True, which I'll state here:
My agenda is promoting sustainable means of getting about especially cycling
and to reduce danger at the source of danger ie drivers
By telling them they're stupid and misinformed and should listen to you?
OK, so a lot of them are stupid and misinformed, but they won't take kindly to being told so.
Ad if (2) cycling isn't dangerous then why do you need to make such a fuss over reducing the source of danger? Is there danger or not? Of course there is, it's more dangerous to ride to work in London than to do a tour of duty in Afghanistan apparently?
It's like saying its "not dangerous" to be a soldier because actually the only danger is from other people when they shoot at you and put mines in your path.
Simply riding a bike along isn't dangerous, true. But I can't see how these double standards will help your cause, it seems like just the kind of thing that attempts to segregate people who drive from those that cycle. "it's your fault" "No it's YOUR fault" etc. till someone gets a wet fish out.
By telling them they're stupid and misinformed and should listen to you?
OK, so a lot of them are stupid and misinformed, but they won't take kindly to being told so.
Ad if (2) cycling isn't dangerous then why do you need to make such a fuss over reducing the source of danger? Is there danger or not? Of course there is, it's more dangerous to ride to work in London than to do a tour of duty in Afghanistan apparently?
It's like saying its "not dangerous" to be a soldier because actually the only danger is from other people when they shoot at you and put mines in your path.
Simply riding a bike along isn't dangerous, true. But I can't see how these double standards will help your cause, it seems like just the kind of thing that attempts to segregate people who drive from those that cycle. "it's your fault" "No it's YOUR fault" etc. till someone gets a wet fish out.