Ok, let’s put it differently: In the story we are talking about
A cyclist was aware of the pedestrian walking on the cycling lane
A pedestrian was unaware of the fact that he was on the biking lane
The cyclist managed to stop safely before the pedestrian
The cyclist got angry for the pedestrian not caring about whether he was allowed to walk where he did
The pedestrian felt so justified in walking on the cycling lane that he considered throwing the bike off the river
So what’s your point? The cyclist shouldn’t have gotten angry and should have just been fine and dandy with the pedestrian walking on the cycling lane?
The equivalent would be a pedestrian walking on the road, and then drivers should be just fine with that. They aren’t and neither should they be.
If a driver shouldn’t need to be happy with a pedestrian wandering around on the road completely unaware of his surroundings, why should a cyclist be ok with the same circumstances?
Ok, let’s put it differently: In the story we are talking about
So what’s your point? The cyclist shouldn’t have gotten angry and should have just been fine and dandy with the pedestrian walking on the cycling lane?
The equivalent would be a pedestrian walking on the road, and then drivers should be just fine with that. They aren’t and neither should they be.
If a driver shouldn’t need to be happy with a pedestrian wandering around on the road completely unaware of his surroundings, why should a cyclist be ok with the same circumstances?
You can’t have it both ways.
You fail to recognize that everyone can be wrong at the same time.