Well, you asked if I was arguing against improving safety when compared to fatality rates for any activity.

But for me to have made that argument, I’d have to have said that there is no rate of fatality that would justify improving safety. So, I was asking if you think that’s true:

Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?

But I sucked at wording it clearly. That’s on me.

In short, no, I’m not arguing that. Really, I was just clarifying what the person you responded to was saying. I’m not making an argument either way.

Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?

Well, nothing is 100% safe, and we allow plenty of things that are demonstrably unsafe to continue. So if you compare bike-car collisions against say, firearm suicides in the US, you’ll see that bike-car collisions aren’t that bad.

The fundamental argument is that nothing is totally safe, but some things are safer than others.

More like if you contextualize the incidents of bicycles and pedestrians with cars, you might realize they’re safer than you think. This is absolutely false for cars and pedestrians though in America at least.

It’s cute af too, with their little tongues sticking out

All Republicans do this. Fascism, communism, socialism, and liberalism are indistinguishable for them

Now that’s strange, they energy efficiency leads to greater energy consumption. But, as always, this blog clarified the problem brilliantly

I’m all for socialist policies, but the Biden-Harris administration didn’t kill the expanded child tax credit. Republicans did.

Clinton is not wrong. Only those of us that actually care about politics as a means to do something about social problems care about policy. The overwhelming majority of us those care about politics as a spectacle, a variation of edu-tainment with the social dynamics of team sports. And in that framework, message that distract from the team as us or the opposition as them are of no value.

Looks like Zoids…so, yes.