so you want to ruin childhood by placing pointless restrictions on bikes?

Cyclists on the whole break traffic laws a lot less than motorists.

Also, I love how your only example of "the dangers of cyclists" involves someone in a car having to react to a cyclist. If everyone is cycling, speeds are low enough to react and typically avoid collisions even if a potential conflict arises. The "forces someone to swerve" phenomenon mostly happens at the speed of motor vehicles.

Riiight, childhood's defined by riding bicycles and not doing so would ruin it... uh-huh.
Kids can ride them.all they want in parks and bike lanes, but you want them on the street alongside those dangerous cars? They might have a serious accident... now that would ruin their childhood.

Grownups can ride on roads (if there's no bike lane available) provided the vehicle has a plate and is insured, like any other vehicle. The driver should have the basics of road safety and rules, as any other driver.

Your think of the children take is kinda lame, especially considering most kids these days care more about game consoles that bicycles (which is bad imho).

Cyclists on the whole break traffic laws a lot less than motorists.

That's utter bullshit, I see them running lights all the time. And riding in groups, clogging the whole road, like they're on the freakin' tour de France.

You should know that it doesn't take "motor vehicle speeds" to cause a (serious) accident. And I suspect you do.

I wasn't talking about people on group rides, I'm talking about people using bikes as a means of transportation. I agree that people in group rides can sometimes be bothersome road users.

Red lights and stop signs are designed for cars and it's honestly stupid to expect cyclists to treat them the same way. Studies have shown that treating stops as yields when on a bike is safer for all road users.

You should know that it doesn't take "motor vehicle speeds" to cause a (serious) accident.

That's not what I said. I was pointing out how your "swerve into a post because a cyclist ran a red light" is a dangerous situation made possible only by the presence of cars.

“Let’s invent metal boxes with wheels that follow lines on the ground automatically to get you places.”

“Oh, you mean like trains.”

“Ew, no. They’re nothing like trains, these are ‘self driving cars’. They’re fool proof!”

tesla hits someone in a dense fog because it doesn’t have lidar

Queue surprised pikachu.

It's clearly not the minimum. The minimum is what we have today. It would be great if they act as you say.

What does this even mean? Are you claiming all cities had railroad and public transportation hubs prior to cars being invented? I'm brainwashed because I don't believe you can just seize private property and demolish tons of homes and businesses to build more efficient infrastructure in every moderate to large city in the country? Prior to cars existing, most cities were tiny and people didn't commute 50 miles for work every day.

Can you point to the cities elsewhere where this transformation has occurred or where this already existed outside of maybe a handful of examples on the entire planet?

Educate yourself. You don’t have to be angry about it. And yes, all major cities had railroad and public transportation hubs before cars took over.

Sure they did, buddy. "Educate yourself" they say just like all those antivaxxers and COVID deniers do when they speak their nonsense. "All cities had public transportation" before automobiles existed.

Hilarious