[eropple]

> If a biker has a choice between possibly getting hit by a car or possibly hitting a pedestrian, the choice is kind of obvious.

I don't think that's true, though. The alternative is not "endanger pedestrians", the alternative is "walk". A biker has a choice to not bike. And that's what I do; I walk when I'm in Boston, because I don't think urban biking is safe enough for me to make that choice.

Like, yes, better bike infrastructure is a good idea and separated bike lanes is something that I absolutely support, but biking is a choice, and right now a lot of people on e-bikes (not so much regular bikes, to be honest) make me feel unsafe to walk in places that they tend to congregate.

[magicalist]

If biking is a choice then so is driving a car, and cars are far more dangerous to pedestrians.

[eropple]

Cars absolutely are more dangerous when pedestrians and cars intersect. They're also not on the sidewalk, where pedestrians usually are, while bicycles (and, in my experience, especially e-bikes) tend to be. I've never gotten hit by a car. I have gotten hit by bicyclists. I'd rather not be hit by either.

If we're all on board with punishing bicyclists (and, again, especially e-bikes), who get to act like vehicles when it suits them, from being on sidewalks and potentially endangering pedestrians, I think there's a great dialogue to have about that.