3 ms·
The point is that comments (in regard to the article) are littered with anecdotes about cyclists getting in danger because of cars. It's a one-sided view. There
by numlock86 6y ago
The point is that comments (in regard to the article) are littered with anecdotes about cyclists getting in danger because of cars. It's a one-sided view. There's problems on both sides equally. Conflicts of this kind are waved off as "the driver was an asshole", which might be correct in single cases, but misses the whole point of the actual problem completely.
- matsemann 6y ago> There's problems on both sides equally. No, it's not. A driver is driving something lethal that kills thousands each year. Don't try to pretend a cyclist being remotely close to a driver when it comes to severity of the actions. It's not a "one-sided view", it's the truth that drivers are far more dangerous than cyclists. If 99 scientists says something and one quack says something else, the truth isn't somewhere in the middle, you know. > but misses the whole point of the actual problem completely True, that cyclists need better infrastructure and similar stuff. What also misses the point is to start devil's advocating that "cyclists are just as bad".