> unwilling to acknowledge the excesses and poor behaviour of cyclists
when talking about the echo chambers, aren't you painting all cyclists with the same brush here?
And even if that were the case, why do you think he should fight that battle? He chooses to go after reckless car drivers, who cause thousands of deaths per year (including his father's). Why would you expect him to engage in this whataboutism on bicyclists?
I didn't think I needed to respond to a comment that (I guess willingly) missed the mark.
> don't endanger other people's lives
> Cyclists certainly endanger people
Your article talks about 600 injuries caused by cyclists, I am talking about 15000 deaths a year caused by cars. And you try to frame it as a "both sides bad (but actually cyclists are worse because of their entitlement and bad behavior)"
when talking about the echo chambers, aren't you painting all cyclists with the same brush here?
And even if that were the case, why do you think he should fight that battle? He chooses to go after reckless car drivers, who cause thousands of deaths per year (including his father's). Why would you expect him to engage in this whataboutism on bicyclists?