I don’t think you understand what good infrastructure looks like
i don’t think you understand what kinetic energy is. is you claim it is about safety, then bus doing 50 km/h is far more dangerous than passenger car in the same speed.
There are literally millions of drunk tourists here every year and they’re fine.
and these drunk tourists… are they also getting hit by a car?
By your logic airplanes are EXTREMELY dangerous to pedestrians because they go ~800km/h and would instantly kill anyone they hit.
Sure getting hit by a bus is more deadly than getting hit by a bicycle, but if your odds of getting hit are essentially zero then that chances the equation.
Again, I don’t think you understand what good infrastructure looks like, what city would you say you’ve spent time in that has the best infrastructure in your opinion?
By your logic airplanes are EXTREMELY dangerous to pedestrians because they go ~800km/h and would instantly kill anyone they hit.
it is not my logic, logic is mathematical discipline, it doesn’t really belong to anyone.
airplanes indeed ARE extremely dangerous to pedestrians on runway. not so much in the air, which is largely due to the fact that pedestrians can’t fly.
the same can’t be said for buses driving on the same streets as cars where their path often crosses with those of pedestrians. so why should bus be allowed to drive faster, having significantly larger kinetic energy and be therefor be far more dangerous in case of collision? why do you think that chances of getting hit by a bus are effectively zero? do buses in amsterdam levitate in a same way airplanes do? i have never been to amsterdam, so maybe it’s a thing there?
if you manage to get hit by a bus in Amsterdam you really fucked up.
if you managed to get git by a car you have also fucked up.
and these drunk tourists… are they also getting hit by a car?
Well that makes sense.
You’re much less likely to die when hit by a speeding bus than a slow car.
Yeah, I usually hear about speed limits as a time savings vs. safety issue. And in that sense it would apply to both.
I don’t think you understand what good infrastructure looks like, if you manage to get hit by a bus in Amsterdam you really fucked up.
There are literally millions of drunk tourists here every year and they’re fine.
I know, I was just being glib.
i don’t think you understand what kinetic energy is. is you claim it is about safety, then bus doing 50 km/h is far more dangerous than passenger car in the same speed.
and these drunk tourists… are they also getting hit by a car?
By your logic airplanes are EXTREMELY dangerous to pedestrians because they go ~800km/h and would instantly kill anyone they hit.
Sure getting hit by a bus is more deadly than getting hit by a bicycle, but if your odds of getting hit are essentially zero then that chances the equation.
Again, I don’t think you understand what good infrastructure looks like, what city would you say you’ve spent time in that has the best infrastructure in your opinion?
it is not my logic, logic is mathematical discipline, it doesn’t really belong to anyone.
airplanes indeed ARE extremely dangerous to pedestrians on runway. not so much in the air, which is largely due to the fact that pedestrians can’t fly.
the same can’t be said for buses driving on the same streets as cars where their path often crosses with those of pedestrians. so why should bus be allowed to drive faster, having significantly larger kinetic energy and be therefor be far more dangerous in case of collision? why do you think that chances of getting hit by a bus are effectively zero? do buses in amsterdam levitate in a same way airplanes do? i have never been to amsterdam, so maybe it’s a thing there?
if you managed to get git by a car you have also fucked up.
you forgot to answer this question