3 ms·
I don't find the safety canard to be very convincing. You can turn it against cyclists fairly easily. I've seen reports of cyclists who murder pedestrians thr
by jbm 4y ago
I don't find the safety canard to be very convincing. You can turn it against cyclists fairly easily.
I've seen reports of cyclists who murder pedestrians through hit and runs. Sure this is rare, but we need to make sure the elderly are "safe" from belligerent cyclists and their poisonous online culture.
As such, it might be necessary for us all to walk, at least until we can develop practical systems to regulate speeds on bikes and ensure that the roads are not mad max style kill zone. I suggest a top bike speed limit of 10-12 km to ensure safe streets, with powerful automated brakes that prevent accidental pedestrian hits. It might flip the cyclist over xer handlebars but I'm sick of socializing risks and privatizing benefits; if you are in a rush, you should have left earlier.
Why settle for anything less than safety for decent society?
Incidentally, I agree with reducing polluting cars for pollution reduction measures. Sadly that means I don't care once we move to electric cars. You'll find most people are in that boat.
- fineIllregister 4y ago> As such, it might be necessary for us all to walk, at least until we can develop practical systems to regulate speeds on bikes and ensure that the roads are not mad max style kill zone. I suggest a top bike speed limit of 10-12 km to ensure safe streets, with powerful automated brakes that prevent accidental pedestrian hits. I'm amused that you think this is some sort of "gotcha". As someone who cycles, I would take this deal without hesitation it got rid of cars. Of course, cycle-on-pedestrian deaths basically zero relative to the deaths caused by cars, so it's a worthless analogy. However, I do like the implication that we should be regulating transit based on momentum rather than just having special status for cars.