>>1983279that's one problem with them if you scope the problem as a usage issue. scoped more broadly the problem with them is that, much like the mandatory helmet laws, they are pushed as a simplistic panacea that reduces safety to a single disingenuous talking point. instead of designing and implementing an organic system of multiple different individual safety reforms including intersection design, enforcement, driver education, and so on, which would ironically get us much closer to what the "but amsterdam" people would actually get if we accurately attempted to mimic the dutch, the segregationists will argue that nothing can or should be done to improve cyclist safety other than building mandatory side paths.
it's just another anti-cyclist knee-jerk "safety" concern troll. when yet another person trying to get from point A to point B gets turned into hamburger meat by 20,000 pounds of truck, the victim blaming begins:
-but was he wearing bright clothes?
-but was he wearing a helmet?
-but was he on the side path?
nobody ever asks
-but was the driver on the phone
-but did the driver check his mirrors before turning
-but was that street a designated truck route?
if they really cared about cyclists wouldn't they ask the important questions? of course we know the answer which is they don't care. or better put, they do care, in the sense that they care to kill all cyclists while crying batavophiliac crocodile tears
