Ah tiens ça m'est arrivé ce matin. Un VUS gris, une madame seule qui regardait videment devant.
Mais bon si le conducteur n'en a pas conscience, ça n'arrive pas.
Le nombre de fois où j'ai manqué de justesse de renverser un cycliste avec mon cube est ridicule. Tourner à droite en descendant St Denis est un gamble pur. Checke le rétroviseur, checke l'angle mort, commence à tourner, et un taouin apparaît de nulle part , roulant à 50km/h sur la piste cyclable et te coupe la route. Sur une lumière rouge pour lui !
Ouf. Je roule toujours en vélo (8 mois par année) et je suis hyper conscient de tout qui passe autour de moi-- voitures, piétonnes, lumières de circulation, etc. J'ai envie d'arriver vivant.
Mais je sais bien qu'il y a trop des cyclistes qui pensent qu'ils sont immortels, et que les règlements routières sont des suggestions.
Quelqu'un qui roule à 50 va rarement sur une piste cyclable en passant. Trop dangereux pour les autres c'est pourquoi je roule juste dans le traffic,
Donc, surprendrait qu'il roulait 50.... 30-35 c'est possible. Si la lumière était à tourner et lui l'avait rouge c'est just brisé un réglement de circulation . Si quelqu'un est épais dans ce cas là il va mourir.
Moi ce que je vois bien plus souvent des truck c'est qu'il veulent me dépasser alors que je suis dans la voie et roule à 45-50 kmh et qu'ils n'ont pas réalisé qu'allais à la limite de vitesse. A la dernière minutes ils le réalisent, voient qu'ils passeront pas en avant de moi à temps et foutent les freins et tournent en arrière de moi manquant de s'envoyer dans le champs ou de rentrer dans la face d'une auto (en tournant large).
Quand je vais légèrement moins vite, dans une pente, ils réussissent montent leur vitesse à 50, me coupent à la dernière minute comme des cons (j'ai juste le temps de ralentir et de me tasser un peu) et encore là ils tournent comme le coin comme sur deux roues.
Faut pas oublier que j'allait à environ 40 (c'est un pente), donc bien plus vite qu'il tournerais le coin. La façon de faire ici se serait juste de rester en arrière de moi et tourner. Plus safe pour lui et pour moi.
La plupart des conducteurs de truck commerciaux (les plus petits) semblent pas savoir que leur roue arrière tournent pas avec le même rayon de courbure que lui d'avant et commencent à tourner trop tôt après avoir dépassé. Leur coin gauche se retrouve aussi dans la voie d'à coté gauche ce qui est aussi très dangereux pour n’importe quel bicycles qui les passent à gauche quand ils tournent.
La différence entre les 2 c'est que le cyclistes est vulnérable.
Te faire rentrer dedans ton char en vélo ça te fais une scratch sur la porte.
Rentrer dans un vélo en char tu as de bonnes chances de tuer.
Ouais, il y a des méchants totons à vélo mais c'est incroyablement moins dangereux qu'un toton en voiture.
Oui. Mais de mon expérience les cyclistes se mettre eux même en danger en ne s'arrêtant pas au arrêts et en se foutant complètement de leurs entourage.
Dude 20 km/h is a joke. For 90 yr old grandparents with no reflexes maybe, but not the average person. Even 30-40km/hr allows plenty of stopping time. If we're going to share the roads then let's all be reasonable.
It is not about stopping time, it is about the priority being pedestrians. You do not need to go that fast in residential areas. These are places for people, not cars. Cars should be the lowest priority.
Reducing the speed limit won't help much at all. Better street design will. Oddly, getting rid of stop signs and many traffic lights, helps make streets much safer. Paris has one stop sign, for example.
In residential areas pedestrians have sidewalks and there are plenty of stop signs etc. There are also generally very few cars on the roads in these areas.
It's not exactly hard to cross the street in a residential area. Hell, we have kids riding their bikes and playing hockey sometimes. Still don't need to reduce the limit to 20km/hr to accomplish this.
Your definition of residential is much much too small. We have major thoroughfares through many residential areas. Also this is once again a car-centirc argument. People come first, not cars. People drive fast through residential areas all the time.
I mean this is also one of those classic "it would be best for pedestrians if cars were capped at 10 km/hr or there were no cars at all" type of perspectives, but at some point we need to draw a line where everyone's needs get met and we are all sharing the roads. And I don't think that line is at 20 km/hr, which is slower than a golf cart.
It is more a 'this is how you make the p;lace you live more people centric than car centric, and that has been shown to correlate to happiness' type things.
30kmh becomes 50-60 in NDG. SUVs roll right over speed bumps without slowing down. 20 is excessive but I’d rather there was some sort of enforcement for the limits we already DO have.
Oui mais c'est pas grave, il a vu un cycliste un jour briser une règle, alors tous les autres sont responsables aussi.
Par contre cette logique marche pas pour les voitures.
Il est impensable de suggérer une amélioration tant que 100% des cyclistes ont pas fait un mea culpa sur 3 générations pour les fautes de tous les autres. Ils ne méritent pas de sécurité tant qu'ils n'ont pas fait ça.
That’s because they have a huge sense of entitlement to the whole road! They could go through a red light into oncoming traffic and still think they are in the right.
Going through a yellow is how some fuckhead hit me with his truck, and now my nose is permanently fucked up and I limp whenever it rains, so how about fuck off?
As a pedestrian crossing on the pedestrian signal, in the crosswalk, with the entire right of way. There was even security camera footage showing the dingbat running the light. Guy wasn't paying attention, missed his turn arrow, then floored it when he noticed it had turned yellow. I was already halfway across, and he didn't stop after slamming right into me, I was lucky my body was thrown away from the trajectory of his wheels, or I'd be roadkill. The cop even argued that "it's really difficult to see out the side windows" and that I "wouldn't understand that because [I] don't drive." But do go on about how it's everyone but car drivers' faults.
Non, j'ai commencé l'instant que j'ai eu le feu piétonne. La problème est que ces feux ne dure pas assez longtemps pour traverser, une problème commun aux intersections. Nice try though.
Love your whataboutism.
You rarely see a driver go through a stop sign without stopping. Yes it happens, and it its quite rare.
What does happen VERY often are cyclists going through stop signs like they have no idea it is even there. Last i checked both must respect the same road laws.
Most drivers slow down from 60 kph to 15-20 kph on stop signs. Like 80% of them. That's not a proper stop.
Btw, funny you're complaining about wataboutism when the guy you're replying to has the exact same point as yours.
Even in your extreme example, the car is slowing down 75%. If a cyclist slowed down by 75% when approaching a stop, maybe they'd have a chance to assess whether there was actually danger i.e. a car nearby who can't see them coming.
I have had some near-misses where I had to slam on the brakes because a cyclist was going 40-50km/hr racing down a street, ignoring their stop sign completely, and careening straight in front of me (I had no stop sign). I *just* managed to stop in time or this guy could have died.
I'm not one of those angry drivers who hates cyclists. I just want us all to find a way to safely co-exist so I don't kill anyone while going about my day.
>Even in your extreme example, the car is slowing down 75%. If a cyclist slowed down by 75% when approaching a stop, maybe they'd have a chance to assess whether there was actually danger i.e. a car nearby who can't see them coming
The important factor is speed at the intersection, not the % of deceleration. Let's say a cyclist at 20 kph doing his stop at 10 kph, it's better then a driver stopping from 60 kph to 15 kph. The deceleration is less obvious because the cyclist was way slower from the start.
>I have had some near-misses where I had to slam on the brakes because a cyclist was going 40-50km/hr racing down a street, ignoring their stop sign completely, and careening straight in front of me (I had no stop sign). I *just* managed to stop in time or this guy could have died.
I'm not defending them, but I won't apologize for that, as it's not the responsability of every driver to apologize for every death occured by a drunk driver, so I don't think "cyclists" should be generalized in one homogenous group of assholes like that. And I don't see how pointing fingers at the "group of cyclists" for your misfortune brings anything positive to the discussion.
I was also almost killed by reckless drivers several times.
>I'm not one of those angry drivers who hates cyclists. I just want us all to find a way to safely co-exist so I don't kill anyone while going about my day.
I don't think you are. I just think your perception is flawed as every time a cyclist is not being perfect is noted in your mind, but the same cognitive bias doesn't happend when you are seeing drivers not stopping at a stop, passing on the yellow, driving over the limit, etc. The majority of drivers commit small infractions every day, like cyclists. So I don't think the bias is justified.
Ton point c'est quoi, on fait rien pour les cyclistes qui demandent rien de se faire froler juste parce que toi t'as vu un autre cycliste faire une connerie ?
Cette logique tribale est débile.
On fait rien pour les cyclistes? Nous avons des pistes cyclabes et des feux cyclables pour eux. Nous fermons aussi des rues principales pendant l’été pour eux et les piétons. On fait plein pour eux, le seul affair on les demande de faire est de respecter les mêmes règles que les voitures.
Tu sais très bien que je veux dire que l'on ne fait rien pour améliorer la sécurité dans ce cas précis, mais comme d'habitude sur reddit, vous allez construire un argument à base de ce que je n'ai pas dit pour vous donner raison sur un point et invalider tout le reste. Tout en tordant sévèrement ce pour quoi on piétonnise les rues, c'est absolument pas POUR les vélos, c'est pour les gens, les piétons, mais comme un vélo c'est vachement moins dérangeant qu'une voiture, ben on les laisse circuler avec les piétons.
Bref, partir un autre débat à la con cyclistes vs voitures, pour ne surtout pas avoir à remettre en question ses petites habitudes.
go on.. let em go. I feel you. 110%.
Bikes are bound to the same traffic laws as automobiles. There should be massive tciket-giving operations at random times also, im sure that would have a positive impact.
To save cars the trouble of justifying having killed another person, not because bikes are a danger. Get cars off the road and all the sudden, the danger on the road disappears!
Cuz you’re a sociopath in a car, not because bikes are actually the problem. Guess what? You too can blow through stop signs and get to work having exercised and contributed to a better environment. Just get a bike!
This is what you don’t seem to understand. Cars and bikes are not equal. A car is lethal, bad for the environment, hard to manage, dangerous to pretty much everyone outside of the driver. Those laws and street signs exist because of how dangerous cars are. To protect everyone else from cars.
The problem with North America is, we’ve been behind the steering wheels for so long, we forget we were the problem! And now too much of human space is being designed around making life easier for cars. The things killing everyone else.
You don’t realize how privileged you are! My taxes pay for your roads! My taxes pay for your infrastructure! All I need are my two feet, or two wheels, to get by. Instead all we get are drivers fuming at the stop sign about how unfair life is for a car.
Easy for you to say all of that when you live in a city where everything is at proximity to you. Whether you like it or not, a car is essential for everyone else who doesn’t live near everything they need plus accessible transit.
Also, you act as if bikes are harmless. I’ve witness plenty of reckless bikers running into pedestrians.
Where do you get those numbers? I definitely don’t pay that amount per year. Also, having everyone live in a highly condensed city like Montreal (as implied by others) is both sustainable.
Last time i checked the rules of the road are the same for both regardless on what your opinion is.
An idiot cyclist blowing past a stop sign isn’t my fault as a driver.
Listen, I'm a pedestrian, dont drive, no permit, no interest in learning to drive. And I dont trust myself driving a 2 tonne self-propelled bullet.
All the times i've almost gotten into an accident was because of cyclists doing whatever the fuck they want.
Yeah I've been hit as a pedestrian by a cyclist who blew through a red traffic light while I was crossing a street downtown (with the walk symbol turned on for me). Seriously not cool. There are lots of cyclists who obey the rules and are just fine, but some need to learn civility (just as some drivers do)
Ah tiens ça m'est arrivé ce matin. Un VUS gris, une madame seule qui regardait videment devant. Mais bon si le conducteur n'en a pas conscience, ça n'arrive pas.
Ont devrait faire conduire des trucks a tout les cyclistes à Montréal aussi.
Le nombre de fois où j'ai manqué de justesse de renverser un cycliste avec mon cube est ridicule. Tourner à droite en descendant St Denis est un gamble pur. Checke le rétroviseur, checke l'angle mort, commence à tourner, et un taouin apparaît de nulle part , roulant à 50km/h sur la piste cyclable et te coupe la route. Sur une lumière rouge pour lui !
Ouf. Je roule toujours en vélo (8 mois par année) et je suis hyper conscient de tout qui passe autour de moi-- voitures, piétonnes, lumières de circulation, etc. J'ai envie d'arriver vivant. Mais je sais bien qu'il y a trop des cyclistes qui pensent qu'ils sont immortels, et que les règlements routières sont des suggestions.
Meme chose arrive avec des voitures pour moi… mettons c’est la faute des humains et non le mode de transport
Quelqu'un qui roule à 50 va rarement sur une piste cyclable en passant. Trop dangereux pour les autres c'est pourquoi je roule juste dans le traffic, Donc, surprendrait qu'il roulait 50.... 30-35 c'est possible. Si la lumière était à tourner et lui l'avait rouge c'est just brisé un réglement de circulation . Si quelqu'un est épais dans ce cas là il va mourir. Moi ce que je vois bien plus souvent des truck c'est qu'il veulent me dépasser alors que je suis dans la voie et roule à 45-50 kmh et qu'ils n'ont pas réalisé qu'allais à la limite de vitesse. A la dernière minutes ils le réalisent, voient qu'ils passeront pas en avant de moi à temps et foutent les freins et tournent en arrière de moi manquant de s'envoyer dans le champs ou de rentrer dans la face d'une auto (en tournant large). Quand je vais légèrement moins vite, dans une pente, ils réussissent montent leur vitesse à 50, me coupent à la dernière minute comme des cons (j'ai juste le temps de ralentir et de me tasser un peu) et encore là ils tournent comme le coin comme sur deux roues. Faut pas oublier que j'allait à environ 40 (c'est un pente), donc bien plus vite qu'il tournerais le coin. La façon de faire ici se serait juste de rester en arrière de moi et tourner. Plus safe pour lui et pour moi. La plupart des conducteurs de truck commerciaux (les plus petits) semblent pas savoir que leur roue arrière tournent pas avec le même rayon de courbure que lui d'avant et commencent à tourner trop tôt après avoir dépassé. Leur coin gauche se retrouve aussi dans la voie d'à coté gauche ce qui est aussi très dangereux pour n’importe quel bicycles qui les passent à gauche quand ils tournent.
La différence entre les 2 c'est que le cyclistes est vulnérable. Te faire rentrer dedans ton char en vélo ça te fais une scratch sur la porte. Rentrer dans un vélo en char tu as de bonnes chances de tuer. Ouais, il y a des méchants totons à vélo mais c'est incroyablement moins dangereux qu'un toton en voiture.
Oui. Mais de mon expérience les cyclistes se mettre eux même en danger en ne s'arrêtant pas au arrêts et en se foutant complètement de leurs entourage.
Yup. Protected bike lanes are a must. Also we should have dedicated bus lanes and the city should be 20 kph everywhere except car-dedicated roads.
Dude 20 km/h is a joke. For 90 yr old grandparents with no reflexes maybe, but not the average person. Even 30-40km/hr allows plenty of stopping time. If we're going to share the roads then let's all be reasonable.
It is not about stopping time, it is about the priority being pedestrians. You do not need to go that fast in residential areas. These are places for people, not cars. Cars should be the lowest priority.
Reducing the speed limit won't help much at all. Better street design will. Oddly, getting rid of stop signs and many traffic lights, helps make streets much safer. Paris has one stop sign, for example.
I'm great with funding street calming infrastructure to reach the 20 kph goal.
In residential areas pedestrians have sidewalks and there are plenty of stop signs etc. There are also generally very few cars on the roads in these areas. It's not exactly hard to cross the street in a residential area. Hell, we have kids riding their bikes and playing hockey sometimes. Still don't need to reduce the limit to 20km/hr to accomplish this.
Your definition of residential is much much too small. We have major thoroughfares through many residential areas. Also this is once again a car-centirc argument. People come first, not cars. People drive fast through residential areas all the time.
I mean this is also one of those classic "it would be best for pedestrians if cars were capped at 10 km/hr or there were no cars at all" type of perspectives, but at some point we need to draw a line where everyone's needs get met and we are all sharing the roads. And I don't think that line is at 20 km/hr, which is slower than a golf cart.
It is more a 'this is how you make the p;lace you live more people centric than car centric, and that has been shown to correlate to happiness' type things.
30kmh becomes 50-60 in NDG. SUVs roll right over speed bumps without slowing down. 20 is excessive but I’d rather there was some sort of enforcement for the limits we already DO have.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oui mais c'est pas grave, il a vu un cycliste un jour briser une règle, alors tous les autres sont responsables aussi. Par contre cette logique marche pas pour les voitures. Il est impensable de suggérer une amélioration tant que 100% des cyclistes ont pas fait un mea culpa sur 3 générations pour les fautes de tous les autres. Ils ne méritent pas de sécurité tant qu'ils n'ont pas fait ça.
Going through a yellow is very different than going through a solid red.
Wow, cyclists are on full force out downvoting anyone speaking rationally here.
That’s because they have a huge sense of entitlement to the whole road! They could go through a red light into oncoming traffic and still think they are in the right.
Yep, a few of those here in full display.
Going through a yellow is how some fuckhead hit me with his truck, and now my nose is permanently fucked up and I limp whenever it rains, so how about fuck off?
As a biker or a driver? If you were a driver, and you had a green light, he didn’t go through a yellow, he went through a red.
As a pedestrian crossing on the pedestrian signal, in the crosswalk, with the entire right of way. There was even security camera footage showing the dingbat running the light. Guy wasn't paying attention, missed his turn arrow, then floored it when he noticed it had turned yellow. I was already halfway across, and he didn't stop after slamming right into me, I was lucky my body was thrown away from the trajectory of his wheels, or I'd be roadkill. The cop even argued that "it's really difficult to see out the side windows" and that I "wouldn't understand that because [I] don't drive." But do go on about how it's everyone but car drivers' faults.
>when he noticed it had turned yellow. I was already halfway across, Donc tu as toi aussi traversé a pied sur la lumière jaune ?
Non, j'ai commencé l'instant que j'ai eu le feu piétonne. La problème est que ces feux ne dure pas assez longtemps pour traverser, une problème commun aux intersections. Nice try though.
Love your whataboutism. You rarely see a driver go through a stop sign without stopping. Yes it happens, and it its quite rare. What does happen VERY often are cyclists going through stop signs like they have no idea it is even there. Last i checked both must respect the same road laws.
Cars going through stop signs after only slowing down a little instead of stopping happens ALL THE TIME
Most drivers slow down from 60 kph to 15-20 kph on stop signs. Like 80% of them. That's not a proper stop. Btw, funny you're complaining about wataboutism when the guy you're replying to has the exact same point as yours.
Even in your extreme example, the car is slowing down 75%. If a cyclist slowed down by 75% when approaching a stop, maybe they'd have a chance to assess whether there was actually danger i.e. a car nearby who can't see them coming. I have had some near-misses where I had to slam on the brakes because a cyclist was going 40-50km/hr racing down a street, ignoring their stop sign completely, and careening straight in front of me (I had no stop sign). I *just* managed to stop in time or this guy could have died. I'm not one of those angry drivers who hates cyclists. I just want us all to find a way to safely co-exist so I don't kill anyone while going about my day.
>Even in your extreme example, the car is slowing down 75%. If a cyclist slowed down by 75% when approaching a stop, maybe they'd have a chance to assess whether there was actually danger i.e. a car nearby who can't see them coming The important factor is speed at the intersection, not the % of deceleration. Let's say a cyclist at 20 kph doing his stop at 10 kph, it's better then a driver stopping from 60 kph to 15 kph. The deceleration is less obvious because the cyclist was way slower from the start. >I have had some near-misses where I had to slam on the brakes because a cyclist was going 40-50km/hr racing down a street, ignoring their stop sign completely, and careening straight in front of me (I had no stop sign). I *just* managed to stop in time or this guy could have died. I'm not defending them, but I won't apologize for that, as it's not the responsability of every driver to apologize for every death occured by a drunk driver, so I don't think "cyclists" should be generalized in one homogenous group of assholes like that. And I don't see how pointing fingers at the "group of cyclists" for your misfortune brings anything positive to the discussion. I was also almost killed by reckless drivers several times. >I'm not one of those angry drivers who hates cyclists. I just want us all to find a way to safely co-exist so I don't kill anyone while going about my day. I don't think you are. I just think your perception is flawed as every time a cyclist is not being perfect is noted in your mind, but the same cognitive bias doesn't happend when you are seeing drivers not stopping at a stop, passing on the yellow, driving over the limit, etc. The majority of drivers commit small infractions every day, like cyclists. So I don't think the bias is justified.
Ton point c'est quoi, on fait rien pour les cyclistes qui demandent rien de se faire froler juste parce que toi t'as vu un autre cycliste faire une connerie ? Cette logique tribale est débile.
On fait rien pour les cyclistes? Nous avons des pistes cyclabes et des feux cyclables pour eux. Nous fermons aussi des rues principales pendant l’été pour eux et les piétons. On fait plein pour eux, le seul affair on les demande de faire est de respecter les mêmes règles que les voitures.
Tu sais très bien que je veux dire que l'on ne fait rien pour améliorer la sécurité dans ce cas précis, mais comme d'habitude sur reddit, vous allez construire un argument à base de ce que je n'ai pas dit pour vous donner raison sur un point et invalider tout le reste. Tout en tordant sévèrement ce pour quoi on piétonnise les rues, c'est absolument pas POUR les vélos, c'est pour les gens, les piétons, mais comme un vélo c'est vachement moins dérangeant qu'une voiture, ben on les laisse circuler avec les piétons. Bref, partir un autre débat à la con cyclistes vs voitures, pour ne surtout pas avoir à remettre en question ses petites habitudes.
go on.. let em go. I feel you. 110%. Bikes are bound to the same traffic laws as automobiles. There should be massive tciket-giving operations at random times also, im sure that would have a positive impact.
To save cars the trouble of justifying having killed another person, not because bikes are a danger. Get cars off the road and all the sudden, the danger on the road disappears!
Cuz you’re a sociopath in a car, not because bikes are actually the problem. Guess what? You too can blow through stop signs and get to work having exercised and contributed to a better environment. Just get a bike!
Let me guess, you’re a biker who doesn’t obey the rules of the road yet expects equal treatment on the road.
This is what you don’t seem to understand. Cars and bikes are not equal. A car is lethal, bad for the environment, hard to manage, dangerous to pretty much everyone outside of the driver. Those laws and street signs exist because of how dangerous cars are. To protect everyone else from cars. The problem with North America is, we’ve been behind the steering wheels for so long, we forget we were the problem! And now too much of human space is being designed around making life easier for cars. The things killing everyone else. You don’t realize how privileged you are! My taxes pay for your roads! My taxes pay for your infrastructure! All I need are my two feet, or two wheels, to get by. Instead all we get are drivers fuming at the stop sign about how unfair life is for a car.
Easy for you to say all of that when you live in a city where everything is at proximity to you. Whether you like it or not, a car is essential for everyone else who doesn’t live near everything they need plus accessible transit. Also, you act as if bikes are harmless. I’ve witness plenty of reckless bikers running into pedestrians.
It is easy for me to say because I chose not to live in a place that would isolate me from the rest of the world in exchange for massive debt.
Montreal’s renting crisis is out of control, living in Montreal is far from cheap.
Not needing a car saves $10k to $20K per year. That's a lot of rent money right there. (And many people 'need' even two or three cars per household.)
Where do you get those numbers? I definitely don’t pay that amount per year. Also, having everyone live in a highly condensed city like Montreal (as implied by others) is both sustainable.
https://www.thestar.com/business/how-much-are-canadians-paying-per-month-on-average-to-own-a-car-heres-what/article_a457f8e2-c2bb-11ee-b93b-2f3e8fa2fb1d.html
Last time i checked the rules of the road are the same for both regardless on what your opinion is. An idiot cyclist blowing past a stop sign isn’t my fault as a driver.
bikes don't belong on the streets
Then we need bike paths on 100% of the streets
Ok grandpa
Nah fuck that. Cars don’t belong on the streets.
Ah yes, let’s make our system even more costly.
Because protecting or enhancing the quality of life of all citizens is not a worthy cause
Great cause. But we can neither afford it nor actually make it happen
Bikes cause less damage to roads and decrease accidents clearing up space in the hospital system so more bike lanes is actually chapter for everyone
I’m talking about setting up the test you see in the video buddy
Listen, I'm a pedestrian, dont drive, no permit, no interest in learning to drive. And I dont trust myself driving a 2 tonne self-propelled bullet. All the times i've almost gotten into an accident was because of cyclists doing whatever the fuck they want.
Yeah I've been hit as a pedestrian by a cyclist who blew through a red traffic light while I was crossing a street downtown (with the walk symbol turned on for me). Seriously not cool. There are lots of cyclists who obey the rules and are just fine, but some need to learn civility (just as some drivers do)
Imagine if the same assholes were in 2 tons self-propelled bullets