Not even a fucking involucre?

Pour one out for Leslie Horwinkle.

You are right for hard or emergency braking, but Hyundai’s regenerative braking at max is intended to be one pedal driving, and it easily stops you completely in a fairly short distance. I guess that isn’t the way others are doing it. I can get away with only using the brakes at the first stop sign near my house when I leave with a full charge, as the regenerative brakes don’t work when it can’t charge the battery. But I am sure I will still have to change the brake pads eventually anyway, which I would normally do myself during a seasonal tire changeover, so this news sucks.

For the record, for many years I used to live a few kilometers from work and commuted by bike. I gave it up after passing the second fatal collision on my route. I still try to be objective about traffic law. Given that you attach some importance to specifially cycling experience when adjudicating the obvious for anyone with any road experience, I don’t think you are capable of having a reasoned discussion over traffic rules where bicycles are concerned, but I hope that I am wrong.

The author tries to defend this exception to the normal stop rules as being unique from all the other road rules that sacrifice expedience for safety by saying there are only consequences for the cyclist when they get things wrong. That assertion is objectively wrong. It doesn’t take much experience to know that vehicles making emergency maneuvers to avoid someone who screwed up can kill people, and that is true whether it is a car, bike, or person who thought it was safe to proceed but were wrong.

And you’ll notice that I have not made a value judgment regarding the change itself. That’s because it’s immaterial. I’m merely pointing out that there actually are consequences to consider that extend beyond the cyclist. The person cited in the article handwaves these consequences, saying it only impacts the cyclist who gets it wrong because a bicycle isn’t big enough to hurt people. Anyone who has seen a stroller roll out into traffic can attest to the chaos that will actually happen next. Sorry, but I just can’t stand to see an alleged expert missing something that big in his argument and everyone just nodding along. If you want such a change to happen, it needs to stem from an intellectually honest discussion.

No, if you read the article you would know that the person making the case for the rule change thinks it would be justified because there are only consequences for the person on the bike. But he is demonstrably wrong, which is my point. That is what was being discussed in the original post I replied to. Not how the rule works. Just that there are indeed consequences to getting it wrong. If you don’t understand it, try reading the article and the comments again.

I don’t think you understand the article or my point. The guy who is advocating the rule change says it is justified because there are only consequences for the rider. That is simply not true. That’s the point being made. That has nothing to do with how the rule works. I don’t understand what you don’t understand that.

Read the comment. Helps if you understand the rule itself isn’t relevant to the consequences for getting it wrong.

That’s a very good point. Maybe you should read a fucking comment before you reply it. At what point did you see me say anything about the actual details of the rule? That isn’t relevant to my comment. We were talking about the faulty argument regarding the consequences of when people inevtiably get it wrong. If you have anything pertinent to add on that point, please comment.

Simply not true though. Someone who doesn’t want PTSD from turning a human being into a big red crayon is going to make panic maneuvers, which could very well cause a different fatal crash. There are lots of “good” arguments as to why we should be able to ignore traffic signs under certain circumstances, but they all require that humans consistently get it right. Take the extra seconds to stop and make the roads safer for everyone, or if that is so much of an imposition, please just take the bus.

Yep, can confirm. And in about six hours it will become an ableist slur against the hard of hearing.

It’s a faulty argument because it only considers the damage caused by the bike hitting something, not the consequences of other vehicles with the right of way making emergency maneuvers to avoid smearing the idiot who ran the stop. This guy has been sitting on his tenured ass and smelling his own farts for too long.

FFS, stop feeding me tennis balls!

Blue dress with a stain on it, I expect.

Now you see why AI everywhere is so important. Anyone could have made that video!

Goodnight, Springton! There will be no encore.

Ah, so what you’re saying is it doesn’t get 40% of its facts from reddit, but rather 40% of its replies contain a fact cited from reddit? That would explain totals over 100%, but I’m still not sure why they wouldn’t just say that of the x thousand facts AI cited, y percent came from this site. To me, that would have been more representative of what their graph title purports to offer.

Was this guide AI generated as well? Looks like it credits over 100% of its information gathering to the first four sites on the list.

That is literally the aftermarket part name for it when you buy them online. You have to remove it to drain the oil. This thing is so thin it’s basically a dust cover, so all it provides is protection from road debris and helps with aero. It isn’t going to protect anything if you bottom out.

You’re thinking of the exhaust heat shields. This is the engine skid plate. It’s there to protect the engine compartment from road debris and provide aero for better fuel economy. It’s pretty common for the screw holes in them to rust or wear around the fasteners to the point where the fastener head no longer covers the hole and they fall down.