> I grew up in evangelical christianity, and to them the end of the world is just around the corner
I grew up in evangelical Christianity, I'm still an evangelical Christian, and you're wrong to paint with a broad brush like that. Are there evangelicals that are millenarian? Yep, of course.
But that is not my experience across multiple evangelical churches across decades.
> “This is all about cyclists on motorised bicycles, so I should think you would do something about motorised cyclists. Make a rule for them and not for all cyclists.”
There's a certain sub strain of cyclists that want absolutely no rules for them.
In a just world, cyclists would have more freedom than cars, but pedestrians would have most of all. But walking through European cities with large cycling cultures can be dangerous, too, especially for children and the elderly. Too often, cyclists will completely ignore stop signs and stop lights, or go at full speed on the sidewalks.
And because I know someone is going to retort that car drivers break traffic laws, too: drivers acting dangerously shouldn't excuse cyclists.
What that woman you quoted said definitely resonates with me. I cycle a lot and the rise of e-bikes has definitely made my experience worse. Those bikes are capable of inficting a lot more damage yet I find that the average skill level of e-bike riders tends to be lower than that of the general cycling population. IMO not a great combination.
I don't like to think of it in terms of freedom. Everyone has the same freedom to use public highways. The difference is responsibility. If you decide to use a bicycle you have a bit more responsibility than if you walk because they can go faster. If you decide to use a motor vehicle then it should come with a huge amount of extra responsibility. Ultimately you have the added responsibility of ensuring the safety and freedoms of those more vulnerable road users. So it's not "less freedom", it's "greater responsibility".
The problem is that there are effective mechanisms for punishing irresponsible drivers (and motor cyclists), but none (at least here in the UK) for punishing irresponsible cyclists.
The other problem is that cyclists often share space with pedestrians. I see cyclists on the pavement all the time (mostly illegally - and without consequences), I never see a car driving on the pavement (some park on the pavement, which is annoying).
Proper separate infrastructure (i.e. not just painting a dividing line on the pavement as happens around here) is expensive and requires a lot of space. It is not always practicable, and even where it is the money would often be better spend elsewhere - e.g. on public transport.
I find it fascinating that in less than a decade "bro" somehow turned into a very specific meathead or stoner stereotype, to now include everyone from Sam Altman to your local girlboss marketer.
I've taken plenty of taxis in both NYC and Texas, and pre-Uber they were terrible in both. Calling a taxi in Austin meant a 50% chance that it would get there on time, or you'd wait 30 minutes. Calling back didn't help, you would just get the dispatcher saying, "Well, I guess it's not coming then, huh?"
Similar experiences in Boston area. Hailing a taxi at a taxi stand (e.g., at Prudential or Logan) - good experience to this day. Calling dispatcher - half of the time they don't show up (esp. so for scheduled airport rides) or show up late or arrive in a smoke-filled car. Hackney carriage medallions might have been bad investments for some cabbies, but Uber/Lyft are simply a much better service for the customer. Uber/Lyft takeover had little to do with price (though, yes, they were cheaper) and everything to do with reliability and overall quality of service.
