3 ms·
The comparison is valid because people in this thread are saying that bikes should substitute for many car trips. If they were saying the same thing about walki
by chroma 4y ago
The comparison is valid because people in this thread are saying that bikes should substitute for many car trips. If they were saying the same thing about walking then I’d make the point about waking safety. But walking can’t substitute for many car trips so it’s a non-issue.
Cars have disadvantages and externalities, but they are much safer than bicycles. This is true even in the most bike-friendly countries on earth.
- f_devd 4y agoThey are a replacement for cities not for all road travel, same way trucks aren't going to be replaced by scooter, it's a different mode of transportation better suited for shorter distances. The comparison could be valid if you filter the car travel for <15km of planned route.
- pharmakom 4y agoWell let’s make cycling safer with proper infrastructure then.
- locallost 4y agoThe original argument did not involve which trips can be replaced by walking or cycling, merely that per distance driven cars are safer. This makes driving a car much safer than walking, which should give us pause and make us reconsider if it makes sense. It doesn't -- merely having and regularly using a car makes people travel greater distances. Without a car they wouldn't do it, and increased car dependance results in worse traffic safety. If the US had the same per capita death rate as the Netherlands, there would be around 12k deaths. Instead there are over 40k. The additional kicker is that most of the pedestrians and cyclists killed die after a collision with a car. As it is, roughly two million people in the world die in traffic per year, almost all of it involving cars. So much for safety.