My current pet peeve is people complaining about the ‘cost’ of protected bike lanes because “people on bikes don’t pay their way”.

Beyond even the data showing just how much private car ownership is already subsidized, can we just take a moment and acknowledge: We wouldn’t need protected lanes at all if cars were not killing and injuring so many people.

It’s like the owner of an animal bemoaning the cost of an enclosure for their animal, which keeps killing and maiming members of the public as they pass by.

It’s not the victim’s fault the enclosure is needed, and it’s not the fault of someone riding a bike they need protection in a public space.

  • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think that’s the point. If everyone was in the same road, car drivers would get frustrated to be going so slow. Therefore, it’s in the drivers’ best interest to have a separate bike lane so cars can go faster.

    • SorteKaninA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      That doesn’t really make much sense when you look at Copenhagen. It is frequently faster to get somewhere by bike than it is to go by car because bikes don’t block each other in traffic as much as cars do. If cars were on the same road as bikes, it would be bikes that would be going slower, not cars.

      • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I am not going to agree or disagree, I was just trying to explain what the person you were replying to meant :)