comment
stringlengths 1
9.9k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
This is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.
Paxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek.
Those two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow.
Now, compare that to what you are saying - "districts in the 9th". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.
Furthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree."
] |
>
All I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.
Call it the "Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!" act.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system."
] |
>
but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.
You can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act."
] |
>
I think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached.
If a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding.
Shopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides."
] |
>
There is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is."
] |
>
Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power."
] |
>
but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.
You mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years?
I think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion."
] |
>
Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already."
] |
>
How dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion."
] |
>
This intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!"
] |
>
Please provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.
A lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.
So please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power"
] |
>
Venue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing."
] |
>
Democrats against a future Republican president
I sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody."
] |
>
I am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank."
] |
>
This is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the "blue slip". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct."
] |
>
Especially when Republicans have already killed it.
In October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.
In February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?"
] |
>
Lol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California)."
] |
>
I've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.
Democrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country.
The closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first."
] |
>
Over half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.
I am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case."
] |
>
Just think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge."
] |
>
This process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president
In the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.",
">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit."
] |
>
There are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.
And there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened.
That´s actually not a long list.
The US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.
Ordinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.
The vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.",
">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.",
">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?"
] |
>
Bad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.",
">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.",
">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?",
">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions."
] |
>
What is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?
Pretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.",
">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.",
">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?",
">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.",
">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just."
] |
>
If you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious.
Roe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.",
">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.",
">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?",
">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.",
">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.",
">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?"
] |
>
Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.",
">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.",
">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?",
">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.",
">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.",
">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?",
">\n\nIf you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. \nRoe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you."
] |
>
Turn about is fair play? Republicans are always slow to adopt new tactics created by Dems.
Force the Supreme court to be in session more of the year and raise more cases to the SCOTUS would probably be the ultra long term fix.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.",
">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.",
">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?",
">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.",
">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.",
">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?",
">\n\nIf you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. \nRoe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion."
] |
>
Just make it illegal ¯\(ツ)/¯ Why is every question like this treating these situations like it's rocket science. It's not that hard.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.",
">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.",
">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?",
">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.",
">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.",
">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?",
">\n\nIf you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. \nRoe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nTurn about is fair play? Republicans are always slow to adopt new tactics created by Dems. \nForce the Supreme court to be in session more of the year and raise more cases to the SCOTUS would probably be the ultra long term fix."
] |
>
Because in order to make something illegal, 60% of the arbitrarily-created chunks of land area of the country need to agree to do it.
You know, like a normal country.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.",
">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.",
">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?",
">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.",
">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.",
">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?",
">\n\nIf you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. \nRoe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nTurn about is fair play? Republicans are always slow to adopt new tactics created by Dems. \nForce the Supreme court to be in session more of the year and raise more cases to the SCOTUS would probably be the ultra long term fix.",
">\n\nJust make it illegal ¯\\(ツ)/¯ Why is every question like this treating these situations like it's rocket science. It's not that hard."
] |
>
Democrats loved venue shopping when Trump was president. They aren't going to ban it and lose that power
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.",
">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.",
">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?",
">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.",
">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.",
">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?",
">\n\nIf you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. \nRoe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nTurn about is fair play? Republicans are always slow to adopt new tactics created by Dems. \nForce the Supreme court to be in session more of the year and raise more cases to the SCOTUS would probably be the ultra long term fix.",
">\n\nJust make it illegal ¯\\(ツ)/¯ Why is every question like this treating these situations like it's rocket science. It's not that hard.",
">\n\nBecause in order to make something illegal, 60% of the arbitrarily-created chunks of land area of the country need to agree to do it.\nYou know, like a normal country."
] |
>
As others pointed out in this thread, there is no Dem equivalent of the single-judge district the GOP uses to push its policy goals.
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.",
">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.",
">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?",
">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.",
">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.",
">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?",
">\n\nIf you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. \nRoe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nTurn about is fair play? Republicans are always slow to adopt new tactics created by Dems. \nForce the Supreme court to be in session more of the year and raise more cases to the SCOTUS would probably be the ultra long term fix.",
">\n\nJust make it illegal ¯\\(ツ)/¯ Why is every question like this treating these situations like it's rocket science. It's not that hard.",
">\n\nBecause in order to make something illegal, 60% of the arbitrarily-created chunks of land area of the country need to agree to do it.\nYou know, like a normal country.",
">\n\nDemocrats loved venue shopping when Trump was president. They aren't going to ban it and lose that power"
] |
>
|
[
"It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.",
">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?",
">\n\nYes, absolutely.",
">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.",
">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.",
">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.",
">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.",
">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.",
">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.",
">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.",
">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.",
">\n\nWhat's the fundamental difference? If they go to districts in the 9th Circuit knowing they're going have have better than average odds and a friendly appeals court, they're still deliberately choosing venues to maximize their chance of winning and having it upheld at least until SCOTUS.",
">\n\nYou don’t understand the difference between 100% and <50%?",
">\n\nSo there is no fundamental difference, only degree.",
">\n\nThis is like saying there is no fundamental difference between a job paying you $500k and a job paying you $20k.\nPaxton is picking the exact judge who will hear his case. Not a group of judges. The exact one. He has two that he likes to shop pending the subject matter - Tipton and Kascmarek. \nThose two can issue nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration and often do. Yes, Biden can appeal and that appeal process is slow. \nNow, compare that to what you are saying - \"districts in the 9th\". There are many districts in the 9th. Each district has many judges appointed by presidents from both parties. They are randomly assigned to one of those judges. If they get a judge they don't like and they get ruled against, they can appeal. But usually those appeals go to a 3 judge panel on the appeals court, and those 3 are randomly assigned. Yes, there are more judges that are Democratic-appointees but there are also some who are Republican appointed. Out of 29 judges, 13 are Republican appointed. That's a pretty high number and you only need to draw 2 on a 3 judge panel to win the appeal if you believe partisanship drives everything.\nFurthermore, the 9th is huge and they are bringing suit in their home state and home district. Paxton is shopping districts within Texas that have no relation to the case. He's not filing in Austin or anywhere else relevant to the case, he's picking these random districts because of the judge. So no, it's nothing alike and comparing the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the court system.",
">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.",
">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.",
">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!",
">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power",
">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.",
">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.",
">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.",
">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.",
">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?",
">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).",
">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.",
">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.",
">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.",
">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.",
">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?",
">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.",
">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.",
">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?",
">\n\nIf you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. \nRoe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you.",
">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.",
">\n\nTurn about is fair play? Republicans are always slow to adopt new tactics created by Dems. \nForce the Supreme court to be in session more of the year and raise more cases to the SCOTUS would probably be the ultra long term fix.",
">\n\nJust make it illegal ¯\\(ツ)/¯ Why is every question like this treating these situations like it's rocket science. It's not that hard.",
">\n\nBecause in order to make something illegal, 60% of the arbitrarily-created chunks of land area of the country need to agree to do it.\nYou know, like a normal country.",
">\n\nDemocrats loved venue shopping when Trump was president. They aren't going to ban it and lose that power",
">\n\nAs others pointed out in this thread, there is no Dem equivalent of the single-judge district the GOP uses to push its policy goals."
] |
I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light.
I have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things
|
[] |
>
Most bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.
And what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things"
] |
>
It seems like most bikers because of observation bias.
If you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.
As for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane."
] |
>
Interesting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk."
] |
>
Well the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell."
] |
>
Yeah it can be applied to anything really.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb"
] |
>
As a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really."
] |
>
Amsterdam? Copenhagen?
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense."
] |
>
Copenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?"
] |
>
I had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.
My local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered."
] |
>
If “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…"
] |
>
You make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right."
] |
>
I guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off."
] |
>
Same! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine."
] |
>
Same here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells "On your left!" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane."
] |
>
It’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡"
] |
>
Is it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not."
] |
>
Hello.
My useless comment to this post is here :D
So, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:
Our company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.
I remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.
They sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?"
] |
>
This sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys"
] |
>
no XD portugal
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?"
] |
>
God its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.
In ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal"
] |
>
My biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage"
] |
>
We have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way."
] |
>
I found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor."
] |
>
Yes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.
All in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!"
] |
>
Cyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists."
] |
>
Everything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists."
] |
>
Cyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there"
] |
>
I’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc.
If you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?"
] |
>
Exactly my thoughts
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you."
] |
>
Honestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car.
EDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts"
] |
>
As a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi."
] |
>
There's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too."
] |
>
As a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them."
] |
>
I skateboard so I guess I'm good
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to."
] |
>
Just don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good"
] |
>
I think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds."
] |
>
As a driver, I hate you both
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included."
] |
>
Pedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both"
] |
>
OK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you.
I do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site."
] |
>
r/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's."
] |
>
Not unpopular.
Everyone hates cyclists.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn"
] |
>
I casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to.
The problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers "share the road", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists."
] |
>
There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.
That is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable."
] |
>
As a driver, I concur.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents."
] |
>
I hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur."
] |
>
As a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.
Once, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.
But that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.
That being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!"
] |
>
This!
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community."
] |
>
I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!"
] |
>
True !
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation."
] |
>
OMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a "course" to learn the basics of using the streets x)
(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !"
] |
>
This is my story lol..
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )"
] |
>
Yes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol.."
] |
>
Yes I totally agree. Just saying "that's my life" :) happening in Brussels tho
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?"
] |
>
My bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho"
] |
>
J'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!!
Le problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE"
] |
>
as a cyclist I hate everyone
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE",
">\n\nJ'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!! \nLe problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha"
] |
>
Same, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal.
They assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.
They tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door.
They’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law.
now that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.
So far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.
What is this really about?
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE",
">\n\nJ'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!! \nLe problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha",
">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone"
] |
>
I loathe cyclists. Selfish, entitled lycra lunatics.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE",
">\n\nJ'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!! \nLe problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha",
">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone",
">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?"
] |
>
Be honest, do you realize that it's possible to ride a bicycle and not be selfish, or entitled, or a lunatic, or not wear lycra?
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE",
">\n\nJ'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!! \nLe problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha",
">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone",
">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?",
">\n\nI loathe cyclists. Selfish, entitled lycra lunatics."
] |
>
This thread is such a circlejerk, it's ridiculous.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE",
">\n\nJ'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!! \nLe problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha",
">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone",
">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?",
">\n\nI loathe cyclists. Selfish, entitled lycra lunatics.",
">\n\nBe honest, do you realize that it's possible to ride a bicycle and not be selfish, or entitled, or a lunatic, or not wear lycra?"
] |
>
That's what I'm here for
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE",
">\n\nJ'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!! \nLe problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha",
">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone",
">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?",
">\n\nI loathe cyclists. Selfish, entitled lycra lunatics.",
">\n\nBe honest, do you realize that it's possible to ride a bicycle and not be selfish, or entitled, or a lunatic, or not wear lycra?",
">\n\nThis thread is such a circlejerk, it's ridiculous."
] |
>
It's because cycling isn't regulated like motor vehicles are but they still get on the roads unlike pedestrians. So they don't have knowledge on the rules of the road that drivers have.
There's also some sort of hypocrisy they have where they believe drivers should give way to them because bikes are more vulnerable than cars while expecting pedestrians to give way to them because they're moving faster.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE",
">\n\nJ'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!! \nLe problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha",
">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone",
">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?",
">\n\nI loathe cyclists. Selfish, entitled lycra lunatics.",
">\n\nBe honest, do you realize that it's possible to ride a bicycle and not be selfish, or entitled, or a lunatic, or not wear lycra?",
">\n\nThis thread is such a circlejerk, it's ridiculous.",
">\n\nThat's what I'm here for"
] |
>
So they don't have knowledge on the rules of the road
Plenty do. Many cyclists also are automobilists. They just feel like they're exempted from respecting trafic rules because it's tiring to stop and go on a bike and they're slower an lighter than cars.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE",
">\n\nJ'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!! \nLe problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha",
">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone",
">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?",
">\n\nI loathe cyclists. Selfish, entitled lycra lunatics.",
">\n\nBe honest, do you realize that it's possible to ride a bicycle and not be selfish, or entitled, or a lunatic, or not wear lycra?",
">\n\nThis thread is such a circlejerk, it's ridiculous.",
">\n\nThat's what I'm here for",
">\n\nIt's because cycling isn't regulated like motor vehicles are but they still get on the roads unlike pedestrians. So they don't have knowledge on the rules of the road that drivers have.\nThere's also some sort of hypocrisy they have where they believe drivers should give way to them because bikes are more vulnerable than cars while expecting pedestrians to give way to them because they're moving faster."
] |
>
Sure you got hit by a truck, but at least you managed to save yourself a little time and avoid waiting for a few seconds. Is what I'd say if they didn't then end up in the hospital
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE",
">\n\nJ'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!! \nLe problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha",
">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone",
">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?",
">\n\nI loathe cyclists. Selfish, entitled lycra lunatics.",
">\n\nBe honest, do you realize that it's possible to ride a bicycle and not be selfish, or entitled, or a lunatic, or not wear lycra?",
">\n\nThis thread is such a circlejerk, it's ridiculous.",
">\n\nThat's what I'm here for",
">\n\nIt's because cycling isn't regulated like motor vehicles are but they still get on the roads unlike pedestrians. So they don't have knowledge on the rules of the road that drivers have.\nThere's also some sort of hypocrisy they have where they believe drivers should give way to them because bikes are more vulnerable than cars while expecting pedestrians to give way to them because they're moving faster.",
">\n\n\nSo they don't have knowledge on the rules of the road\n\nPlenty do. Many cyclists also are automobilists. They just feel like they're exempted from respecting trafic rules because it's tiring to stop and go on a bike and they're slower an lighter than cars."
] |
>
Everyone hates cyclists, as it should be.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE",
">\n\nJ'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!! \nLe problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha",
">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone",
">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?",
">\n\nI loathe cyclists. Selfish, entitled lycra lunatics.",
">\n\nBe honest, do you realize that it's possible to ride a bicycle and not be selfish, or entitled, or a lunatic, or not wear lycra?",
">\n\nThis thread is such a circlejerk, it's ridiculous.",
">\n\nThat's what I'm here for",
">\n\nIt's because cycling isn't regulated like motor vehicles are but they still get on the roads unlike pedestrians. So they don't have knowledge on the rules of the road that drivers have.\nThere's also some sort of hypocrisy they have where they believe drivers should give way to them because bikes are more vulnerable than cars while expecting pedestrians to give way to them because they're moving faster.",
">\n\n\nSo they don't have knowledge on the rules of the road\n\nPlenty do. Many cyclists also are automobilists. They just feel like they're exempted from respecting trafic rules because it's tiring to stop and go on a bike and they're slower an lighter than cars.",
">\n\nSure you got hit by a truck, but at least you managed to save yourself a little time and avoid waiting for a few seconds. Is what I'd say if they didn't then end up in the hospital"
] |
>
Cyclists shouldn’t be on sidewalks
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE",
">\n\nJ'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!! \nLe problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha",
">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone",
">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?",
">\n\nI loathe cyclists. Selfish, entitled lycra lunatics.",
">\n\nBe honest, do you realize that it's possible to ride a bicycle and not be selfish, or entitled, or a lunatic, or not wear lycra?",
">\n\nThis thread is such a circlejerk, it's ridiculous.",
">\n\nThat's what I'm here for",
">\n\nIt's because cycling isn't regulated like motor vehicles are but they still get on the roads unlike pedestrians. So they don't have knowledge on the rules of the road that drivers have.\nThere's also some sort of hypocrisy they have where they believe drivers should give way to them because bikes are more vulnerable than cars while expecting pedestrians to give way to them because they're moving faster.",
">\n\n\nSo they don't have knowledge on the rules of the road\n\nPlenty do. Many cyclists also are automobilists. They just feel like they're exempted from respecting trafic rules because it's tiring to stop and go on a bike and they're slower an lighter than cars.",
">\n\nSure you got hit by a truck, but at least you managed to save yourself a little time and avoid waiting for a few seconds. Is what I'd say if they didn't then end up in the hospital",
">\n\nEveryone hates cyclists, as it should be."
] |
>
I also cringe a lot when I see the international Reddit community constantly praise us Dutch people for our biking culture. People have no idea how many traffic accidents we get that could have been avoided if we didn’t have cyclists EVERYWHERE who are barely aware of the traffic rules that also apply to them.
People have no idea about how cyclists are almost always right according to our traffic laws, which makes them much more reckless. They cause millions of dollars of damage to cars (and pedestrians) each year, and barely ever face consequences for their irresponsible and reckless behavior in traffic.
People don’t see how cyclists often block traffic because they like to cycle next to each other in pairs, and if you honk they get angry and sometimes even aggressive and try to break your side mirror if they feel like it.
Many intersections have bicycle lanes that you need to check when making a turn when driving, even though the intersection is already super busy with lots of cars. And guess what, cyclists still ride around fast and recklessly and making sure you don’t hit another car, cyclist AND pedestrian is all the job of one single driver.
So all in all, people from countries where driving is a relatively easy and chill thing to do, praise cycling culture in other countries. Try to drive here in busy traffic with thousands of cars AND (RECKLESS) CYCLISTS on the road and then tell me what it’s like.
|
[
"I road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things",
">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.",
">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.",
">\n\nInteresting. Dangerous situations are more valuable to remember, and I remember tons of irresponsible bikers. It is in fact observation bias. But I'm always happy to see those who pay close attention to traffic, and I do remeber some of them aswell.",
">\n\nWell the same goes for driving. How many cars do you remember when they haven’t done anything? But you tend to remember the ones who do something dumb",
">\n\nYeah it can be applied to anything really.",
">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.",
">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?",
">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.",
">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…",
">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.",
">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.",
">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.",
">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.",
">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡",
">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.",
">\n\nIs it possible to do that without sneaking up on them and startling the shit out of them by yelling real loud? And then cutting is close to them as you possibly can without hitting them?",
">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys",
">\n\nThis sounds like something that happened near by my home town, are you in Ontario?",
">\n\nno XD portugal",
">\n\nGod its so much worse that it's happened in multiple places.\nIn ours I think the driver killed one of the cyclists, then sued the family for emotional damage",
">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.",
">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.",
">\n\nI found driving in the towns of the Netherlands so hard. Not just because I was on the wrong side of the road 😉 but because I just wasn’t used to sooo many cyclists coming from all directions, always faster than me and passing on both sides. Even as I was signalling to leave a roundabout at one point about three cyclists rode past on the inside. I really struggled to keep up with them all, which of course means I drove slower and thus even more bikes passed me!",
">\n\nYes that is of course very difficult, however as a Dutchman I’m used to cyclists, so of course we struggle a lot less. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that cyclists do cause a lot of issues because of their careless behavior, and because as drivers we have to accommodate them. That one sided ‘deal’ that we have makes it very difficult to deal with them.\nAll in all I’m happy we have so many cyclists as it’s good for the environment. But the utopian mindset of cyclists being a gift to the world is just stupid. Especially when you consider that mostly Americans who drive on wide open roads with barely any cyclists around are the ones praising cyclists in my country all the time. Also, cyclists annoy the hell out of pedestrians as well, so it’s not just about motorists.",
">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.",
">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there",
">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?",
">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.",
">\n\nExactly my thoughts",
">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.",
">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.",
">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.",
">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.",
">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good",
">\n\nJust don’t inconvenience narcissistic car drivers by a few seconds.",
">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I hate you both",
">\n\nPedestrians are literally the worst. Anyone who has to walk more than 20 feet a day and not to their car are complete losers, and should be jailed on site.",
">\n\nOK, I think that's a bit extreme. But hey, if you're running for public office I'll vote for you. \nI do have to wonder anytime I see someone that I know has the mental faculties to drive who is walking. Usually assume too many DUI's.",
">\n\nr/fuckcars ripping out their hair rn",
">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.",
">\n\nI casually cycle in the summer. If I'm on a trail, I'll slow down and ring my bell if I see pedestrians, or stop and dismount if there's a lot of people or they don't notice me. Especially on the narrow trails in this woodlot I sometimes go to. \nThe problem is a lot of cyclists, especially in North America, but perhaps other places, just aren't respectful of others. They demand car drivers \"share the road\", but then ride in huge packs, lane split, don't signal turns, run stop signs and red lights, weave in and out of traffic, boot up busy sidewalks at 15-20mph, refuse to use provided bike lanes, etc. There's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles. Big problem is difficulty/lack of enforcement. Cops have to catch them in the act. Even then they're slippery devils since they're usually more mobile than a cruiser or beat cop on foot. This is why I support plating bikes to make them easily identifiable.",
">\n\n\nThere's like a gross sense of entitlement in the cycling community. Dude, you're still a vehicle. There's rules that apply to you, just like there are for cars and motorcycles.\n\nThat is the problem right there. They want to be treated equal to car owners, yet they do not abide by traffic rules, hence all the accidents.",
">\n\nAs a driver, I concur.",
">\n\nI hate bikers on trails. They're supposed to stop and let hikers by but they never do. They go by so freakin' fast too. It's like come on now!",
">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.",
">\n\nThis!",
">\n\nI’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.",
">\n\nTrue !",
">\n\nOMG YES !! I completely agree. Every time i tried to explain this to a friend, they would always look at me like I am crazy for thinking such a thing. But as I walk for 45 minutes every days, it became a reality you can't ignore... I can't count how many times I nearly got hit by a cyclist, it happens every other week. I am starting to think that cyclists should have to go through a \"course\" to learn the basics of using the streets x)\n(Sorry for mistakes, not native here 'x) )",
">\n\nThis is my story lol..",
">\n\nYes, and it also is my personal experience, which is why I posted this..?",
">\n\nYes I totally agree. Just saying \"that's my life\" :) happening in Brussels tho",
">\n\nMy bad x) welp France here, it amazes me in a really bad way how this seems to be such a common phenomenon literaly EVERYWHERE",
">\n\nJ'ai roulé en vélo à Paris et laisse tomber l'enfer que c'était. J'avais l'impression d'avancer avec des oies qui insultaient tout le monde. BAa bAAA BAaaAa !!! \nLe problème c'est que plus les gens sont stressés (même les piétons... Genre dans le metro) plus ils se haïssent et ce matin j'avais la haine sur les vélos.. en vrai j'ai la haine sur tous les citadins haha",
">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone",
">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?",
">\n\nI loathe cyclists. Selfish, entitled lycra lunatics.",
">\n\nBe honest, do you realize that it's possible to ride a bicycle and not be selfish, or entitled, or a lunatic, or not wear lycra?",
">\n\nThis thread is such a circlejerk, it's ridiculous.",
">\n\nThat's what I'm here for",
">\n\nIt's because cycling isn't regulated like motor vehicles are but they still get on the roads unlike pedestrians. So they don't have knowledge on the rules of the road that drivers have.\nThere's also some sort of hypocrisy they have where they believe drivers should give way to them because bikes are more vulnerable than cars while expecting pedestrians to give way to them because they're moving faster.",
">\n\n\nSo they don't have knowledge on the rules of the road\n\nPlenty do. Many cyclists also are automobilists. They just feel like they're exempted from respecting trafic rules because it's tiring to stop and go on a bike and they're slower an lighter than cars.",
">\n\nSure you got hit by a truck, but at least you managed to save yourself a little time and avoid waiting for a few seconds. Is what I'd say if they didn't then end up in the hospital",
">\n\nEveryone hates cyclists, as it should be.",
">\n\nCyclists shouldn’t be on sidewalks"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.