Originally Posted By: asand1
Wow, It's amazing how people take things out of context and spin them to suit their own points of view.
"It is better to run over a bicyclist, than to get in a head on accident because they don't share the road."
In the case of an ACCIDENT (which is clearly qualified here), with no exit path, do you:
A. Choose a head on collision between two fully loaded family sedans, or
B. Hit the bicyclist that has chosen a dangerous hobby and has possibly chosen to ride two or three wide on a winding country road.
A quick threat/risk analysis should make it painfully clear that nothing in the statement is incorrect. However if you want to speculate on his motives and meanings, that is a personal problem of yours.
Two licensed cars driving legally on the road and following laws, and a bicyclist with no permits, not paying into road upkeep, and riding in a fast moving lane on blind corners. Who is at fault and who should get hurt, because someone has to? Two cars and a bicyclist simply cant occupy the same space.
Biased much?
I love how people often assume that cyclists don't contribute to road upkeep- the overwhelming majority of cyclists also own cars and of course contribute to upkeep via the taxes and fees associated with their operation. Now as to the impact that a bicycle has on a road vs. a car/pickup, it is magnitudes LESS. So he pays into the upkeep and does virtually no damage or none at all.
I suppose you would have bikes stick to trails and the hand full of bike lanes exclusively? You sure as heck can't ride the sidewalk as most places have ordinances against that for good reason... Like it or not, cyclists not only belong on the road, but they pay to keep it in serviceable condition.
It's up to BOTH parties to act like responsible, educated adults to keep everyone safe.