Unpopular Opinions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

Usually it is against the rules to comment about other people's Unpopular Opinions, but this is a safety and legal issue.

Do NOT ride your bike on the wrong side of the street into oncoming traffic. You may think you are making yourself safer by seeing the oncoming traffic. But you are actually making yourself less visible to cars on the road and more likely to be in an accident. Statistics bear out the fact that you will be in MORE accidents. It usually happens when a car is waiting at a driveway for a chance to merge out into traffic. They are looking to the left where the traffic is supposed to be coming from. When a gap opens up, they hit the gas, and if a bike rider is going the wrong way, then BAM! flat bike rider!

Also, the law is not on your side if you cause an accident while disobeying the rules of the road. So if a car does run over you when you are riding against traffic, the driver of that car can sue you for damage to his paint, and WIN! It has happened before! Usually a driver will not sue a flattened bike rider directly, but if he makes a claim on his insurance for damage to the car, the insurance company will get the money out of you because you were at fault and breaking the law.

Go with the flow, GreenDestiny! Go with the flow! You do not need to be like a salmon, constantly swimming upstream!

---

Yeah, I know it's a legal issue. Many years ago I was stopped by a cop for riding in the huge soulder lane, and that's when I first learned about it. I was totally blown away by it.

But in my opinion, there's not enough difference in visibility either way. A good motorist should be aware at all times, as should any pedestrians. Some people run faster than a kid peddaling a slow bike, either way there's still plenty of time to see them, not like they're traveling very very fast on a small motorized vehicle.

I quickly looked up some crash statistics, and yes you're technically right:
Bicycle Crash Statistics
Motorist turning or merging into the path of a bicyclist (12.1 percent of all crashes). Almost half (48.8 percent) of these crashes involved a motorist making a left turn in front of a bicyclist approaching from the opposite direction.
Motorist overtaking a bicyclist (8.6 percent of all crashes). Of these crashes, 23 percent appeared to involve a motorist who misjudged the space required to safely pass the bicyclist.

that's straight up 3.5% more crashes from riding against traffic.

But now taking into account the motorist's fault in statistics:
48.4% of 12.1% is 5.9%, leaving 6.2% of all crashes due to riding against traffic.
23% of 8.6% is 2.1%, leaving 6.5% of all crashes due to riding with traffic

Taking out that variable of motorists failing to look before turning and misjudging distances, those statistics actually show that riding against traffic is better. It's the motorists fault for making the road more dangerous lol.
So really stiffer laws should be put up to keep those crazed road-ragers from running over the bicyclists... so we can freely ride on whichever side of the road that happens to have the clearest path.

eh, basically I think that anything without a motor should be used for going against traffic... bicycles, rollerblades, skateboards, razor scooters, even people wearing those wheelie-shoes. It's all foot traffic... transportation via energy supplied directly by our feet. If we just happen to have some circular objects to aid in our transport, the laws shouldn't have to change.

And then there's those dang old sidewalks... laws for those things are always crazy, some cities dont mind rollerblading and boarding, others ban it.

As much as I hate it, I generally obey the rules of the road as they stand today. Ok, not really, I just do whatever it takes to stay safe in each situation. Safety first, laws second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psteve

:eek:

...How about those Yankees? :D

---

FUCK THE YANKEES

GO SOX

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coelho

And maybe it wouldnt be so bad as it seems...

---

Yes, Hitler cleansing the world sounds much better.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apocolips31

Without America much of the world would be speaking either German or Japanese.

---

don't forget I-talian...

I am assuming Hitler would eventually of taken over Italy, they basically had to hold their hand the entire war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apocolips31

Without America much of the world would be speaking either German or Japanese.

---

That isn't an unpopular opinion it is an American delusion. :D

America did not win the second world war , thats an unpopular opinion based on the fact that Hitler made the fatal error that Napoleon had made by attacking Russia in winter.

Hitler shot himself in the foot with that move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

That isn't an unpopular opinion it is an American delusion. :D

America did not win the second world war , thats an unpopular opinion based on the fact that Hitler made the fatal error that Napoleon had made by attacking Russia in winter.

Hitler shot himself in the foot with that move.

---

Thank goodness he didn't learn from history, at least

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

That isn't an unpopular opinion it is an American delusion. :D

America did not win the second world war , thats an unpopular opinion based on the fact that Hitler made the fatal error that Napoleon had made by attacking Russia in winter.

Hitler shot himself in the foot with that move.

---

Without America tying down the Japanese they would have been free to launch an invasion into Russia. Then it would be Russia that would be defeated in a pincer move instead of Germany. Think of that..... Not to even mention our contribution to the western front with our aid we gave great Briton even before we invaded on D-day. We also gave aid to Russia in terms of air support and supplies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apocolips31

Without America tying down the Japanese they would have been free to launch an invasion into Russia. Then it would be Russia that would be defeated in a pincer move instead of Germany. Think of that..... Not to even mention our contribution to the western front with our aid we gave great Briton even before we invaded on D-day. We also gave aid to Russia in terms of air support and supplies.

---

Let's not forget that we lost so many lives over there in normandy that the memorial/burial grounds there has pretty much been declared US soil.

To suggest that the US entering the war did not directly lead to the Allies winning is warped to say least.

That's not to say that America were the ones to win the war, but our involvement did lead to victory (yes there is a difference).


edit: meant to reply to pyschocat.. oops

If it wasn't for the U.S. Europe would be a VERY differant place.

We saved the U.K. and France.