Yes. The “Cyclists don’t use cycle lanes” line also comes right from the angry right list of grievances. If there’s a cycle lane and people aren’t using it, it’s self-evidently not good enough. And this is hardly surprising when most cycle lanes are cheap afterthoughts that increase danger and inconvenience

Remember, it’s only terrorism if you’re suggesting LESS fossil fuels and environmental degredation.

Jesus Christ people are still thinking of voting Rees Mogg in as their MP. They should just expand Chew Lake and flood the whole area - it has nothing to offer to humanity now

You seem to be suggesting that because some level of risk is inevitable, any level of risk is acceptable. There’s a big difference between minimal practical risk and reckless levels of risk, but your construction doesn’t capture that with its crude binary of “risk or no driving”. We could drive with far less risk, eg enforcing speed limits with technology

You’re assuming those accounts are real, and also assuming they’re funded externally

Exactly. The problem is not that the lie was convincing - the problem is that so many people wanted to believe the lie