Originally Posted by
macstuff
Seems your answers all come from the same place. Misplaced entitlement.
You have no obligation to die early either bye-the-way.
Or, to take the abuse from the motorists, but you seem to enjoy it, sooooo....
Entitlement has EVERYTHING to do with it. That is all this post is about. You might want to look up the definition.
Is 2k enough for a bike? Now tell me you dont have a 2k bike to try and prove an inane point.
Seems you also stray and add things to other peoples posts that obviously weren't intended, being disingenuously standard.
Do you even ride your bikes or do you sit and look at them?
I lurk here every now and again and I'd say your moniker is spot on.
Your best bet might be to drive your car and set the example.
Ah yes, the classic "I can't form a cogent argument, so I'm going to attack the opponent personally" approach.
"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for him."
You say the problem is lycra-clad cyclists riding $5000 bikes, but you completely ignore the Titleist-ball-cap-wearing BMW and Audi drivers of which there are WAY more on public roads. Moreover, you seem to lump all forms of entitlement into one negative connotation. There are, however, many entitlements granted to people by the written statute. If a cyclist is legally entitled to ride on a public road in a position deemed to maximize their safety, they're not a pr1ck for doing so.