Or you know....it's a smart move by the legislators. Want to drive at car-like speeds? Get a car licence with everything that it involves then.
With bicycles it makes even more sense - since the reality is that despite what the law says, many people ride them on pavements - so the speed should be limited to what is safe for pedestrians.
It is of course a smart move by the legislators, since the car industry in critically important for the economy and "proper" cars have a much larger profit margin.
That's ridiculous. The legislators don't have any reason (except being bribed by car industry) to encourage people to use cars instead of more human-friendly modes of transport.
Also, if people are riding bikes on the pavement, it's a clear signal that they don't have a safe alternative.
>>The legislators don't have any reason (except being bribed by car industry) to encourage people to use cars instead of more human-friendly modes of transport.
Wait, I'm confused now, are you arguing for or against this thing then? You do realize that the Ami is made by Citroen, which is a car company, right? So....which way is this alleged bribe supposed to flow, exactly?
And really, like you can't see any reason at all?
Just off the top of my head - legislators say, for the sake of safety, that if a vehicle of any type can reach 50km/h or higher, it's a car. That's a car speed, therefore it should require a car licence. Because of that, manufacturers artificially limit the speed to 45km/h, so you don't need a licence to drive one of these. I'm not sure how would the car manufacturers bribe here - for? Or against this law? Because honestly, I can make an argument for either.
>>Also, if people are riding bikes on the pavement, it's a clear signal that they don't have a safe alternative.
You're stating the obvious here. Equally obvious is that the councils "should just build more bike paths". But in reality there is no money to do this. Local councils have barely enough money to clean the streets and patch the worst potholes, and building new bike lanes is a far higher expenditure than this. The problem might be solved with time, or it might not. The law should reflect reality(and it does), not some made up utopia that doesn't exist.
I don't think, building bike lanes in dense cities is hard. A bit of Jersey wall, some signs, single lane traffic for cars. You save a lot of pothole repairs soon!
Which may be appropriate for an exceptional piece of infrastructure capable of hosting heavy vehicles as well as cars.
If you are going to compare "infrastructure" then you have to compare everything, including how many people benefit - everyone who shops at a supermarket benefits from the road system even if they own no vehicle.
In which way should the law reflect reality? Allowing bikes on pavement if there’s no money to build bike lanes? Good idea; I agree. Telling bikes to screw off and you have to walk your bike along the sidewalk because there’s no money for bike lanes here and we only allow cars on pavement? Not getting my support.
With bicycles it makes even more sense - since the reality is that despite what the law says, many people ride them on pavements - so the speed should be limited to what is safe for pedestrians.