this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
42 points (85.0% liked)

Bay Area

1520 readers
95 users here now

Discussion for all things Bay Area.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Pricklesthemagicfish@reddthat.com -4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Lol licensing. You mean paper surveillance. Fucking clownshoes

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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?