Urbanist positions on Road Safety Explained

All Urbanists:

1 - oppose cyclists wearing helmets ( and obeying traffic laws )
2 - encourage pedestrians to jaywalk
3 - never advocate for technology that would improve car safety ( such as Neural Nets or LIDAR )

if you’re new to Urbanism you’re probably confused. aren’t Urbanists supposed to be looking out for safety of pedestrians and cyclists ? why then are they promoting all behaviors that put cyclists and pedestrians at risk while not advocating for the one thing that can prevent cyclist and pedestrian fatalities ( better car tech ).

i was confused by this myself when i first heard fietsers ( Dutch for cyclist, but really it means mentally ill urbanist retard, because this mental illness was first popularized in the Netherlands ) advocating AGAINST bicycle helmet use but it is actually very simple to understand.


just like gun control activists pray for school shootings ( to squeeze through their bills ) and even have FBI organize these shootings ( virtually all school shooters are on FBI list BEFORE the shooting ) and just as Climate Change activists set forests on fire ( they have been caught ) in order to popularize their narrative about how Climate Change causes forest fires …

so do Urbanists do all they can to increase pedestrian and cycling fatalities so that they can then use these deaths as ammunition in their war against cars. as one Urbanist Lady ( who got me suspended from Twitter ) put it: “it is simple - Cars is what kills people, so fewer cars is better” …

you see how it works ? it’s a two step process. first they create car related problems, whether it is fatalities ( though methods described above ) or traffic ( through “open streets” ( closed streets ), “street furniture” ( roadblocks ), “road diets” ( narrowing or removing car lanes ) and so on ) and then they claim the solution to the problems they themselves created is fewer cars, which just so happens to be what they wanted all along.

it’s a simple problem, reaction solution method. create a problem, elicit a reaction ( “do something ! ! !” ) and offer a solution, which is what you wanted all along but nobody would have accepted before. of course nobody will be asked either, but Urbanists have to justify their salaries somehow so have to do these things even if in the end WEF will simply ram these solutions through government without any peasants being asked for their opinion.

after all, we live in a technocratic utopia now where “experts” ( like Fauci ) decide what is best for you and you simply have to live with their decisions. well the experts have decided that you don’t need cars.

PS: i may address the three points individually in replies later when i have time …