> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... This link is interesting and I'l

> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... This link is interesting and I'll review it thoroughly. Thanks. But I don't see what part of it you're using for your "cars are not more dangerous than bikes". Is there any section about who's at fault for an accident? Cars are less dangerous for those who drive them. We're talking about being less dangerous for others, especially for vulnerable user groups. > Not only. Directly and indirectly they can cause very dangerous accidents. ... like what? And how often? "Indirectly" you mean 2nd order effects. But I need to run directly at full speed into somebody in order to try and kill it with a bike; the weight is low (almost like the person alone) and the speed is low as well. > But his is how they usually ride in traffic or around pedestrians The first photo, it's probably something taken with slow or stopped traffic. It's not illegal to overtake stopped cars. In the 2nd the cyclist is in a bike lane, did you realize that? > Do we waanna talk about how they "park"their bikes on the sidewalk so impaired pedestrians (like my mother in law who is legally blind) have a hard time going around alone? I don't understand whether you're joking. Do you realize how many f*ing parking spots exist for cars and motorbikes, and how few parking spots exist for bikes? You can park 6-20 cars (depending on whether facilities are available, like racks) where a SINGLE CAR parks. Now the problem is that "bikes take up valuable pedestrian space". Don't you see cars and vans parked everywhere, including sidewalks, in Rome? Something like, daily? Cars in Rome don't park in "doppia fila"? > Then don't use them. Some roads are impossible to walk, I don't walk on them. I cannot use those roads because car drivers are jerks, they park (illegally) in terrible places and they don't yield to bikes. > I don't ride with a bike in Rome not because it's too dangerous, but because there are better options for me. That's the root of the problem, man. You don't like bikes, and you don't need bikes. So you hate them. You're far more empathic to car drivers, because "everybody drives when in need". It's your problem, though, and I couldn't care less. > Drivers finance road safety though, directly through taxes (there are a lot of taxes on cars and driving and also on gasoline) Only if you don't take into account the negative externalities caused by pollution. IIRC paying for carbon offsets for around 10.000 miles per year would amount to roughly 10.000 USD in carbon offsets. Also, roads for cars require far more maintenance than those where bikes can go. I live in the outskirts of Trieste and I love my commute until the very last 500m to get to my office, when I'm deep in the city. For the first 18kms I always follow all road rules; but when I get into the city center... anything can happen. If I want to get to my office in full health, I need to do any kind of strange things, INCLUDING doing a very small cut through a sidewalk. But I don't like it, and I wouldn't do it if there were another safe way. But I don't pollute and add real traffic to a city that is already very complex and has many problems. One last thought: the idea that cyclists are the bullies is just too absurd to me. They're extra vulnerable. They risk their lives. A car ignoring a red light is not the same as a bike ignoring a red light, because the potential outcome is very different. They can "cause an accident" because somebody else breaks. I cannot find the link now, but I remember a study from Netherlands where it was clear that, once bike usage goes up and crosses a certain thresholds, the GLOBAL RATE of accidents (yes, even car accidents, because more people use bikes) and road casualties decrease.