All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure. You’re begging the question by saying “we shouldn’t spend money on cycling infrastructure because nobody rides”.
When did I say that nobody rides? I just find it ridiculous to compare expenses on non-essential infrastructure with essential infrastructure. Non-essential infrastructure deserves only a small percentage of funding. If we were talking about something like playgrounds or bicycle paths, it would be a different story. Both are non-essential, but both make cities better. So, it becomes a matter of discussion as to which should receive more investment.
I’m not sure why you mentioned, ‘All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure.’ It’s obvious, but it doesn’t explain why we should spend more on cycling paths."
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
You’re delusional mate.
TheHolm@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Any arguments? Discussion needs some, otherwise it just tossing shit to each other. Completely pointless, and harms both sides.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure. You’re begging the question by saying “we shouldn’t spend money on cycling infrastructure because nobody rides”.
TheHolm@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
When did I say that nobody rides? I just find it ridiculous to compare expenses on non-essential infrastructure with essential infrastructure. Non-essential infrastructure deserves only a small percentage of funding. If we were talking about something like playgrounds or bicycle paths, it would be a different story. Both are non-essential, but both make cities better. So, it becomes a matter of discussion as to which should receive more investment.
I’m not sure why you mentioned, ‘All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure.’ It’s obvious, but it doesn’t explain why we should spend more on cycling paths."