How, in an argument arguing for (or against) something based on the harm it can cause, is the "degree of hurt" "pointless". That makes even less sense than the original point I was responding to.

Clearly this is an issue of religion. If so, then just declare your side, sharpen your pitchfork and be done with it. But arguing as this thread does, that riding on the sidewalk for safety is "equally unsafe" needs to be done with evidence. It's certainly not true that the collisions are independently more dangerous. Maybe you could argue that there would be more of them or something.