you get the only thing I openly say it is an opinion (based on my experience anyway) to dismiss all the other points like an opinion where instead I offered some observed facts

What you reported are anecdotal facts. Things you observed. Objective facts and data are what we need to improve. The fact that you see people not using the bike lane is not relevant.

• Have you tried to actually count how many people use the bike path and how many not?
  • Do you understand that from someone driving a car, you clearly see a cyclist on the road, while you may dismiss and not even register one on the bike path?
• Is the one you talk about a bike path at all? Or maybe is it a mixed use path (so one that cyclist don’t have to use)?
  • When I’m riding a bicycle I will always use a bike path, if it is usable; you know, I want to stay alive. I may choose not to use it when mixed because I think it is more dangerous for me and the pedestrians on it. Or if a bike path surface is broken and I would risk falling.

Did you check these?

Practice:

The 3 points you mention as practice are not practice at all. They are theory, they are laws that are usually not respected.

Obviously if you reduce speed you reduce the possibillity of a fatality. Following this way of thinking, if you reduce the speed to 10 Km/h you reduce even more the crashes and fatalities. Even better, remove the cars, 0 crashes (not sure about 0 fatalities btw).

30 km/h is only the maximum speed allowed. And it is a compromise that wold allow for a huge reduction of crash damage, while not reducing travel time by much. Because the average speed in cities is, let’s remember that, more in the 10-20 km/h range. So, speeding between red lights does not save anyone’s time, just increase the danger.

Don’t make me look up for articles about that (please, do it yourself, there is plenty), but the increase of travel times when maximum allowed speed is decreased from 50 to 30 is very low (much, much lower than 50/30 ratio), and the benefits in terms of danger is so high, that it is totally worth it. So the argument “let’s make it 10 km/h” doesn’t make any sense

we are taking for granted that it is always the car the guilty side

it’s not a question of who is guilty, it is a question of where the danger comes from. And it doesn’t come from pedestrians or cyclicsts (see my previous post), it comes from cars. Stop signs exist because of cars. Traffic light exist because of cars. Car insurance exist because of cars.

So my point, in the end, is that concentrating only on the speed, again in my opinion, we are just looking at the most easily factor to “punish”

No, nobody wants to punish. It is because of facts (not anecdotes). It is because it works in theory and in practice, as I fully documented in my previous post. And I was only taking into consideration the 50 to 30 km/h reduction. It works in all the cases, even highways https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598360/

The problem with your comment is that you have a lot of opinions, and they all may sound reasonable, but the facts and data give away a different story, and it is hard and takes time to demonstrate that most of what you state is, to say it kindly , false

So I’ll take only one of your statements and answer that, and won’t waste more time for the rest.

Speed itself is a factor, not the main one, which in my opinion is inattentiveness.

Theory:

• Impact energy grows with the square of the speed. An impact at 50 km/h carries almost 3 times the energy of an impact at 30 km/h. (source: kinetic energy)
  • probability of death for a pedestrian when hit by a vehicle at 50 km/h is 70%, when hit at 30 km/h is 10% (source)
• Stopping distance at 50 km/h (23 m) doubles in respect to 30 km/h (12 m) (source)

So, based on the data above, how can speed not be a main factor, especially if we are talking about road fatalities?

So to support theory with fact, there is ton of data on cities that lowered speed limit from 50 to 30 km/h. And data consistently shows reduction in crashes, injuries and fatalities.

I’m not wasting time describing each of the articles below:

• https://swov.nl/en/fact/30-kmh-zones-what-are-road-safety-effects-30-kmh-zones
• https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/cp_data_news/none-of-the-european-cities-that-lowered-the-speed-limit-to-30-km-h-regrets-it/
• https://etsc.eu/swiss-research-shows-30-km-h-zones-reduced-crashes-by-38/
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353710726_Economic_impact_of_30kmh_-_Benefits_and_Costs_of_Speeds_in_an_urban_environment

This ☝

Cars in cities are already dangerous and terribly inefficient. Flying cars would be worse in every sense.

Relavant Adam something video about it for a sum-up