With bicycles it makes even more sense - since the reality is that despite what the law says, many people ride them on pavements - so the speed should be limited to what is safe for pedestrians.

Also, if people are riding bikes on the pavement, it's a clear signal that they don't have a safe alternative.

Wait, I'm confused now, are you arguing for or against this thing then? You do realize that the Ami is made by Citroen, which is a car company, right? So....which way is this alleged bribe supposed to flow, exactly?

And really, like you can't see any reason at all? Just off the top of my head - legislators say, for the sake of safety, that if a vehicle of any type can reach 50km/h or higher, it's a car. That's a car speed, therefore it should require a car licence. Because of that, manufacturers artificially limit the speed to 45km/h, so you don't need a licence to drive one of these. I'm not sure how would the car manufacturers bribe here - for? Or against this law? Because honestly, I can make an argument for either.

>>Also, if people are riding bikes on the pavement, it's a clear signal that they don't have a safe alternative.

You're stating the obvious here. Equally obvious is that the councils "should just build more bike paths". But in reality there is no money to do this. Local councils have barely enough money to clean the streets and patch the worst potholes, and building new bike lanes is a far higher expenditure than this. The problem might be solved with time, or it might not. The law should reflect reality(and it does), not some made up utopia that doesn't exist.

How much do you imagine that costs?

If you are going to compare "infrastructure" then you have to compare everything, including how many people benefit - everyone who shops at a supermarket benefits from the road system even if they own no vehicle.