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.
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.
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.
The entire purpose of license plates is to enable surveillance. I don’t know how you can’t see that.
No one is against safety. But this bill makes us less safe rather than more by entrenching car transportation as the default mode, which is far far more dangerous than any e-bike ever could be. If there are ways to improve safety that don’t have this effect then let’s talk about it, but it can’t impose onerous bureaucratic hurdles on ordinary, law abiding cyclists. That’s a non-starter.
So are you arguing that cars shouldn’t have license plates, either? Because if the point of license plates is to enable surveillance, then that would apply to cars, as well.
Cars are much, much more dangerous, and the system of surveillance already exists, so that’s not a fight worth getting into right now. Once we’ve solved the issue of street safety, which, frankly, license plates have done little to mitigate, it would probably be appropriate to eliminate them.
Although honestly maybe there is a stronger case to be made against them because we’re having this debate right now. The fact that people are required to give up their privacy and autonomy simply to get around makes them much more likely to accept further concessions in areas where the safety benefits are far less obvious.
OK, well, at least you’re consistent.
I would be careful with the statement that license plates have done little to mitigate road safety issues, though. They have not fixed the problem entirely of course, far from it, but they have greatly increased accountability, because all an ordinary citizen needs to do in the case of a hit and run is to note the plate number. It also enables the use of speed and red light cameras, which have also lead to a decrease in dangerous driving. (And note - speed and red light cameras are not surveillance in that sense, since they - bar malfunctions - only hit those who are guilty or are very likely to be guilty).
Lol licensing. You mean paper surveillance. Fucking clownshoes
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?