this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
762 points (97.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

9808 readers
11 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

What part of "you already conceded that point" did you not understand?

But hey, you want to claim there was only one lane now? Fine. In that case, the cyclist was the vehicle lawfully occupying it and the ambulance must have swung wide to the left for some reason, out of the lane, and then back into it. Either way, it crossed the path of and collided with a vehicle in that lane. You are not entitled to deny this point.

  1. Cyclists are traffic.
  2. The ambulance was making a right turn.
  3. The ambulance hit the cyclist from the side.
  4. Therefore, the ambulance was turning across traffic, because no traffic means no cyclist to hit. QED.