Comment on The technology to end traffic deaths exists. Why aren’t we using it?
Evkob@lemmy.ca 4 weeks agoBicycle insurance and plates? Why? That makes zero sense. We have these for cars because cars are dangerous, not just for funsies. Bicycles don’t pose the same danger.
Walking… if you have time and physical ability, but who cares about that, right? It’s so cool and eco-friendly to say “just walk 20 minutes”.
Yeah it is cool and eco-friendly to walk 20 minutes (assuming one is able-bodied, as you mention.)
0x0@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
Bicycles do pose similar dangers. A cyclists running a red light it the typical example. Forces someone else to swerve and hit a post then what?
Evkob@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
Cyclists on the whole break traffic laws a lot less than motorists.
Also, I love how your only example of “the dangers of cyclists” involves someone in a car having to react to a cyclist. If everyone is cycling, speeds are low enough to react and typically avoid collisions even if a potential conflict arises. The “forces someone to swerve” phenomenon mostly happens at the speed of motor vehicles.
0x0@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
That’s utter bullshit, I see them running lights all the time. And riding in groups, clogging the whole road, like they’re on the freakin’ tour de France.
You should know that it doesn’t take “motor vehicle speeds” to cause a (serious) accident. And I suspect you do.
Evkob@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
I wasn’t talking about people on group rides, I’m talking about people using bikes as a means of transportation. I agree that people in group rides can sometimes be bothersome road users.
Red lights and stop signs are designed for cars and it’s honestly stupid to expect cyclists to treat them the same way. Studies have shown that treating stops as yields when on a bike is safer for all road users.
That’s not what I said. I was pointing out how your “swerve into a post because a cyclist ran a red light” is a dangerous situation made possible only by the presence of cars.