So what you’re saying is, “with tiny whisk comes great reward.”

Every take you have on this site is consistently terrible.

“Yup, that’s why we expect motorcyclists to have seatbelts...”

Stop with the whatabout-ism.  Walkers spend SOME time on the streets, bike riders spend ALL their time on the streets.  It’s more dangerous.  I’ll agree the infrastructure isn’t the best but OP is right.  I can’t tell you how many cyclists just blow through a stop sign or red light like it doesn’t apply to them.  

Cool, we’ve moved on to attacking my credentials to refute my opinions. Just for the record, I’m a registered Traffic Engineer with the State of California, which requires separate licensure of my Civil Enigneering license with the State of California. But I digress.

It’s not about accident rates - it’s about injury and death rates.  What’s the harm in requiring helmets?  

Diatribe complete. Now shut the fuck up, Aaron.

Hey, fuck you for thinking “fuck you” is an appropriate response to someone who has an opinion that differs from yours. My sincerest condolences for having triggered you.

That’s the issue: I wish it was an exceptional situation, but it hasn’t been for a while. And it will keep happening as we (Traffic Engineers like myself, and die-hard transportation planners who abhor cars) continue to encourage active transportation as an alternative form of transportation.

So are we to take this to mean that the author is vehemently against seatbelts and motorcycle helmet laws?

How about law enforcement enforce traffic laws to cyclists? All the bike lanes in the world don’t matter if the cyclists is trying to shoot a gap through traffic during a red light (and yes, I see this rather frequently).

If a bicyclist wants to use public motorways and want to have equal footing in regards to traffic, they should follow all of the similar laws that cars and motorcyclists do. That includes helmet laws, mandatory insurance laws, and just obeying fucking stop signs, right of way, and not acting like the traffic laws…

Might be one of the most ridiculous takes I’ve seen. It doesn’t matter who is at fault if the helmet has the ability to protect you from death.

this is the correct answer. 

Dear good Sir,

You don’t think the power imbalance and direct line of authority calls into question whether or not there was truly consent?

From the text messages, it sounds like Hill was emotionally abusive and manipulative. In other words, the “consent” was probably one aspect of the control. Hill admits her relationship was toxic in the text messages. Does that change anything for you as far as which one was worse?

Yes. And from the leaked text messages by the staff member/third person in the relationship, Hill sounds like an abusive partner. Given the age difference and power differential, there is no way this relationship was kosher.

Oh no a lot of women on Twitter, many of whom loudly proclaim themselves feminist, are flat out saying this is simply a “consensual affair” that’s no big deal and completely brushing off the subordinate part of it and the usual argument that this creates an inherently inappropriate power imbalance. A complete reversal…

I’m perplexed at all the “double standard” cries from ostensible feminists on Twitter about how unfair she’s being treated over “consensual” affairs. She had sex with subordinates; feminists have argued for years this creates a power imbalance that calls into question how consensual said relations can truly be. Why…