grue

What you're missing is that all those plans you mentioned, while correct, were (a) just 'plans' with no follow-through to back them up and (b) too little, too late even if they were implemented.

• The "fight for $15" (minimum wage increase) has been going on for so long with zero [Federal] success that, due to inflation, it ought to be renamed "fight for $30" by now.
• The lip service given in supporting unions was belied by how Biden fucked over the railroad workers.
• Inequality (the gap between the working class and the 1%) is continuing to spiral out of control and the Democrats had very little to say about stopping it. It's important to remember that "tax the rich" was only supported by the progressive subset of the Democratic Party.
• We need zoning reform coupled with switching from property tax to land-value tax, to stop enabling the hoarding of underdeveloped property by protecting it from market forces (i.e. real reforms to make housing affordable again).
• We also need things like vigorous enforcement of anti-trust law and consumer protection laws, so that the public feels (and is) less exploited by corporations.

Here's a tip: that waiter should unionize.

The bad driver was the one not getting billed.

What part of "you already conceded that point" did you not understand?

But hey, you want to claim there was only one lane now? Fine. In that case, the cyclist was the vehicle lawfully occupying it and the ambulance must have swung wide to the left for some reason, out of the lane, and then back into it. Either way, it crossed the path of and collided with a vehicle in that lane. You are not entitled to deny this point.

1. Cyclists are traffic.
2. The ambulance was making a right turn.
3. The ambulance hit the cyclist from the side.
4. Therefore, the ambulance was turning across traffic, because no traffic means no cyclist to hit. QED.

They were both traveling on the right side of the road of (based on the supplied pictures from the articles) a two way, single lane each way street, and the ambulance turned right and didn’t cross any traffic, thus the Ambulance didn’t make a illegal turn.

Okay, I'll try a second time to explain:

The ambulance did cross traffic, by definition, because the bicycle was to the right of it and counts as traffic. In order for it to not cross traffic, it would have needed to start the turn from a position far enough to the right that there would have been no space for the cyclist to be in.

Cyclists don't purposefully cram themselves into tiny spaces between cars and curbs, you know. The only reason a cyclist would enter the space between the ambulance and the curb would be if the ambulance was waaaaaaay off to the left somewhere and left a huge (several foot wide) gap that invited him in, and that's not something that is okay for a car about to make a right turn to do.

Bottom line is, it is illegal to right-hook a cyclist. If you hit a cyclist while performing a right turn, you fucked up. Full stop, end of. I don't understand why people are having difficulty understanding this concept!

but I won’t be alive to know.

Never kill yourself for something that's somebody else's fault.

Okay, let me explain it to you: if there are two lanes going in the same direction, you are in the left one, and you turn right, you are turning across traffic (across the right lane going in the same direction as you). That's what happened here. The fact that there was space to the right of the ambulance for the cyclist to be in means there were effectively two lanes.

(And don't try to claim there was only one lane: you conceded that point already when you claimed the cyclist was "illegally passing on the right." Even an illegal pass doesn't entitle the vehicle in the left lane to make a right turn across the other vehicle's path! In order for this collision to be the cyclist's fault, both vehicles would have had to be in the same lane to begin with, which means there wouldn't be room for them to be side-by-side and the bike would have hit the back of the ambulance, not be struck by it from the side.)

The ambulance was making an illegal turn across traffic.

*keyword “might” be, but Scotus can say “that was not an official act”

In this thought experiment, they would certainly not be able to say that because they wouldn't exist anymore.

Any new justices would certainly certainly hold the Biden-preferred opinion, because otherwise he wouldn't nominate them. (That opinion would neither be "Biden is immune and this is fine" nor "that was not an official act," but rather "we're overturning the previous decision and making the President prosecutable for illegal official acts again," because forcing that ruling would be the entire point of the exercise, BTW.)

Screw Doom Eternal; I want to see it run Portal 2.

My intention is definitely "fuck cars." The fucked-up thing here is that even ambulance drivers, who should know better more so than almost anybody, are incompetently right-hooking cyclists. Billing him for it is merely the icing on the shit-cake.

slap

I have a real strong urge to make a relevant but politically-incorrect edit.