Since the US seems to be trying to emulate Russia these days, I figured now might be a good time for a reminder about how Russians deal with douchebag drivers
Since the US seems to be trying to emulate Russia these days, I figured now might be a good time for a reminder about how Russians deal with douchebag drivers
You're viewing a single thread.
Second Amendment ☠️
I too agree that pedestrians should have the right to keep and bear arms against motorists. Especially those that intentionally use their vehicles as weapons with the intention to kill.
Though I do think stickers used to bring shame and self reflection are very well deserving in this content.
Absolutely not.
What you're describing is a wild west anarchy where people just murder each other because of super minor disagreements.
To solve the issues, governments need to build good and correct cycle infrastructure. See the Netherlands as an example, I can't even remember ever having an incident where a motorist purposefully hit a cyclist because of a shared road issue.
If is rather obvious what if you mix cars with cyclists that it's going to cause issues. To play the devil's advocate for a second; if you're in a car and you're supposed to be able to drive fast but you're stuck behind a guy on a bicycle, that is annoying. But the point is that the cyclist shouldn't be on the road with cars in the first place.
Adding weapons to that mixture is not going to help, it's going to escalate small issues to deadly incidents for no good reason. Sorry, guns don't solve problems, they escalate problems. I want to live in a place where I can happily ride my bike safely, not where I need to ride around with my hand on a gun.
Fix the infrastructure instead.
My comment was satire in reaponse to the user by the name of lnxtx.
Seems they may have been insinuating that the operators of the motor vehicles in the video clip would be within their right to draw weapons against the pedestrians that were blocking their path. (If this were the USA at least).
Obviously the motorists put themselves in the situation of driving on a sidewalk without regard for anyone's safety.
Vehicle traffic should always be predictable, and in this case the individuals inside the cars were both showing disregard for pedestrians and their fellow road users.
Yes, that's true: a pedestrian who is deliberately rammed by an unhinged driver on the sidewalk would be justified in shooting the driver in self-defense.
You just know that's not how a court or jury would see it though. Unless the driver is literally chasing you, injuries or deaths by means of car are always considered accidents. As if the driver wasn't in control (which of course they often aren't, but it's very silly that's used as an excuse to remove culpability).
I like the interpretation.
I assume you are insinuating that the operator of a motor vehicle has complete authority to roam free wherever they please without regard for others? ie. on sidewalks, on trails, on bike paths, and in some cases drive against the flow of traffic? And are you saying in all cases they can choose and have the right to freely run over pedestrians as they see fit?
@NarrativeBear @lnxtx No, people have a right to use legally owned weapons in self-defense, so a driver has no right to drive recklessly and endanger random people and can only use their car as a weapon if their life is in imminent danger from someone else’s assault, such as a pedestrian standing in front of their car firing a gun at them.