>>1789300>so what?So all the arguments against gratuitously large ICE vehicles, including around their environmental impact, extent to gratuitously large electrical vehicles.
So
>If you like the climate then you can just shill more electric vehicles [instead of suggest vehicles should be smaller or used less]Is wrong.
>again so what?So your other arguement is fucking wrong too. Stop being obtuse. I'm directly addressing your point and then you pretend you don't know what i'm talking about.
>What do you do when there's a box truck or delivery van on the road?The key word is gratuitous. Delivery vehichles actually do tend to be the most efficient and economical versions of themselves because their size is dictated by economics and pragmatism not social/cultural values. However, delivery vehichles on the road should be reduced, because consumerism generally should be reduced.
>If you want to be safe on the road then drive a car. Biking will always be dangerous on the road.Yes I know that's your position, but well, fuck you.
>What you don't understand is that if you don't make any concessions for anything then you will never improve anything. Part of bicycles negative reputation is militant bike fags like you that thinks literally everyone needs to ride a road bike everywhere with shitty plastic clothing or they're terrible people.I'm not suggesting we get rid of cars. I have a car that I do not intend to get rid of. I just think cars should be smaller and used less. This is a sensible middle of the road position. You're defining literally any change to the status quo as militancy. It's absurd.
>You should really think about why bikes are 100 years old yet people don't use them that much.Literally the main reason is people feel unsafe cycling around cars.
