> Both can kill you easily.

What a ridiculous statement. Motorized vehicles are involved in the vast majority of road casualties. You are much, much more likely to die from a car accident than a bike accident.

▲

1718627440 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Motorized and bikes are not exclusive.

▲

thrance 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Ugh... You know perfectly well from context that by "bikes" I meant "bicycles". I am making the effort of speaking in your language, please don't use these linguistic gotchas against me.

	▲	1718627440 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't know any difference between bikes and bicycles. I am also not a native English speaker. This wasn't supposed to be a linguistic gotcha, but a semantic one.

▲

convolvatron a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

as a former pedestrian only and bike rider for the last 5 years, we really do have to admit that bike riders can be real assholes. whether or not the level of injury is the same, it definitely feels an unwarranted physical threat to have a biker shoot past you from behind or run you down in the crosswalk.

▲

albedoa a day ago | parent [-]

Do we have to admit that in this sub-thread? Your sentiment is better placed where we are not currently deriding the absurd take that "both can kill you easily". There is no recovery to be had here.

> whether or not the level of injury is the same

It is not the same.

	▲	tw-20260303-001 a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> There is no recovery to be had here. Of course there is. The world isn’t black and white. I said “could”, there are many shades of grey in between. Don’t be such an absolutist, like your truth is the truest one. > It is not the same. Well, … it depends, no?
	▲	convolvatron a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		sorry, I just really don't like this glib response that while I might be unnecessarily aggressive and threaten you, its not really not a problem since the likelihood that I'll actually _kill_ you is much lower than if I were the same idiot driving a car.

▲

tw-20260303-001 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s ridiculous because it doesn’t fit your narrative. A bicycle hitting you are 15mph is going to fuck you up one way or another.

	▲	NeutralCrane a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You are not making a good faith argument when you refute this person by saying this “doesn’t fit your narrative” two comments removed from you telling another person that you have no interest in their statistics because of how you feel.
	▲	ndsipa_pomu 20 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You're using biased language there, which to be fair is common when people discuss RTCs. A collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist going at around 15mph is more likely to lead to the cyclist getting more hurt and the blame is slightly more likely (something like 60%/40%) to be attributed to the pedestrian. Whilst a lot of people are fearful of cyclists and pedestrians sharing space (often due to cyclists being quiet and passing very close), the statistics show that the actual danger comes from car drivers, even just looking at incidents on the pavement. The thing is that cyclists have "skin in the game" and so have a disincentive to collide with anything. There are certainly idiots on bikes, but it's far better to get as many idiots as possible out of cars and onto bikes (or ideally walking) for the purpose of harm minimisation. Every idiot on a bike could be an idiot that drives.