"It's silly to overlook the dangers of cycling..."
It's flattering to get a comment from Robert Hurst, a good writer and a sensible fellow who also happens to be a dedicated bike guy. Hurst corroborates what I've been saying about the dangers involved in cycling, but, not surprisingly, he thinks the risks are worth it:
Interesting to see my book quoted here. I believe it's silly to overlook the dangers of cycling in traffic, and there is a faction of cycling advocates who seem to want to do that. On the other hand, I hope I made clear in my book that the benefits of bicycling far outweigh the risks. Also, I think building a lot of new multi-use paths in SF is a damn good idea. They are extremely useful for transportation purposes.
Not sure what he means by the "multi-use paths," but presumably he simply means "bike lanes." But Hurst agrees with me about doubting the wisdom of encouraging children to ride bikes in city traffic:
While [John]Forester claimed that even children could ride safely on busy streets using the vehicular-cycling principle, our way is unquestionably for adults…The streets demand from us an awareness and maturity that would be very rare in a child.
The city and the SF Bicycle Coalition want to encourage the city's school children to ride their bikes to school, a reckless, irresponsible idea that endangers children and will make the city vulnerable to litigation as soon as the first kid is flattened by a bus while riding a bike to school.
See for example today's story about a "wrongful death" suit filed by the family of the father and his two sons killed by illegal alien and gang member protected by the city against the big bad federales who would have deported him---the bastards!---before he had a chance to kill anybody.