What is it with this article quoting something but then embedding a different tweet? Wouldn't you want to show the tweet in which she said the thing you are saying she said?
JohnnyH842
joined 1 year ago
I'm sorry, that was the top level comment user. That's my mistake.
Assuming others see you is like planning to make this situation happen.
I mean you're making a lot of assumptions about the situation here. The only piece of context the article provides is that they were at an intersection (doesn't state what kind), the cyclists were already going through and "she just came right across and split the group."
It doesn't say if there was a hill for the oncoming traffic which could have caused them not to see the car before the group began to cross. It doesn't say that the cyclists all saw the car and decided "you know what we have enough time let's just go." It doesn't say she was on her phone (though that is what my assumption is).
What we know is that she, intentionally or not, killed someone because "she didn't see them." How could you possibly fault a group of 10 people for this?
Editing to add: Your argument is all about trust. You can trust or not trust anyone to do anything and all that does is increase or decrease your chances of a critical outcome like this. I ride very defensively and very visibly. Safety vest, front and rear cameras with lights, the works. At a certain point the only thing I can to do increase my odds of not getting hit while riding is just not riding my bike, which is not an option for me or many other people.
Why would you not expect to see other road users at an intersection? You would expect to see a car, why not a cyclist?
Not me! I'll take a pack of this Chewlie's gum right here.
Nice
Twist & Tuck gang
/c/shirtsthatgohard
It's not an accident it's manslaughter.
This makes sense, thank you!
view more: next ›
Swedish Meatballs