Also, unironically, e-bikes are more fun than cars. You feel the acceleration much more on a bike than a car despite moving slower, and the breeze going by you feels pretty nice too.
Also, you know what else goes comically over budget and over time? Car infrastructure projects! But when talking about highways it’s “an investment for the country’s mobility and ultimately its economy” yet with trains it’s “a pointless money sink that will never succeed due to this one very commonly experienced setback.”
(Full disclosure I’m not in the UK, I’m annoyed at him for the people there too, especially since their politicians’ attitudes toward high speed rail seem pretty similar to attitudes in Canada where I am.)
I’ve legit heard people say things along the lines of “The largest SUV or trucks are safer for Americans because it can hold up better in a collision with deer which we have a lot of.” (Because apparently large wildlife aren’t common anywhere at all in the rest of the world.)
They have a point though, and they’ll hold up especially well against a specific, extremely common subspecies of deer called “humans.”
Nah, because that would involve the slightest reduction in personal freedom which as we all know is a fate not only worse than death, but worse than hellfire itself.
That’s not “science,” that’s just an arbitrary convention that can help simplify communication of complex toppics. The genetic data that the convention is derived from is the science, in the form of a lineage of genetic relations between organisms and nothing else, because biology has exactly zero built-in categories or labels, and those are all human-made.