x510)
81 KB
81 KB JPG
>>1096607
>>1096684
>>1096689
>>1096737
>How much damage could a cyclist cause to a car?

Quite a bit, windshield $500-700, hood $500-800, bumper $1000-2000, headlight lens assembly $200-500.

Honestly don't care if a cyclist who ignores a stop sign lives or dies when they get hit. Most cars are covered against uninsured motorist / vehicles, but most insurance plans have a $1000 deductible. Even if the driver is not at fault they are stuck dishing out that grand and an increased insurance premium for making a claim.

Insurance and licensing and the penalties that would go along with them would encourage safer operation of bicycles and punish cyclists who ignore stop signs and other traffic laws.
>>
there is always small claims court if the faggot lives, or suing his estate if he dies.
>>
>>1096750
Right, so your argument is for riding in the fucking street, pingus. That's why cars don't ride on the sidewalk either.
>>
>>1096751
Lol, when you do it consistently to motorists first, sure
>>
>>1096603
name one reason why motorists shouldn't be charged with murder when they 'accidentally' kill a cyclist -- especially when their 'excuse' is "I didn't see him". At the very LEAST they should have their license revoked permanently since they're clearly and objectively incompetent behind the wheel.
>>
>>1096765
Because the cyclist was at fault. You can not simultaneously be a vehicle and a pedestrian.

See what anon said:>>1096658
>Cyclists hate responsibility and obeying the rules. They want the benefits of being considered a vehicle without any of the obligations.
>cyclists are mentally women/children.
>>
>>1096767
Wrong answer
>>
>>1096775
?
>>
>>1096775
if you walk your bicycle across the road you are a pedestrian, if you are in a cross walk the car is at fault unless you are not in a cross walk, in which case you are j-walking and you are at fault, but if you ride across the road you are a vehicle and are at fault weather you are in a crosswalk or not. sorry, learn the rules of the road if you expect to use the roads
>>
>>1096796
Wrong answer
>>
>>1096635
I thought burgers hate the nanny state?

Oh, I see. They only hate it if they aren't affected.
>>
>>1096936
Yep. They only want the nanny state to punish brown people for carrying around the wrong kinds of flowers.

Also remember, Donald Trump lost the poopular vote, but the right wing fascists use corruption and voter suppression to win elections because that's easier than actually crafting good policies to run a country.
>>
>>1096796
Roads should not be subsidized infrastructure for the automobile industry. You should not have more rights to occupy public spaces because you are in a car.

Car culture is a mistake.
>>
>>1096938
Hitler won the popular vote.
>>
>>1096945
That's why Donald isn't Hitler. Hitler was a winner.
>>
>>1096683
>Even dangerous riders do more good than bad.

It certainly helps thin out the herd.
>>
>>1096775
>Wrong answer
>>1096934
>Wrong answer

I think you meant "Waaa!"
>>
>>1096751
>would encourage safer operation of bicycles
akak discourage them from riding.

>windshield $500-700, hood $500-800, bumper $1000-2000, headlight lens assembly $200-500.
A pretty decent bike for a family of 4 and years of maintenance for them. Fuck cagers are retarded.
>>
>>1096603
good home insurance usually covers this (and also bike theft), even if you rent. look up your home insurance policy!
>>
>>1096980
thats prices for them painted and installed.

Bikes rape cars in terms of insurance repair costs adding up. Now lets say the driver doesnt have insurance, you just did tons of damage to their car (remember insurance isnt mandatory in all 50 states)

im an avid cyclist but im also an avid car enthusiast. You're a retard.
>>
>>1096938
I don't know if you're mentally ill or just pretending to be a leftist...
We should have nuked the commies in the 40's. Soviet subversion is one hell of a drug for a nation.
>>
>>1097011
its obvious /pol/ bait
>>
>>1097012
This is /n/, half of the people here would start a violent revolution for 1984 if they were guaranteed bike roads.
It is fairly likely that anon is actually mentally ill.
>>
>>1096990
>Bikes rape cars in terms of insurance repair costs adding up
don't hit cyclists then.
>>
>>1096954
Youre claiming not to be responsible because bikes are bikes. Kill thy self, friend.
>>
>>1096980
2000 Dollars for a bumper that's supposed to get bumped, that's advanced jewery
>>
>>1097039
anon, >>1096954 isn't a cyclist.
I think you're confused.
>>
>>1096767
>You can not simultaneously be a vehicle and a pedestrian.
You can be a person driving or riding a vehicle, destroying the vehicle is damage to property, killing the person manslaughter.
>>
>killing the person manslaughter.
only if the car driver hit the cyclist intentional but if the cyclist is at fault because they broke the law or were not using visible clothing and / or lights at night then it's Darwinism
>>
>>1097132
Ok, how do you translate Totschlag or fahrlässige Tötung from german into english?
>>
>>1097132
Wrong answer
>>
>>1097120
>Vehicle A going through intersection
>Vehicle B runs light/stop sign and makes contact with vehicle A
>Vehicle B inhabitant/s die
>Vehicle A's driver is guilty of manslaughter and the driver of vehicle B is innocent of all wrong doing
That's not how it works Serena.
>>
>>1097120
Also:
">Cyclists hate responsibility and obeying the rules. They want the benefits of being considered a vehicle without any of the obligations."
>>
>>1097159
>That's not how it works Serena.
In Amuhrika.

In more advanced countries it is. There are laws of strict liability for drivers, where if you run into an unprotected road user with your car you're guilty of a crime - no matter if the person you ran into also did something wrong. You are supposed to anticipate and manage that people make mistakes, and that you are wielding a tool that can cause them great harm and completely disproportional to their infraction.

So, turning in an intersection and hit a jaywalker? Your at fault. You should be aware of that some people jaywalk and both a) pay attention; b) adjust your speed and vehicle handling so that you can react and stop in time, without hurting anyone with your vehicle.

Person B would not be innocent, as you put it in your strawman. He would, however only be guilty of a technical traffic code violation, while person A would be guilty of various forms of vehicular manslaughter. Legal language do not translate well enough to make the direct translation that >>1097134 tries, but the general point stands.

Strict liability is not only limited to car ownership. Here, you're strictly liable for dogs. Your dog runs off and bites someone? That's your fault. Dog scares passing horse who throws rider? Your fault. Etcetera, etcetera.
Don't want to be on the hook for any of that? Don't bring a dog you can't trust out - or don't own one at all. Same with cars.
>>
>>1097265
wow what kind of bizzaro shithole do you live in?

In Quebec the motorist always has the right of way even if a pedestrian is in a cross walk. Pedestrians aught to think of their own safety and not expect that everyone else is looking out for them.

>Dog scares passing horse who throws rider? Your fault.
who the fuck rides a horse anymore? and if my dog spooks or bites someone, it's their stupidity for going up to a dog they don't know. I tell people she is not friendly and bites, if they reach their hand out to pet her anyway, their gonna get bit and it's their fault.

by your logic if someone sticks a fork in the electrical socket and gets electrocuted, it's the power companies fault.
>>
>>1097301
HURRR EVERYONE 4 DEMSELVES. WHADYA MEAN IF I DRIVE A MORE DEADLY THING IM HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD?????
>>
>>1096603
Damage to a car doesn't count as damage desu.

capcha: autocar drive
>>
>>1097265
>you're holding a sword
>I sprint at you out of nowhere and impale myself
>you're a murderer
... Truly a civilized nation.
>>
>>1097265
Also once again, you can not simultaneously be a pedestrian and a vehicle.
cyclist in the road =/= pedestrian.
cyclist in the road = vehicle.

If a cyclist commits a traffic violation and dies/gets injured because of it, the only one liable for civil or criminal charges is the cyclist.


tl;dr
Accept the obligations and responsibilities that come with being a vehicle, or stay off the road.
>>
>>1097308
>personal responsibility is bad
Fuck off euro/leftist/faggot

>WHADYA MEAN IF I DRIVE A MORE DEADLY THING IM HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD?????
We mean that holding people who are doing the same thing to different standards is idiotic.
Be a vehicle, be treated like a vehicle.
Be a pedestrian, be treated like a pedestrian.
Be a vehicle on the sidewalk, be treated like a vehicle on the sidewalk.
Be a pedestrian in the road, be treated like a pedestrian in the road.
>>
>>1097356
>Also once again, you can not simultaneously be a pedestrian and a vehicle.
>cyclist in the road =/= pedestrian.
>cyclist in the road = vehicle.
>If a cyclist commits a traffic violation and dies/gets injured because of it, the only one liable for civil or criminal charges is the cyclist.
Notice how I referred to unprotected road user. Being a vehicle or not doesn't matter. Kill a cyclist - go to jail.

I know it must be hard for (ass)burgers to accept, but the world does not revolve around the fucked up norms and laws of the USA. More civilised countries assign responsibilities differently.
In much of the world you're responsible for not killing other people no matter what rules they might break. Even if you have a really big pickup truck. In fact, especially if you have a big truck.
>>
>>1097358
Well there's 'vehicle' and then there's 'motor vehicle'. The important thing is how much power and mass is behind the vehicle in question. Motor vehicles are in the hundreds of horse powers, and thousands of kilos.
Cyclists are vehicles with less than 1 horse power and less than 20 kg. The difference is dramatic.
>>
>>1097358
NO, dear. IF you have the potential to do more harm, by doing the same thing (in this case being s road user) it's entirely reasonable to expext you to be held to a higher standard.
>>
>>1096603
The same reason why we don't force everyone to have insurance, like pedestrians.
>>
>>1097364
So strong men should be held to a higher legal standard than weak men?
Should semi drivers be held to a higher legal standard than kei car drivers?
Should tandem cyclists be held to a higher legal standard than normal cyclists?
Should those who ride steel frame bikes be held to a higher legal standard than those who ride composite cycles?

You're a statist faggot who only cares about getting his way as a cyclist.


.


This was not written for chiefs.
Hear me! Hear this! Among my people, we carry many such words as this from many lands, many worlds. Many are equally good and are as well respected, but wherever we have gone, no words have said this thing of importance in quite this way. Look at these three words written larger than the rest, with a special pride never written before or since. Tall words proudly saying We the People. That which you call Ee'd Plebnista was not written for the chiefs or the kings or the warriors or the rich and powerful, but for all the people! Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words, 'We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.' These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well!
>>
>>1097364
>>1097403
>tl;dr
They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand?
>>
>>1097403
WHADDYA MEEEEAAAN CDLS ARE A THING????? WHAT, SO I CANT JUST DRIVE A BIGGER TRUCK?????
WAIT WAIT WAIT, YER TELLIN ME THAT IF I DRIVE COMMERICALLY THAT I HAVE AN EVEN LOWER ALCOHOL BLOOD PERCENTAGE THATLL GET ME FINED?????
MADNESSSSS!

Shut the fuck up, child. This isn't new.
>>
>>1097360
Perhaps you too are are fault. The concepts of personal responsibility and self ownership are foreign concepts to your culture.
>>
>>1097355
>... Truly a civilized nation.
... I know you were saying it ironically, but euros actually believe that.
>>
>>1097355
>bad strawman is bad
Eh, rather you're the one running - to make the parable work. And yes, then it doesn't fucking matter if the impaled guy entered through the exit door or whatever other inconsequential wrong he may have done - the burden is on the retard running around with a sword without making sure anyone gets hurt. This is true in the US as well.

Compare to the firearms you love so much; if you shoot someone that's on you. It doesn't matter that they weren't supposed to be on the range when the red lamp was on - you're responsible for making sure there is no-one in the line of fire when you're shooting.

As you can see, these are thing that are already part and parcel of US law and sense of justice. You just have a completely random exception for cars because muh truck. Cucks. Cucks, the lot of you. Detroit is bulling your wife, and you applaud it.
>>
>>1096603
Because FUCK YOU.
>>
>>1097415
>>bad strawman is bad
Logically consistent analogy isn't a strawman...

Lets put it this way, pretend that only cars are involved. If car A runs a red/stop and forces car B to tbone him, and then dies as a result. The driver of car A is at fault.

Car A runs a red/stop and forces car B to tbone him, and then dies as a result. According to you, the driver of car B is at fault.

Cyclist A runs a red/stop and forces car B to tbone him, and then dies as a result. According to you, the driver of car B is at fault.


Here is the reality:
Either accept the rules and responsibility associated with being a vehicle, or fuck off.
It's not that hard.
>>
A cyclist has the same mass as a pedestrian.
>>
>>1097430
>Logically consistent analogy
But it isn't. In the scenario you're parodying the person ending up to blame is moving into the other. To make the parable complete, the person with the sword must be moving to impale his victim. If your car is parked and some biker bikes into it and injures himself you are of course blameless. Unless of course you have a sword mounted to your car, because then you may well be in great trouble. Even in the US.
>Lets put it this way, pretend that only cars are involved.
That's a logical fallacy called begging the question, because for your argument to have merit you're asking me to accept the premise that all vehicles are the same. They are not. Not even all cars are the same. Not even under American law. You need a special license to operate heavy vehicles, and no license to operate a bike, for example.
>Either accept the rules and responsibility associated with being a vehicle, or fuck off.
I do. You're refusing to though. You're refusing to accept responsibility for not running into other people. That responsibility rightly should be, and is in the civilised world, placed on car drivers. Accept it, or fuck off. It's not hard.
>>
File: eternal_september.jpg (79 KB, 728x420)
79 KB
79 KB JPG
>>1097430
>alters central and basic premise
>pretends it to logically consistent analogy
American logic! MAGA, MAGA, KEK, KEK, KEK!
>>
>>1097436
>Not even all cars are the same. Not even under American law.
But liability is the same for all vehicles. Just because they are legally distinct doesn't mean they are legally distinct in every way.

Action A results in liability, action B is legally distinct from action A, therefore action B doesn't result in liability.
That isn't inherently true.

Your logic isn't sufficient.


Motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles operating on the road must both obey the same rules/responsibilities/obligations associated with vehicles. Being liable for accidents caused by violating rules is one rules/responsibilities/obligations associated with vehicles.
>>
>>1097442
>Driver A presents a hazard because forward motion.
>Driver A continues due to assurance that no one will break the rules and if they do, they are at fault for damage related to the hazard presented by driver A.
>Driver B breaks the rules and damage is caused due to the hazard presented by driver A.
>Driver B is a cyclist, and is therefore legally immune to all responsibility and fault.

That is you. That is what you are saying.
>>
>>1097448
>>Driver B is a cyclist, and is therefore legally immune to all responsibility and fault.
>That is you. That is what you are saying.
Not quite. Driver B is on the hook for a traffic violation. It's not me saying that. It's the law.

Now, Driver A might _also_ be on the hook for vehicular manslaughter depending on your jurisdiction. Under the retard law of the US he might be off the hook, but why should he be? 'Mommy, Timmy did a bad thing too' might be valid legal defence when you've ran someone over in ameritard cuckoo land, but it doesn't hold up any better than it did in kindergarten for any other type of manslaughter.
>Driver A continues due to assurance that no one will break the rules
That's just it. You have no such assurance. You should not expect it. And in many jurisdictions you're strictly liable for any harm that you cause an unprotected road user, no matter who had legal right of way and no matter what you expected. You're responsible for any soft target you hit. Always.

Them's the brakes. Don't like it, don't drive into people.
>>
>>1097445
>But liability is the same for all vehicles.
In your jurisdiction. Not in mine.
>Action A results in liability, action B is legally distinct from action A, therefore action B doesn't result in liability.
>That isn't inherently true.
But it is inherently a strawman. I made no claim that it be inherently true. I claimed that it is true under the law of various countries, and that there is precedent under your law too for holding different vehicles to different traffic laws and regulations.
>Motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles operating on the road must both obey the same rules/responsibilities/obligations associated with vehicles.
This is false. There is no unified rules/responsibilities/obligations associated with vehicles. Different vehicles are governed by different rules/responsibilities/obligations. Had you said their _respective_ rules/responsibilities/obligations you'd be right, but it would also be a truism.
>Being liable for accidents caused by violating rules is one rules/responsibilities/obligations associated with vehicles.
And in some jurisdictions it is a rule/responsibility/obligation that you are not to run into an unprotected road user no matter what. Why are you having trouble understanding this concept?
I also happen to think it's a pretty damn good rule/responsibility/obligation.
>>
>>1097459
>'Mommy, Timmy did a bad thing too' might be valid legal defence when you've ran someone over in ameritard

but driver B did nothing wrong in this situation
driver A (weather cyclist or motorist) did the "bad thing" by breaking the traffic code and if driver A dies it is that infraction that resulted in their death. Driver A is therefore at fault for their own death.

now lets say driver A runs a red light crossing a highway
driver B is on the highway and has the green light, the crosswalk light is lit in his direction so there is no danger of the light changing before he passes through and maintains speed.
Driver B strikes driver A because A ran the light
Driver A passes through the windshield of driver Bs car and survives thanks to his helmet but he kills the passenger in driver As car
>>
>>1097524
>kills the passenger in driver As car
bugger ... driver Bs car

too much A and B to keep straight
>>
>>1097524
No, you have to be vigilant, you have to be aware, especially when you're in control of such a potential damaging machine.
If you stop short in front of me and I rear end you, I fucked it up, too. I should have been watching you.

You can aruge blue in the face what is 'legally' correct or incorrect, but 'sorry, I couldn't be bothered to pay attention to my surroundings and ya died, but I was doing what was bare minimum required of me by law' is morally wrong as fuck, idiot.

You act like the type to pull out the 'cuck' word and yet you let lights tell you what to do? Yeah, maintain your speed, but if driver B came up to an intersection and didn't look left and fucking right before he went through, then driver B can kill himself right the fuck along with driver A who ran the fucking light.

PAY. ATTENTION.
If you do not, you are fucking WRONG.
>>
>>1097527
Lets say there is a bridge.
You're about to pass under the bridge.
A cyclist hops over the railing of the bridge and sticks the landing on his bike 10 feet in front of your car.
You have 0.03 seconds to react.

According to you, the cyclist is neither at fault or retarded, and you're a murderer and morally in the wrong.


You're a cuck.
>>
>>1097533
That's fucking retarded, though.
You can't take something to the furthest extreme and have a 'a-HA' moment. You're not 14.

Try again.
>>
>>1097524
>but driver B did nothing wrong
Yes he did. He hit driver A. That's against the law. It doesn't matter that A made a poo poo, you're not allowed to hit him anyway. And you should adjust you vigilance and driving style so that you never kill driver A, even when he does something wrong. That is your obligation as the operator of a dangerous machine in the vicinity of unprotected members of the public who sometimes do silly things. You failed to do so, so now you're off to jail. Bye!
>Driver A is therefore at fault for their own death.
No, that would be driver B, who hit and killed him. Had driver B not done that driver A would be getting a ticket, but be alive.

I still don't understand what part of this concept is so hard for you to grasp.
>>
>>1097533
Let's say that a cyclist teleports out of subspace inside the cabin of your deathmachine on wheels and fuses with you and you and they become a single horrible chimera with nothing to look forward to but a short life of horrific pain as your fused and failing organs eat themselves alive, are you still a faggot?
>>
File: sniffer.jpg (6 KB, 208x196)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
>>1097537
>>
>>1097535
because that is not how the law or liability works

I drive a 60' articulated bus for a living and have been in this situation with a car not a cyclist and the driver did not die. Though even if he had, the driver who pulled out from a stop sign would still be 100% at fault. Further more had the driver died I would still sleep well at night. In such a situation car or cyclist it is also my responsibility to think of my passengers who don't have seat belts, airbags and may be standing, I'm going to brake hard, but not so hard that it throws my passengers from their seats. I'm not going to risk injuring 40 people just to try and save 1 idiot who jumped out in front of me.

this goes 3 fold for the guys who drive the LRT who could have 300+ passengers. I know several operators who have hit and killed people, most are suicides, 1 was a kid who tried to ride between the cars and slipped smearing himself between the train and the platform, and one was wearing headphones and looking at his cellphone when crossing at a level crossing. none of these LRT drivers are at fault, some have problems from seeing shit like people cut in half, some don't, but in each case the person killed them self either intentionally or unintentionally.

it's the same as suicide by cop, if you point a toy gun at a cop and he shoots and kills you, you killed yourself. The cop doesn't know you have a toy so the cop is cleared of all liability of your death and only acted appropriately according to their training.

the laws may be different where you live, and if so I hope I never go to that fucked up country. Also I'm a Canuck not a Burger
>>
>>1097545
>because that is not how the law or liability works
Where you live. See, now the rest of your post is irrelevant.
>>
>>1097545
>not how the law works
Who gives a shit. Not every country has the same laws so it's obviously up to debate and it's obviously what we're debating since, especially in the US where it varies so much state to state, it would be pointless. SHOULD is the key word here. Do not simply appeal to authority.
>>
>>1097545
>it's the same as suicide by cop, if you point a toy gun at a cop and he shoots and kills you, you killed yourself.
No, it is a justified shooting. The cop still killed me. The difference is the law makes provisions for when it is ok to shoot people. By mistake is very rarely if ever acceptable. Wilfully, as in the case of you offices defending himself against a perceived threat is often acceptable. That makes it a justified killing. If does not mean I killed myself. It means it was alright for the officer to kill me.

Do you not understand these very obvious distinctions?
>>
>>1097550
>>1097553
that is how the law works in most of the western world, where is this magic land you speak of that the laws are different?

>>1097556
yes I do understand the distinction ... do you?

by pointing the toy at the cop your intention is suicide
the cop is merely acting as your hand in killing you by acting to his training
therefore you killed yourself

you set a series of events in motion that would lead to your death so you are responsible for your death
>>
>>1097534
But anon, I should have foresaw some faggot breaking the rules.
>>
>>1097545
/thread
>>
>>1097562
>yes I do understand the distinction ... do you?
Since I just made it I think it stands to reason. That you did not make it and still fail to do it suggests that you do not fully understand the problematic nature of this parable.
>therefore you killed yourself
No, the cop did. Your parable fails in so many other ways, too but it is definitely the cop doing the killing.
>by pointing the toy at the cop your intention is suicide
No, my intention _might_ (or mightn't) be for the cop to shoot me, but it is not suicide. Not by act, and not by law. The fact that any such shooting is automatically subject of an investigation against the officer should clue you on to the fact that it is not that simple.
>you set a series of events in motion that would lead to your death so you are responsible for your death
That is a very dubious claim to say the least, on a number of levels, not the least of which is matters of intent. I fear, however, that we can get stuck with arguing the merits of various half-thought-through parables forever. It is not leading to any greater clarity on the subject matter.
Parables are good for demagoguery but a near useless tool for reasoning. Decide what activity you wish to partake in.
>>
>>1097562
AGAIN, all youre saying is that, it's the law. You're not offering any other reasoning beuond that. Take a second from licking those boots and try and present me with some argument.
>>
>>1097580
>Why should I be held liable for the actions of another?
>Why should I be punished if I took no unjust action?
>If I own a boat and a faggot swims into the propeller blades despite an airhorn telling him to fuck off, should I be held responsible?
>Personal responsibility.
etc etc etc

wow look, non-law based arguments.
>>
>>1097580
because your rationale blames the victim of an action against them because the perpetrator of the affront dies in the course of that action.
>>
>>1097360
please tell me what country this is so i know to steer clear
>>
>>1097569
>point by point bullshit criticism ragepost

Fucking stop it. You are not nearly as clever as your mom tells you that you are.
>>
>>1097594
>>1097585
If you were boating near the shore with swimmers, yes. You need to be in utmost control of your fucking machine.
>>
>>1097301
>In Quebec the motorist always has the right of way even if a pedestrian is in a cross walk.
What a fucking shithole. So the pedestrian is always the "sorry people" and has to let all cagers drive then he can pass the street?

Here if you see a pedestrian waiting for a crossing you have to stop and let him pass otherwise you get fined.
>>
File: que-beck.jpg (6 KB, 259x194)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
>>1097301
>In Quebec the motorist always has the right of way even if a pedestrian is in a cross walk.
So, what the fuck kind of purpose do the crosswalks serve? What kind of bizzaro shithole is Quebec anyway?
>>
>>1097705
>>1097709
i think thats perfectly sensible if the driver wants to let ped pass he can still signal him to go.
>>
>>1097715
Nah. It takes zero effort to put uour fat foot up and down and youre in a clinate controlled box with a good sound system and a good seat. You can stand tonfuckingg stop for 30 seconds. You are not lord of the road.
>>
>>1097715
>giving driver the choice
They never do it. That's why sensible laws where pedestrian has the highest priority were introduced to curb this behaviour.
Because motorists don't give a shit about other people once they close the door.

Here even if the ped is an asshole and walked on the street on red light you're obliged to stop and let him go instead of honking like a fucktard.
>>
>>1096635
lol u pussy bitch
>>
>>1097301
>In Quebec the motorist always has the right of way even if a pedestrian is in a cross walk.
jesus christ, what even is the point of a crosswalk in that case?
>>
>>1097791
"Where we're going, we won't need roads"
>>
Person A is riding a 30 pound thing and going about 20mph average
Person B is driving 1500+ pounds of metal at 60mph+

Both people are liable if they do something wrong, but only one of them is the largest hazard to public health and infrastructure in the USA.
>>
>>1097597
Nice ad hominem.
>>
>>1096635
i agree with this anon, license plate is problematic tho without going full retard, i could imagine a laser projection system that prints the id on the road surface behind the bike.
>>
>>1098100
Dont need a tag. If a cyclist does something really waranting his caputure, he's likely dead or not going far because he fucked hinself up too. The thing with cars is how much damage they can inflict while still being able to get away.
>>
>>1096938
Fascism is left wing
>>
>>1098100
clarification: the laser projection system having been an example of going full retard
>>
>>1098124
better than putting giant windbreaks on a bike
>>
>>1098154
... just drill small holes.
>>
>>1098154
what, something that awards you a fine if you let it run out of battery? i think i'll take the tiny metal plate tucked behind the saddle or better yet: a spoke card
>>
>>1098232
I think I'll take not having a plate because I'm not a butthurt cager getting his revenge
>>
>>1096635
This.
>>
>>1098100
Combined IR/Wi-Fi tracker similar to aircraft's ELS.
>>
>>1097813
Insurance premium will reflect this, bro.
>>
>>1096603
I do. Also, in the UK most people with homeowners insurance have personal injury and property cover as standard, just as car owners have third party damage cover.

Is it the same in the U.S.A or do you need a separate fleecing by insurance companies?
>>
>>1096603
i was actually thinkign the other day, is there some kind of bicycle insurance? I've got nice gear but I can't use it on the road cause i cant afford a 6grand accident
>>
>>1098397
Depends on your insurance for home and contents.
Mine is covered for 5000gbp theft or damage, both at home and in use, excluding official competitions or race use..
>>
>>1098401
hmm, i dont have home and contents insurance, maybe I should look into it.
>>
>>1098107
>If a cyclist does something really waranting his caputure, he's likely dead or not going far because he fucked hinself up too
exactly, cars need tracking data and all because of hit and runs
cyclists can't do hit and runs because a hit will drop them on the ground hard
>>
>>1098654
>cyclists can't do hit and runs
it's still a hit and run if you scratch a car or brake a mirror so don't say bikes can't hit and run. until they get trackable and easily idable cyclists will just keep ignoring the fuck out of rules.
>>
>>1096603
Because I don't cause accidents,accidents caused me.
>>
>>1099078
WAH
>>
>>1096603
Dutch here. I tried to find bike accident insurance but it doesnt even exist.
>>
>>1099078
Why don't you just get a bike so you can join the anarchistic fun?
>>
Isn't the cyclist responsible for paying any damage he caused anyway?
>>
>>1099453
of course i have a bike
>>
>>1099638
yes but there is no way to id or catch them unless the get knocked out cold.
>>
>>1099760
>yes but there is no way to id or catch them unless the get knocked out cold.
which he most likely will have if he cause more damage than just a paint scratch
>>
>>1099773
"Oy yeah, this cunt on a bike scratched your car and broke your mirror. I would have taken a picture of his license plate, but he was a bike"
>>
i fucking love cager impotent rage threads

stay mad and powerless
>>
>>1099774
>"Oy yeah, this cunt scratched your car and broke your mirror. I would have taken a picture of his license plate, but he was a pedestrian"
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>
>>1099078
As opposed to a car which can be used to murder 20 people and then flee the scene
Maybe cars should all have permanent gps installed since they're the biggest hazard in the us
>>
>>1099078
Shut the fuck up.
>>
>>1098120
Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
>>
>>1099859
>As opposed to a car which can be used to murder 20 people and then flee the scene
this is exactly what i've been saying
fuckers like >>1099774
they miss the point, which is that a scratched paint job doesn't really matter
if you're such a pussy about your car getting scratched then keep it in a garage
a dead or severely injured person does matter
and if a bike hits a car, it isn't like they're gonna kill the driver
>>
>>1099865
>property rights don't matter
Oke doke Mao...

>if you're such a pussy about your car getting scratched then keep it in a garage
a dead or severely injured person does matter
Assault or property damage are perfectly acceptable as long as they don't result in immediate death. Right?

>it isn't like they're gonna kill the driver
Why should I care?


>tl;dr
Cyclists want all the benefits of being treated like a vehicle with none of the obligations or responsibilities of being a vehicle.
Cyclists (like that) are mentally women/children.
>>
>>1098654
so a cyclust can't pull an uzi and do a drive by at a bus stop killing dozens of people then flee with an unregistered untrackable vehicle? don't be stupid people! cyclists can cause as much harm not tk mention causing an accidrnt indirecy. they need to bs tagged if they get on the road.
>>
>>1099854
well vehicle accidents and intentional property damage is two vastly different things.
also how fast can a ped leave the scene?
>>
>>1099929
>also how fast can a ped leave the scene?
Fast enough that people get away with vandalism and murder every day. The thing with cars is that they're completely generic and you can almost never see the person inside. That's why they ended up with the plate requirement in the first place. Somehow, your culture became so fucked up and you so thoroughly identifying with your car that you actually believe everyone should have a number printed on their backs to be allowed outside.
>>
>>1099930
>The thing with cars is that they're completely generic and you can almost never see the person inside.
yeah city bikers wearing helmet sun-glass and face mask are so recognizable sure.
cars are not special same regulations have to apply to all vehicles. and mostly do except for bikes.
>>
>>1099884
>using women and commies as insults
Sure is 50s in here
>>
>>1099969
Your idea, that those laws, which affect the lives and personal liberty of all, or which inflict corporal punishment, affect those, who are not qualified to vote, as well as those who are, is just. But, so they do women, as well as men, children as well as adults. What reason should there be, for excluding a man of twenty years, Eleven months and twenty-seven days old, from a vote when you admit one, who is twenty one? The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public. Will not the same reason justify the state in fixing upon some certain quantity of property, as a qualification.

The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men, who have no property, to vote, with those who have, for those laws, which affect the person will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children, have as good judgment, and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents…

Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.
>>
>>1100013
This copypasta is over 300 years old
>>
>>1100014
Look at the voting patterns of women and tell me it's wrong. Children would follow the pattern even stronger.

Society has known the results of evolutionary biology for a few thousand years.
>>
>>1100019
>evolutionary biology
By this I mean that women heavily prioritize resources and personal security over liberty and the collective good.
Which necessitates the growth of government, increased government control, and less liberty for all.

something something Jefferson something something wolves something something vote something something treasury something something death of the republic.
>>
>>1100019
>I'm a sex realist
>>
>>1100041
>men and women have no biological/genetic differences
>the brain is immune to the effects of genetics
wew
>>
>>1100042
>I'm a sex realist
>>
>>1100044
What did he mean by this?
>>
File: a19960323000cp02.jpg (48 KB, 427x600)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>1096635

They made a movie about this, it's called The Wild One and it's notable because it depicts a pedestrian being killed by a motorcycle, with the motorcyclist being apparently fine, physically speaking.

The point is, these concepts have been explored for over half a century and the verdict remains the same: anybody operating anything faster than a mobility scooter needs to have passed:

- a written examination
- an oral examination
- a practical examination

In other words, if you can't do a ripping double backflip by 360 tabletop, don't expect to be able ride a skateboard on a public street without being promptly gunned down, with your pasty remains plowed into a ditch.

I don't know what the competency equivalency is for a 1.6 liter murder cage, but you and your friends can, like, ride share to your Excel spreadsheets, after the new world order has been implemented and your cars are revoked.
>>
>>1100071
Motorcycle isnt a bicycle.
>>
>>1100046
I'm saying you sound no different then the other multitudes of neckbearded retards and should probably kill yourself.
>>
>>1100071
yeah the wild one is not about bicycle insurance lol. love that film though. it's funny how tame the biker gangs are. Doesn't the bike (riderless) kill the guy because someone throws a tire iron at the rider and he falls off?
>>
>>1100139
>I reject reality for ideological purposes and attempt to ridicule those who do not
What did he mean by this?
>>
>>1100157
Have some more bagel bites, grumpy
>>
File: 53454.jpg (20 KB, 400x292)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>1100071
>I don't know what the competency equivalency is for a 1.6 liter murder cage
Driver's license test obviously.
>>
>>1099943
>cars are not special same regulations have to apply to all vehicles
that's where you're wrong
motor vehicles are different from non motor vehicles
>>
>>1099943
Yeah dude, all new bicycles need to have working airbags and catalytic converters amirite


You're legitimately fucking retarded
>>
>>1099943
Have you ever actually seen someone riding a bike?




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.