this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
264 points (98.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43963 readers
1594 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
cyclists would not need to do those things if there was proper infrastructure and if car drivers weren't out to kill them.
making bikes come to a complete stop is less safe because of the acceleration curve of a bike, if the way is clear it's safer the cyclist and anyone else around for the cyclist to maintain speed
Regardless, the law states that a vehicle must stop at a stop sign. Bikes are considered vehicles, and thus must come to a complete stop.
the law doesn't determine what is safest, physics does.
the law also varies by jurisdiction and in some places having cyclists treat stop signs like yields rather than full stops is the law.
Really? I didn't know that! Where I'm from it's different. That's good to know, thank you! Have a lovely day, and stay safe out there.