3 ms·
"keeping cycling going" is much less important than spending that money to deal with job loss and unemployment. This is using a crisis to divert money to a pers
by Noos 6y ago
"keeping cycling going" is much less important than spending that money to deal with job loss and unemployment. This is using a crisis to divert money to a person's pet agendas.
if you want to subsidize cycling and stuff, can we at least get the economy back up first and deal with the massive fallout from lost wages due to time off, and business closings?
- ploika 6y agoWhere I live, cycling is much cheaper than public transport and astronomically cheaper than driving. If you have lost wages and still have to go places, that's important. You're assuming that there's a choice between supporting an economic recovery and supporting cycling. I don't believe there is, certainly not when it comes to return on investment for €50 per person. I see increased mobility, decreased congestion in towns and cities, less pollution and less income lost to transport costs, not to mention the health benefits from more exercise.
- icebraining 6y agoI don't see a "than" here. These vouchers are also a cash injection into French businesses and workers, and specifically ones who are both important from a policy standpoint and yet likely to get heavily beaten by the crisis, since everyone delays repairs in a crisis.