> > > > That cyclist should not have been "coming up on the side"; that is, he
> > > > shouldn't have been passing on the right where there's any likelihood
> > > > that a motorist will turn right, unless he's riding slowly and ready
> > > > for an instantaneous panic stop. ?Passing on the right is always dicey
> > > > at best, and if done at all, should be done with tremendous care,
> > > > strobe light or not.
> > > "Should" this, "shouldn't" that.
> > Yes. ?Despite the "every choice is valid" mentality that seems to be
> > more and more common,
> Why are your laments so judgmental?
is time for you to invest in a mirror.
> > ... there are things that should be done, and other
> > things that should not.
> I agree, except that I find your range of valid choices and
> circumstantial considerations extremely narrow-minded and intolerant.
> Also, you seem to assume it is your place to do the "shoulding".
i.e., you seem offended if I state an opinion that is not identical to
Similarly, you seem baffled by the fundamental concept of traffic
laws. Most people seem to recognize that chaos on the road is a bad
thing, and recognize that chaos results if people are allowed to do
whatever they want at any moment they judge appropriate.
You, OTOH, seem to take offense at any suggestion that _you_ should
obey traffic laws. Why do you feel that _you_ are so special?
- Frank Krygowski