cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/34367979
More barriers to cycling means more cars which means more dead cyclists/pedestrians. Help us defeat this terrible anti-safety bill.
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/34367979
More barriers to cycling means more cars which means more dead cyclists/pedestrians. Help us defeat this terrible anti-safety bill.
Unlicensed cyclists injure hundreds of people per year in the perfidious Albion alone, especially children and people over 65.
Less lethal doesn’t mean non-lethal. All wheeled vehicles are dangerous, and must be regulated.
Now compare to the number of injuries caused by cars. Not that data from another country is all that relevant.
Who the fuck said anything about cars? Car drivers being maniacal murderous bastards doesn’t give cyclists a license to be equally abhorrent.
In any case, you need a test and a license to drive a car, even in the USA, and the car needs a license plate, same as any other vehicle should, bicycles included.
As for the data, it was just the first article I found, but it’s easy to extrapolate to get a bare minimum for a lawless uncivilised shithole like the USA.
The commenter in the chain you’re replying to? Do you even read the context before firing off angry replies like this?
In the USA, car is the default form of transit. If you make alternatives, like e-bikes, more difficult to access, some number of people will switch to driving. Because cars are far, far more dangerous than bicycles, those switchers will create a large increase in injuries and deaths. So you cannot ignore that factor when discussing overall safety.
And when you are placing legal restrictions on people, you are targeting people with police violence. As such, you have an obligation to prove the proposed change will help more than it hurts. Given the issues I just outlined, and the chart I shared above, I think it’s fairly obvious that is not the case here.