Kozu

So, the whole crux of the issue is that they aren't supposed to be, and it's not what they signed up for. Hence, the poop protests.

Tacoma

National guard aren't cops.

You can also do it with standard GPS and offline maps, kept up to date with over the air updates. Modern cars pretty much all support both, so you'd need barely any additional infrastructure.

It really isn't tbh. It's far, far easier to secure something that's purely passive like GPS, than something that relies on active broadcasting like a smart phone.

You just stick a GPS receiver in there with no transmitter, and use offline maps. GPS isn't two-way, you can't track anyone with a GPS receiver alone.

Also, if you use any sort of navigation software on your phone, this entire argument is completely moot. They're already tracking you lol.

Doesn't basically every new car come with the tech to do this already installed by default? They market it as an anti-theft feature!

I don't think you need to do a communist revolution to get the government directly involved in building more housing. I don't think that's true.

Than mine? I live in Seattle, buddy. We aren't in the habit of install telephone poles in the middle of ours.

Your definition of excellent only applies in Massachusetts, and everyone knows masshole drivers suck, so I'm afraid not.

Oh no, being in a bike lane is a guaranteed way to be in someone's blind spot. It's why right hooks are such a problem, even with "good" bike infrastructure. I'm talking about taking the car lane.

There are legitimately bike lanes around me that are more hazardous than sharrows, and I hate sharrows

A telephone pole in the middle of a bike lane.

Ah, so that's the Andover you're from.

Anyway, no it ain't lol. There's some pretty good bike lanes in most of the cities, but most of them are still paint and most of the "protected" ones are a massive dooring and right hook hazard because the "protection" is just parked cars.

That says 6 years, I'm afraid.

Can't be in anyone's blind spot if you take the lane.

A horrible UK bike lane. It doesn't even have a solid painted line.

No you don't lol, I've seen UK bike lanes. They look just as ass as most American bike lanes. Sometimes even worse.

Is that the legal definition?

OK, so then you don't believe in bike lanes lol

It is overall much safer to bike commute, even on surface streets with poor bike infrastructure.

There's always a point in someone's life where they have a spotless record.

Yep, everyone has an excellent driving record until they don't.

Define "safe". Is paint "safe"?

Well no, they couldn't, because most people's commutes happen during rush hour. That's why rush hour exists.

And again, it's generally just safer to be on the road when everyone is doing 15mph instead of 35mph.

I just think it's interesting how you acknowledge the problem while simultaneously pretending you aren't contributing to it. Like pretending that your daily commute isn't part of the pollution problem.

Yeah, everyone is an excellent driver up until they kill someone.

So your stance is that bike commuters deserve to be safer, but also that you should never do it unless it's the only possible option, even with dedicated bike infrastructure?

18-Year Study Of 82,297 Adults Finds Cycle Commuting Halves Chance Of Early Death Billionaires famously want to live longer. They should jump on bicycles, not spacecraft.

Well, in most areas, surface streets are safest during rush hour. You're also conveniently ignoring the massive health benefits of bike commuting, which result in an overall much lower mortality rate than driving:

www.forbes.com/sites/carlto...

If that were true, why is bike commuting dangerous? After all, if everyone driving is excellent at it like you, there's apparently no danger.

Oh right, sorry, I forgot that you don't support anyone bike commuting at all in your city, except for poor people who you just don't care as much about the safety of, I guess.

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that "bad at driving" is a legal category?