Originally posted by john999
I don't think promotion of cycling is realistic.
Cycling is dangerous. Cyclists are generally underaged and require no licence.
If you compare the number of cyclists you see on the road, and the number of accidents, the accident rate is vastly disproportionate, and not much lower than for motorcycles - which the government actively discourge the use of.
Much as I dislike this form of argument, I'm going to have to ask you to quote some statistics to back that claim up. All the figures I've seen indicate that the fatality rate for cyclists is more comparable to motorists than motorcyclists. Factor for a level of experience in the cyclist, and the figures plummet.
Originally posted by john999
If the bicycle was only a recent invention, they probably wouldn't be allowed on the roads - children certainly wouldn't be allowed on roads.
Possibly, but not because they're inherently dangerous. Either way 'what if' discussions are irrelevant and pointless.
Originally posted by john999
Cyclists relative freedom is an accident of history ; the only trend is to more restriction.
There are no 'accidents of history'. There is only history.