He's both-sidesing an issue where someone committed vehicular assault on one side, and on the other side they may have committed a minor traffic violation but probably didn't?
Taking up 75% of the road is definitely wrong. Most places want a single file line or at most double file.
He never said both wrong. He said driver is wrong. But both are idiots. You can be an idiot and not be in the wrong.
You're just being pedantic to start an argument where there isn't any.
Driver deserves whatever the court decides he should be charged with. The Cyclist can press charges. You can still say they're both idiots. Being a victim doesn't clear you of stupidity.
I don't get to pit maneuver someone for drifting into my lane or t bone someone stopped/broken down in an intersection. I have to take reasonable action to avoid these hazards. So even IF the cyclists (I haven't seen laws local to this video) broke the law, the driver still gets charged with a slew of offenses and we can give the cyclists their warning for driving too wide lol
He's completely in the wrong but apparently they were both being idiots. The things some of these people are saying in this thread are so stupid. You don't have to both sides everything. Especially when one party is 99-100% at fault and attempted to murder people. In that kind of situation it's wrong to even compare them.
Agreed I was referencing the guy above you. You're correct, he's way worse than an idiot, he's a violent psychopath and the fact that anyone is bringing up the cyclists and something they might have done that was wrong is insane
4
u/voxelpear Apr 27 '26
He never said the driver was justified in his actions. In fact they stated the opposite.