60
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net to c/bayarea@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I wouldn't consider 100x less dangerous to be "very dangerous". And this is just another step to get us used to the burgeoning police and surveillance state. I say fuck no to that.

[-] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 hour ago

Now compare to the number of injuries caused by cars. Not that data from another country is all that relevant.

[-] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 34 minutes ago

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.

Something else being much more dangerous doesn't make that first thing less dangerous. Otherwise, why worry about rail safety then, for instance? Taking the train is also somewhere around 100x less dangerous than driving (and I'm pretty sure if you evaluated the statistics the way they are in your picture, it would be well more than 100 times less dangerous).

Add to that, just because it doesn't kill you, doesn't mean it's not dangerous. Injuries are also something that are, well, not good, especially when it's caused by other people's recklessness.

And let's not mix up licensing and surveillance. You get a surveillance state when that information is then used to track you where you go (see flock cameras). Otherwise you could make the same argument that cars shouldn't have license plates, either.

Lol licensing. You mean paper surveillance. Fucking clownshoes

[-] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 4 points 2 days ago

It's fun that everyone pushing this position sounds like a fucking retard.

I’ll try to go slow for you.
Did you ever see that movie with the slappy black guy where everyone in the entire world he met was this nightwalking vampire monster but in the end he turned out to be the monster?

this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
60 points (100.0% liked)

Bay Area

1521 readers
5 users here now

Discussion for all things Bay Area.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS