Yeah that comment is wrong. I have no idea why it would say that.
Edit: perhaps it is a typo or autocorrect for “designed” meaning that it may or may not be built for bicycles.
The general access=designated may be a better description.
Hawke
joined 2 years ago
Mail carriers reach tentative contract with USPS that includes pay raises and air-conditioned trucks
The Thing is the same for me.
I could also start to throw in most of the ridiculous 8-foot-tall American brodozer pickups, but while they’re ugly they’re mostly just bland rather than atrocious-looking. And my aversion to them is not necessarily based entirely on their appearance.
Mail carriers reach tentative contract with USPS that includes pay raises and air-conditioned trucks
Yeah, YMMV.
You could also throw in the VW Thing and the Yugo or AMC Pacer. I looked at a couple of lists of ugly cars just to see if I was missing some, but most were just boring and not particularly ugly.
I stand by the Aztek being worse than the PT cruiser though. The PT cruiser is one of those that falls on the side of “boring” for me, not egregiously ugly. I understand it’s also a pile of garbage from a quality perspective, so definitely a bad car.
Mail carriers reach tentative contract with USPS that includes pay raises and air-conditioned trucks
Pontiac Aztek, Tesla Cybertruck, Nissan Cube.
bicycle=yes just means that bicycles are allowed. Most places bicycles are allowed on all the roads.
bicycle=designated means basically that it has been marked as intended for bicycles. Could be a sign or a map or whatever.
I don’t think it would cause any problems. The cycle maps generally use that information although I can’t speak to routing software specifically.
bicycle=designated
It does seem like there’s something “off” about that description. Itd be interesting to know where this all happened.
I can imagine a driver raging at a cyclist and then later chasing them and hopping a curb to threaten. Or hopping the curb onto a sidewalk to pass them and swerving back onto the road in a threatening manner. Both strike me as very much dangerous and disproportionate reactions to having to go a bit slow for 30 seconds.
Sorry, that wasn’t my point. If the driver had to hop a curb to threaten the cyclist, how would the cyclist have been able to simply “pulled to the side” to let him past when there’s a curb between them.
You may have missed the part where the driver of the BMW “hopped the curb” “at 70”. I have some doubts about the speed, but if you’re going over a curb at speed to try to pass someone, you’re in the wrong.
“On accident” is not right. “By mistake”, “by accident”, opposite of “on purpose”
I doubt it. The man can barely speak English, let alone three other languages.