>>2045139
>cont.
and the design you expressed you wish for (completely physically seperated) can also not ever become entirely real, it has plenty of flaws like shown before (mostl, related to network theory). It just serves to harden the notion that nothing but motorvehicles belomg on roads (which funny enough are far older than motorvehicles).
And no I still dont have solutions. The cagers aren't going away anytime soon. They wont get better education or god forbid even become decent people.
I think one underused solution that just shows where the cagers priorities lie is the possibilities of modern technology:
It would be EASY with modern computing power, computer vision systems, positioning, etc. to equip all cars, even retrofit existing ones, with systems that assist the driver and for example prevent them from 'accidentially' going over the speed limit, 'accidentially' running people over, 'accidentially' crossing into another lane and so on. But aparently the individual cager is always a better cager than all the others and does not require any assitance, it's the others that cause crashes and such device would be an unneccessary expense ( just like energy efficient vehicles or exhaust systems etc.) and in any case it would aparently be an infringement on freedoms every cager should have (such a system could of course be overwritten by decisive driver input).

The danger to cyclists posed by segregationists has been known to Europeans for some time, but American cycling activists (controlled opposition) continue to push the narrative that "separate but equal" works for anyone except the automotive industry