data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd3cf/fd3cff0c4444e17cbdc06f95f4049433c48c9a8b" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4c28b/4c28b3d55fb1c433948a9869d73ac21a1623bccb" alt=""
When did I say that nobody rides? I just find it ridiculous to compare expenses on non-essential infrastructure with essential infrastructure. Non-essential infrastructure deserves only a small percentage of funding. If we were talking about something like playgrounds or bicycle paths, it would be a different story. Both are non-essential, but both make cities better. So, it becomes a matter of discussion as to which should receive more investment.
I’m not sure why you mentioned, ‘All the data shows that the number one indicator of cycling rates is the quality of infrastructure.’ It’s obvious, but it doesn’t explain why we should spend more on cycling paths."
Get back to Earth, mate, we’re talking about today’s Australia. It will, for the foreseeable future, be run by cars and trucks. As I mentioned initially, bicycles are a hobby, not an essential. And so far, you haven’t provided any arguments to prove I’m wrong. So, the expectation that spending money on a hobby for a small minority, as opposed to something essential for the majority, is somehow justified, sounds strange to me