You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? Now with 3x more gears...

[redflamesfan08]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

He moved over. The DA’s office reviewed the video and found he did nothing wrong, which means they believed he gave at least the legal 3 ft. He did nothing to antagonize the cyclist in their confrontation and even the cyclist admitted he took out his frustration on this one individual that had been built up by previous incidents.

What more, realistically, would you have wanted him to do, and what more evidence would you have needed considering this is the world of the cyclist against the driver, the dash cam, and the decision of the DA after reviewing the evidence?

There’s nothing that points to “####ty” driving.

Due to the terrible mounting of the dash cam I won't claim to know if the driver gave the legally required 3 ft or not. Clearly however the cyclist felt it was a close pass however, I've been there and it can definitely make one feel threatened. So I would suggest the driver could wait until oncoming traffic passed, allowing him to give the cyclist more space. About 2-3 seconds would have done it.

Sadly in the eyes of most drivers cyclists' lives are not worth that much time.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

He moved over. The DA’s office reviewed the video and found he did nothing wrong, which means they believed he gave at least the legal 3 ft. He did nothing to antagonize the cyclist in their confrontation and even the cyclist admitted he took out his frustration on this one individual that had been built up by previous incidents.

What more, realistically, would you have wanted him to do, and what more evidence would you have needed considering this is the world of the cyclist against the driver, the dash cam, and the decision of the DA after reviewing the evidence?

There’s nothing that points to “####ty” driving.

Burdan of proof is on the DA. The DA believed that the word of the cyclist who assaulted the driver and a dash cam that does not show the proximity was not enough to commit. Insufficient evidence to convict does not mean he gave sufficient room. I would agree that there is reasonable doubt as to whether he passed to close. I think there is evidence that he probably passed to close.

Realistically he should have waited for the oncoming car to go buy and pull out so at a minimum he is in the Center of the road leaving ample room. This is how anyone should pass a cyclist in the driving lane. If you don’t you are a bad driver.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

He moved over. The DA’s office reviewed the video and found he did nothing wrong, which means they believed he gave at least the legal 3 ft. He did nothing to antagonize the cyclist in their confrontation and even the cyclist admitted he took out his frustration on this one individual that had been built up by previous incidents.

What more, realistically, would you have wanted him to do, and what more evidence would you have needed considering this is the world of the cyclist against the driver, the dash cam, and the decision of the DA after reviewing the evidence?

There’s nothing that points to “####ty” driving.

He should have driven the same speed the cyclist was going and remained behind the cyclist the whole way causing traffic to back up behind him, inciting road rage from one or many other drivers who could then follow him to the skate park to shout at him and call the police.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The curb area is a really ####ty spot to ride. It's full of gravel, glass, broken pavement, drains, and all manner of trash. It is absolutely not the safest place to ride. So if you see a cyclist a few feet out from it, don't go wondering why, and think may be you can not give the safe space because they don't care about safety, either. That's not the case.

Dude! Where are you riding? Maybe time for a gravel bike? I’ve never experienced this, but I ride outside the city. Sounds like the same BS bikers make up about riding the centre line ‘cause for oil in the middle of the lane.

[Fuzz]

Just the high quality major route "bike lanes".


https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZWEmaRKmN5UCbiNDA


This area is particularly bad, because it narrows and has crappy asphalt, and everyone is more concerned about racing to the merge than the bike lane. In the winter it's so treacherous I wait for all the vehicles to go, because the bike lane is snow storage.



https://maps.app.goo.gl/3A6PNkqykjqmESvy9


and of course, this:


https://maps.app.goo.gl/idt3A8JWyuVPdUZNA

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

He moved over. The DA’s office reviewed the video and found he did nothing wrong, which means they believed he gave at least the legal 3 ft. He did nothing to antagonize the cyclist in their confrontation and even the cyclist admitted he took out his frustration on this one individual that had been built up by previous incidents.

What more, realistically, would you have wanted him to do, and what more evidence would you have needed considering this is the world of the cyclist against the driver, the dash cam, and the decision of the DA after reviewing the evidence?

There’s nothing that points to “####ty” driving.

Except for the ####ty driving displayed on the dash cam footage.

Silly to use the DA for an appeal to authority here. There are myriad reasons they wouldn't proceed with a prosecution.

Cycling is one of the dumbest politicized culture war things...the appointment/election of DA's is also a politicized process. It would be dumb for the DA to waste resources on this because it's inconsequential, and also a risk to the DA's reputation and continued employment. Why is the DA - who deals with a wide breadth of crime (presumably not a lot of traffic citations...) - more of an authority on this than the officer (presumably some type of highway patrol) who issued the citation?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

He should have driven the same speed the cyclist was going and remained behind the cyclist the whole way causing traffic to back up behind him, inciting road rage from one or many other drivers who could then follow him to the skate park to shout at him and call the police.

Or...waited the 50 meters to make his left turn?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Or...waited the 50 meters to make his left turn?

Maybe, but really someone with the maturity level of Gary Peacock should be riding their bike on the sidewalk and walking it across intersections.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Context matters when it comes to these types of scenarios, plenty of brutal situations for mother, children and social circle all around.

There are things that shouldn't be happening in our society when it comes to things like drug abuse, mental health, sexual exploitations and more and everybody ends up paying the price.

People get hung up too much on words and on feelings as opposed to improving situations on the street and the lives of all involved. Adopted daughter at birth or a young age? Yes, she would be effectively a daughter. If she is not legally adopted but the family is more of caregiver, providing shelter, food and support during what could be a terrible mental illness/drug abuse situation? That is probably a bit different.

There are a million scenarios that could be playing out and my guess it may be one of the worst ones.

Writes a post about not reading too much into which words are used and then proceeds to make the worst assumption about someone based on...words.

[Wormius]

There is really no reason to qualify “daughter” in the context used, unless you’re actively trying to be a dick.

Even in Curves’ weird examples, nobody would ever preface their friend’s children with “adopted” regardless of whatever legal process transpired. Like, in what situation does anyone just nonchalantly tack on, “they’re adopted”?

[jayswin]

Yeah, adopted in the context of moneyguys post definitely came off as "we don't like who she is so I'll just point out that she's adopted", imo.

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Wormius

There is really no reason to qualify “daughter” in the context used, unless you’re actively trying to be a dick.

Even in Curves’ weird examples, nobody would ever preface their friend’s children with “adopted” regardless of whatever legal process transpired. Like, in what situation does anyone just nonchalantly tack on, “they’re adopted”?

Probably a lot more than you think which is exactly what makes these types of scenarios the worst, cycles repeat and families and lives are destroyed. What do you think happens to a lot of foster home children/ adopted children and more? Once the government chq's stop coming at 18/19 etc? These kids are booted out and are on the streets. Quickly these kids who think these people are their parents, siblings, cousins and more are quickly forgotten.


Don't try and sell me that if you took me in personally as a young adult out of the goodness of your heart during a brutal time in my life, and I caused an absolute **** storm in your life, that your going to treat me same as your children/siblings.

You would personally tell me to my face that "your not my child/ sibling" and to eventually leave you alone.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Probably a lot more than you think which is exactly what makes these types of scenarios the worst, cycles repeat and families and lives are destroyed. What do you think happens to a lot of foster home children/ adopted children and more? Once the government chq's stop coming at 18/19 etc? These kids are booted out and are on the streets. Quickly these kids who think these people are their parents, siblings, cousins and more are quickly forgotten.


Don't try and sell me that if you took me in personally as a young adult out of the goodness of your heart during a brutal time in my life, and I caused an absolute **** storm in your life, that your going to treat me same as your children/siblings.

You would personally tell me to my face that "your not my child/ sibling" and to eventually leave you alone.

Wow, first of all there’s no government money for adopted kids, you have chosen to make them part of your family. I know a few families who have adopted and your seesment couldn’t be more wrong,

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Yeah, adopted in the context of moneyguys post definitely came off as "we don't like who she is so I'll just point out that she's adopted", imo.

That is exactly what they wanted to achieve. Otherwise they would have to blame their own parenting skills.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Gasoline and Diesel taxes raises 8 billion a year

Canada spent 9.8 billion on roads in 2022

Your regular taxes pay very little towards roads .

Taxes on fuel go to provincial and federal governments, municipal roads are upkept and constructed using property taxes

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Probably a lot more than you think which is exactly what makes these types of scenarios the worst, cycles repeat and families and lives are destroyed. What do you think happens to a lot of foster home children/ adopted children and more? Once the government chq's stop coming at 18/19 etc? These kids are booted out and are on the streets. Quickly these kids who think these people are their parents, siblings, cousins and more are quickly forgotten.


Don't try and sell me that if you took me in personally as a young adult out of the goodness of your heart during a brutal time in my life, and I caused an absolute **** storm in your life, that your going to treat me same as your children/siblings.

You would personally tell me to my face that "your not my child/ sibling" and to eventually leave you alone.

These would be people who learned how to parent from soap operas.

You’ve piqued my interest though, how would you envision dialogue between these sets of people going where they no longer refer to their child as only son/daughter anymore?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Wow, first of all there’s no government money for adopted kids, you have chosen to make them part of your family. I know a few families who have adopted and your seesment couldn’t be more wrong,

One of my friends works in the system, for the government, and I can confirm that (as usual) curves is just talking out of his ass trying to sound smart about something he doesn’t have a clue about. It’s likely because he doesn’t know the difference between fostering and adoption.

Foster homes do get government funding because those children are under the care of the government. Adoptive families may qualify for a one-time subsidy, but otherwise that child is theirs the same as any child of any other parent.

Adoption also takes a lot of effort. Parents have to really want it. Curves’ description of adoptive parents is insulting and weird.

[Fuzz]

It's a Topsy Curvy world out there I never knew existed.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Probably a lot more than you think which is exactly what makes these types of scenarios the worst, cycles repeat and families and lives are destroyed. What do you think happens to a lot of foster home children/ adopted children and more? Once the government chq's stop coming at 18/19 etc? These kids are booted out and are on the streets. Quickly these kids who think these people are their parents, siblings, cousins and more are quickly forgotten.


Don't try and sell me that if you took me in personally as a young adult out of the goodness of your heart during a brutal time in my life, and I caused an absolute **** storm in your life, that your going to treat me same as your children/siblings.

You would personally tell me to my face that "your not my child/ sibling" and to eventually leave you alone.

LOl at the bolded, you truly have no idea what you are talking about.

You don't "slash" fostering and adoption, they are not the same thing and you really shine a light on your own ignorance.

And in your stupid example, what if your birth child causes a #### storm in your life and the child who you either adopted or fostered is a rock who is dependable and responsible? I guess in your world you owe the birth child a greater duty of care.

As for the original poster. I'm still waiting to hear if their child adopts one of these babies as they claim (which is doubtful, smells more like virtue signaling to me) are they going to refer to the child as their adopted grandchild?

[curves2000]

Originally Posted by Wormius

These would be people who learned how to parent from soap operas.

You’ve piqued my interest though, how would you envision dialogue between these sets of people going where they no longer refer to their child as only son/daughter anymore?

Back to my original post and Money Guy's post before the typical word police came in all hot and bothered over words as opposed to serious topics. The women who keeps having babies and can't properly take care of is the concern, possibly due to a variety of tragic circumstances. It's a tragic situation for everybody involved, hence the gear grinder posts. Arguing and worrying this and that word isn't the concern here.

Context matters in the original post and good on Money Guy for not wasting time arguing semantics. Money Guy comes to air a grievance on a gear grinder thread and gets roasted and insulted by the same people and being called a ***k. Ironically it turns out his family may be able to attempt to do some good in what is most likely an incredibly challenging and heart breaking situation.