721
Has anyone else noticed a sudden lack of reading comprehension skills?
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
721 points (93.3% liked)
Asklemmy
44149 readers
1467 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Tbh, that was my response lol
I understand what you mean, but I haven't noticed people not comprehending basic information. Can you give examples?
As a lot of people have already pointed out it's mostly prevalent in arguments. Like a comment I made on a video about lane splitting on motorcycles.
The video was explaining why lane splitting is safer for cyclists and shows a cyclist get rear ended at a stop light. The title of the video was "Most people don't understand lane splitting"
I simply commented "No we understand this specific scenario but to continue driving between stopped traffic is completely different"
All the replies to my comment were about lane splitting at a stop sign/stop light. The very thing I specifically stated I understood.
lane splitting is legal on the highways in california, I don't know about on all streets. it sounds like maybe you shouldn't do it on streets where you'd run into stop lights, or generally anything more complex than the interstate. personally I'm always careful whenever I see a motorcycle.
why is lane splitting safer? intuition suggests that treating a motorcycle like a car and giving them the same space or more would be safer, especially since you could predict what they'd do better since it would be the same as a car
When all the cars have stopped, that's the safest time for the cyclist to slither up to the front of the line. At 20 mph on a crowded freeway, it's a little more dangerous but legal in CA as long as they don't go more than (iirc) 20 mph faster than traffic. At 65 mph on a still-crowded LA freeway, having a bike race past you doing 90 can be disconcerting to say the least. At least you know if they cause an accident and you're injured, they'll probably be your organ donor.
One reason I've been told lane splitting is allowed is because motorcycles are air cooled and stopping for prolonged periods in a traffic jam can be bad for the engine. Also by allowing motorcycles to move forward it frees up space for more cars, though that seems like a small impact.
I'm not trying to be rude but did you understand what I said? Lane splitting at a stop light/stop sign/stopped traffic is safer for the cyclist. Lane splitting and continuing to drive between the lanes of stopped traffic is not.
Well that's sort of a bad example. What your explaining are two separate things. Filtering (moving to the front of a stopped lane by moving between vehicles stopped or by stopping) and lane splitting (moving between lanes at highway speeds).
Iirc filtering is safer but splitting is like way more dangerous but I'd have to look it up.
Legally they are the same.
Depends on where you say legally.
I have to say I find it ironic that all replies here are about the lane splitting too.
I agree with those replies, your message is not clear.