Good for you. I used to jog every day. I NEVER felt great after jogging. It was always a chore and it never got easier. If some people feel great after biking then good for them, they are lucky. But they should never browbeat others to join their cult.
I know, I know. I am just saying that as a kid a long time ago, in a small town and not a city, that is what we were told to do. We didn't have that many pedestrians in residential areas and there were easy to see. It was easier to see cars backing out of their house driveway from the sidewalk than from the road where all the parked cars block your view. Cyclists meant 95% kids, they were not going full speed like modern tour-de-commute racers. There were ZERO bike lanes.
The reasoning to be on sidewalks was because it was indeed safer, in that time and place. Today though - NOWHERE is safe for bikes (unless it's a bike-only trail which are very rare).
I was in a small town too, everyone know sidewalks were for pedestrians and bikes. And we went slow, we stopped, we started, we stopped again, etc. We did not ride like modern cyclists with full set of expensive gear trying to make a speed record on the way to work weaving into and out of traffic. The road was much less safe. Even in the city now, the roads are murderous, viewing is bad, speed limit for cars too high, bike lanes too small (and when they aren't the cyclists still want to be far left on the white line for some reason).
Your comment is interesting, but you could improve it with flashing pink letters and lots of emojis. I don't know why you're so opposed to all my good ideas.
Cancer causes smoking! It's true, I looked at the numbers.
It's a correlation, not a one-to-one mapping. By "thin people also drink diet sodas" what does that mean, and what does that refute? Do you mean all thin people, or the same proportion of thin people drink diet sodas as fat people, or more or less, or? With out any numbers this does nothing whatsoever to refute the suggestion that the causality may be due to being overweight rather than due to drinking diet sodas.
A correlation could mean that there's only a 5% difference in fat versus thin people in their soda drinking habits. And correlation also means you can't show which is the cause and which is the effect. We can come up with ideas about what the causality might be of course, and it's worth discussing.
When I was growing up, we were taught to ride out bikes on the sidewalk since it was safer.
Used to have some coworkers pressuring me to join the cycling cult. Never mind that I hadn't been on a bike in twenty years, was 10 miles away, and heavy traffic most of the distance, they would be utterly convinced that it was perfect for a beginner. I also saw one of them on the road riding her bike in the most dangerous way and never stopping at signs. I was getting exercise at the time, it just wasn't cycling so I don't understand the "join us!" attitude of those damned militants.
If you look in the FEMA site, they say that they provide gramts to perform repairs not covered by insurance. And no, they don't do a needs test. Now, the typical rich person does not let their insurance lapse just so that they can get a FEMA grant. Because such a grant is no sure thing. They also point out that SBA loans are the main source of assistance following a disaster. You get a break on interest, but you have to pay them back.
I've rarely done this, but when I did I definitelly wanted to send the message that the worker is not just playing games with me alone. And this was a next-to-last resort, I had already talked to the boss privately, the boss talked to the worker privately, etc.
What you are observing is economics. As a city or town population grows, the best land becomes unavailable and those who arrive later or have less funds available must settle for less desirable land. Thus many cities have been extended using landfill which liquifies as the San Francisco Marina District did in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, or floods. Risks may not be disclosed by developers, or may be discounted by authorities as the risks of global warming are today.
Efforts to protect people who might otherwise buy such land or to mitigate the risks are often labeled as government over-reach or nanny state.
Oh, of course they were caused by misguided engineering efforts. Everything from the Army Corps of Engineers to Smoky Bear goes under that heading. The most basic problem is the fact that we locate cities next to resources and transportation, which means water, without realizing where the 400-year flood plane is. Etc. We have learned something since then.
Our problem, today, is fixing these things. Which is blocked by folks who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, or even cause and effect at all. They don't, for the most part, register Democratic.
The problem with your explanation is that it's fact-based, and stands on good science. This is the post-truth era. Thus, the counter to your argument will be: