• frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    Well…yes, in most areas that inconveniences 3 people vs 300. Bicyclists, despite their entire personality being geared around it, are not by default better or more valuable than people driving cars.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      What cyclists are more of, compared to people driving cars, is vulnerable, which means they’re more important to protect – by not blocking bike lanes and forcing them to mix with car traffic, for example!

      • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        But that’s an irrelevant point if you live, as most Americans do, in an area where nobody is biking to begin with.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      If cycling wasn’t so dangerous and given lower priority there would be many more cyclists and fewer cars. We see this wherever town planners make this change.

      Less car traffic in general is better for everyone, even the drivers. It doesn’t matter if you think that cyclists are annoying or holier than thou. It doesn’t matter what kind of people they are at all. They could all be assholes, that doesn’t change the fact that cars are bad actually.

    • Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      But are people driving cars better and more valuable than cyclists?

      Have you ever been to China? Holland?