What about the bad pedestrians, can we do a return article that is exactly same format, just on pedestrians instead? What is she doing about the bully pedestrians who want claim complete ownership of the middle of paths and abuse others who want to use the path?Howzat wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2024 1:01 pmHer point is cyclists are the problem.
Which cyclists? A bunch of imaginary bad cyclists.
It’s well-tried rhetorical ploy “It’s not that I don’t like [insert group here], it’s just the bad ones”.
She’s not advocating for better infrastructure either. The article she had a “visceral response” to did that.
Oh yes, I can be critical of them because I'm a pedestrian myself so nobody can complain. But it all just gets a bit silly and we end up with backwards infrastructure because of these rants.
It's all about stirring controversy to sell more newspapers and get more subscribers. No, I don't have an SMH subscription. And no, I won't be getting one.
Doesn't apply to me. I'm extremely cautious around pedestrians - I have to be, I can't afford to take any chance with them given my injuries previously. And given I'm a pedestrian as well, I have the right to call out pedestrians who do the wrong thing.
In my area we don't really have the spats and disputes between riders and pedestrians for the most part. Everyone usually gets along.