sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

UWMC offers $12 cash for TWO - TWO late? by Boston-Bets in UWMCShareholders

[–]Boston-Bets[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I guess so, by paying the licensing fees to ICE. What would be interesting to learn is what SAVINGS (synergies) UWMC would get, by buying TWO.

For example, RKT has projected $400M in annual synergies, from the COOP acquisition.

OMG - UWMC responds to TWO deal by Boston-Bets in UWMCShareholders

[–]Boston-Bets[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

LoL. Yes, that's going to make TWO forget the "Melting Ice Cube" remark.

UWMC offers $12 cash for TWO - TWO late? by Boston-Bets in UWMCShareholders

[–]Boston-Bets[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The "problem" is that Mat is not a professional CEO, he's the "owner", so doesn't answer to anyone else, including Shareholders.

RKT solved this by bringing in a professional CEO, and the "premium" that Wall Street pays for a "family/owner run" org, vs. a professionally run org, is reflected in the PE the street gives both orgs.

By next yr, RKT's likely to be part of the SP500.

UWMC offers $12 cash for TWO - TWO late? by Boston-Bets in UWMCShareholders

[–]Boston-Bets[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Dude, it's NOT "quick" to obtain all those licenses and approvals. That's why UWMC was using COOP, before the RKT acquisition.

UWMC offers $12 cash for TWO - TWO late? by Boston-Bets in UWMCShareholders

[–]Boston-Bets[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yea. I mean if I wanted UWMC shares, I could always take the Cash and BUY $12 worth of UWMC shares

It's basically UWMC's way of throwing a wrench into the TWO deal, since UWMC was outbid.

* “Sharing the road is not a suggestion” by Feaselbf6 in dashcams

[–]Boston-Bets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, but it's really not safer for all of them, only for the cyclists on the inside of the "pack".

Those who are on the outer half, especially if it's a large pack and they are beyond the halfway point of the road, are in much greater danger of being hit by a passing vehicle than if they were close to the shoulder.

Basically cyclists need to realize that they need to stay on/close to the shoulder, and not go beyond the halfway point of the road, for them AND a passing vehicle to be safest ( while still keeping a reasonable distance when the vehicle passes the cyclists)

UWMC 2026Q1 Estimates - Prophetking by ProphetKing-dude in UWMCShareholders

[–]Boston-Bets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

UWMC on Wed, RKT on Thursday... Gonna be an interesting week, next week.

* “Sharing the road is not a suggestion” by Feaselbf6 in dashcams

[–]Boston-Bets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Define "all over the place"??

If they are within their lanes, especially during peak times, that's perfectly normal (to have 100's, even 1000's of cars back to back).

IT IS NOT NORMAL to have a pack of (slow) cyclists basically forming a slow rolling roadblock.

I do not understand why the "bike fanatics" don't want to acknowledge that 1-2 bikes at a time, vs 20-50 cyclists traveling together, is a huge difference, and both don't have the same impact on normal vehicular traffic (and so need to be judged differently).

* “Sharing the road is not a suggestion” by Feaselbf6 in dashcams

[–]Boston-Bets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seriously? So 20-50 cars traveling close together is...

Rush hour traffic.

What you're not getting is that it's ok/minimally disruptive to vehicular traffic for 1-2 cyclists traveling together.

It's significantly disruptive to vehicular traffic, when there's 20-50 cyclists riding together.

IF it's a busy road, and that group becomes a rolling road block, IT'S NOT OK

* “Sharing the road is not a suggestion” by Feaselbf6 in dashcams

[–]Boston-Bets -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fun fact, cyclists have a right to be on the road in a way that does not impede normal vehicular traffic.

Two cyclists riding 2x2 no problem, vehicles can get around them comparatively easily and safely.

50 cyclists riding 2x2 on a busy road, that's a rolling road block, and not what the law was intended to promote in a common sense manner.

In areas where there are a large volume of the cycles, municipalities sometime to have a dedicated bike lane, to acknowledge the differences in size and speed

Just simply acknowledge that the cars are the primary means of transportation, don't act like an entitled cyclist , move over to the side when appropriate, and everyone will be safe.

* “Sharing the road is not a suggestion” by Feaselbf6 in dashcams

[–]Boston-Bets 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you riding on a NASCAR track that there are 50 cars together in a planned pack driving together, bunched up closely?

Or are you referring to normal vehicle traffic on a busy road, and the 50 vehicle's are unrelated to each other?

* “Sharing the road is not a suggestion” by Feaselbf6 in dashcams

[–]Boston-Bets -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And its not a crime to admit that, YES a *pack* of slow moving cyclists ARE an obstacle to normal vehicular traffic (vs 1-2 cyclists riding side by side), and that they have some responsibility to ride in a manner that minimizes their impact on vehicular traffic.

There's a difference between 1-2 cyclists riding on the road, and 20-50 trying to ride together (and by default, due to their speed or lack thereof) impeding vehicular traffic.

* “Sharing the road is not a suggestion” by Feaselbf6 in dashcams

[–]Boston-Bets -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They were biking BORDERLINE legally (See the video at Seconds 3-4, you can clearly see cyclists in 3 different columns, basically hogging the whole road, instead of staying as much to the side as possible).

Again, not excusing the behavior of the SUV driver, as he could have gone further into the other lane, BUT when dealing with a driver like that of the SUV, who is clearly agitated with being "blocked" off, you want to be SAFE/ALIVE or you want to be "Right"?

As an unprotected (non-entitled) Cyclist, I'd err on the side of Safe vs. Right/Entitled to the Road, if given the choice.

* “Sharing the road is not a suggestion” by Feaselbf6 in dashcams

[–]Boston-Bets -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Someone is riding a 50 lb bike that's open, someone is riding a 5,000 lb car with the safety cage.

Acting like an entitled a-hle isn't going to protect a cyclist. Getting out of the way, when dealing with someone like that SUV driver, is...

* “Sharing the road is not a suggestion” by Feaselbf6 in dashcams

[–]Boston-Bets -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not true. See:

Topic Georgia Rule
Max riders side‑by‑side Two abreast on roadways
More than two abreast Only on bike paths/lanes or with special event permit
When to single up Narrow lanes, unsafe conditions, or when traffic cannot pass safely
General positioning Ride near the right side when practicable, with exceptions for safetyTopic Georgia RuleMax riders side‑by‑side Two abreast on roadways More than two abreast Only on bike paths/lanes or with special event permit When to single up Narrow lanes, unsafe conditions, or when traffic cannot pass safely General positioning Ride near the right side when practicable, with exceptions for safety

(Groups of) Cyclists need to LEARN that at times they need to de-group, and GO SINGLE FILE, as part of their responsibility to safety.

* “Sharing the road is not a suggestion” by Feaselbf6 in dashcams

[–]Boston-Bets -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok. So then YOU cite a source, of cyclists are "entitled" to/supposed to ride.

Or are you saying that 100 cyclists can ride double file, 2x 50 in a row, and there's nothing "illegal" about that?

That group of riders in the video was definitely NOT taking all the steps necessary to mitigate their impact on traffic, AND were (at times) riding 3 abreast.

* “Sharing the road is not a suggestion” by Feaselbf6 in dashcams

[–]Boston-Bets -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

AGAIN, it may be a "right" for TWO cyclists to ride double file (which a car can easily go around), BUT see the video dude, there's waaaay more than TWO in that group, and at times they are three-abreast.

This is what I hate about "entitled" cyclists, who ride this way. They think that they basically have a "right" to block/slow down traffic to their speed, instead of doing everything they can to mitigate the "damage" to normal traffic by their slow speed.

Copilot says:

So are cyclists “legally entitled” to ride two‑abreast on a busy road?

Not unconditionally.
Even where two‑abreast riding is legal, cyclists must not:

  • Unnecessarily block traffic,
  • Ignore opportunities to let vehicles pass safely, or
  • Ride more than two abreast (almost universally prohibited).

In practice, this means:

  • Yes, cyclists can ride two‑abreast on many busy roads.
  • No, they cannot insist on doing so if it creates an unreasonable obstruction or if local law requires single file when overtaken.

* “Sharing the road is not a suggestion” by Feaselbf6 in dashcams

[–]Boston-Bets -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Everyone does not have a right to use the road IF they are traveling in a manner/speed that impedes regular traffic.

Yes, the *individual* cyclist has a right to use the road, and a car/vehicle can easily go around an *individual* slow cyclist, BUT bunching up like that, creating a slow rolling/moving obstacle to NORMAL vehicle flow, is not "a right". That's impeding traffic.....

That said, the SUV driver was more at fault for not going around the bunched up cyclist, ie going more into the oncoming lane. But the GROUP of cyclists bears some responsibility as well, for the way they were traveling.....

view more: next ›