• ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    13 days ago

    Look at the picture in the article and read the story. The biker was trying to ride past the ambulance near the curb as the ambulance was turning.

    The biker felt entitled to do whatever he wanted instead of waiting his turn and got himself ran over.

    • limelight79@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      13 days ago

      It’s called a right-hook. Cars pass bicycles, then turn right immediately in front of them, causing the cyclist to hit the car. Quite a few cyclists have been killed this way.

      Car brain drivers then blame the cyclist.

    • bobo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      13 days ago

      You mean the part of the article where it says the ambulance “turned into him”?

      You’re making assumptions based on vague wording in the article and your preconceived notions of cyclist behavior. You don’t actually know what happened.

        • bobo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          You’re asserting your view based on an ambiguity. The picture and story could easily depict the ambulance overtaking and turning into the cyclist. You seem dead set on making this the cyclist’s fault when that assertion is just not supported by the facts given in the article.

          • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 days ago

            Most of the people in here are dead set on assuming it’s not the biker. So what are the odds that the ambulance was just passing the biker and cutting him off at the turn? I’d call it less than 50/50.

            But move past that and keep going. If the biker was just cut off right before getting to the intersection, then that also means the biker didn’t stop at the intersection.

            That means that at best the biker was partially at fault.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 days ago

      You’re right, this fucking cyclist had the audacity to be riding in the road, which is clearly designed for automobiles. Pedestrians and cyclists need to stay in their designated zones, it’s not a motorists responsibility to drive safely. /s

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 days ago

        In the road isn’t a problem if you stay in the lane where you belong. The cyclist tried passing on the shoulder cause he didn’t want to obey the laws.