@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
This is typical of the nonsense you spout and why I normally ignore you.
Knowing **** all about a subject has never stopped you pontificating.
I explain my reasons so readers can evaluate them for themselves. Maybe you just aren't capable of evaluating reasoning directly without having someone else think for you.
Quote:The money in question is not handed out to the general population like some **** witted orange chimp would do, it’s earmarked. The only people who can get it are people who work with bicycles, repairers etc. The individual takes their bike in to be serviced, and the mechanic servicing the bike claims it from the government.
Sure, but subsidizing one thing, whether it's food, bike repairs, or whatever; always means money saved to spend on other things, such as car payments, tires, insurance, booze, illegal drugs, or whatever. So if you give someone a free bike repair that they would've paid $50 for otherwise, that will save them $50, but then you are giving them the power to save or spend that $50 in whatever way they choose. Some people will choose wisely, but many won't.
Quote:It doesn’t take much to check out facts, but clearly that’s beyond you.
Read what I just explained above and tell me what facts are missing from my explanation. It is plain and clear that economic decision-making works this way at the individual level.
Quote:You seem to be of the opinion that most people are as selfish and uncaring as you are. That’s not the case the case at all, most people are decent, and if you’d ever been to Copenhagen or Amsterdam, or even London, you’d see people riding bikes all the time, because it’s the right thing to do.
I don't assume any homogeneity whatsoever at any level of humans or other species. What I do assume is that there are patterns and that you can see the results of bad choices in the fact that places like Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and London are noteworthy for being exceptions to the general shirking of bicycle use as transportation globally. You seem to think I should assume that everyone in the world who gets a bike subsidy will 'do the right thing' and not spend saved money on automotive expenses, but that's simply what happens. Even in Amsterdam, London, and Copenhagen there is more money made and spent on motorized transportation because of all the subsidies being doled out. There may be large numbers of people riding bicycles, but aren't there also large amounts of motorized traffic? And what's more, aren't the economic investments of such financial capitals feeding on the automotive economies of the world and all the infrastructure investments that support all the driving, shipping, etc. going on there?
You can hardly say that London, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen are saving the world from motorized transportation if they are economically sustaining themselves on investments that depend on people throughout the world selling cars, insurance, tires, fuel, asphalt, etc. etc.
It takes a lot more than a few rich cities virtue-signaling. Everywhere else has to reform as well, and it's hard for them to do so when they are so economically dependent on investment/income levels that pay for everyone to drive.
