Riding a bike in San Francisco

A comment to last week's post on the UCSF study on cycling and safety:

Makes sense, thanks Rob. No matter what terrible traumas doctors witness in the ER from automobile accidents, nothing could put them off from driving, since bike accident traumas are always worse.

The UCSF study showed that riding bike in SF is a lot more dangerous than anyone but me thought, since cycling accidents have until now been systematically under-counted. The comment tries to change the subject to cars and ignores this from the Centers for Disease Control:

While only 1% of all trips taken in the U.S. are by bicycle, bicyclists face a higher risk of crash-related injury and deaths than occupants of motor vehicles do.

The CDC must be anti-bike, right?

Last month I asked the MTA when their latest Collision Report will be published, since it's overdue. They eventually responded---after I asked 311 and the Sunshine Task Force to help me get an answer---that they're waiting for more data used to compile the annual report.

The annual Bicycle Count is also due to be released.

My suspicion: In both reports, the MTA is scrambling to digest the UCSF study while at the same time touting the great bike revolution in San Francisco. 

City Hall sees getting a lot more people on bikes as an important---and inexpensive---way to deal with the city's traffic congestion. 

The UC study confirms what I've been saying here for years: riding a bike is a lot more dangerous than either City Hall or the Bicycle Coalition are willing to admit. 

It's simply irresponsible for the city to encourage what is essentially a very risky transportation "mode." They're even urging the city's children to ride bikes on city streets!