Why the SFMTA censored my comment

The SFMTA refused to post my comment below to its blog story about the agency's response to the recent death of a cyclist:

Polk Street was safe before all the latest "improvements" for cyclists. Since cyclists are still a tiny minority---around 2% of commuters, according to the city's own numbers---what about the more than 90% who don't ride bikes? 

Traffic congestion has been a serious problem for some time. Making bike lanes requires taking away traffic lanes and street parking on busy city streets, making congestion a lot worse than it has to be. 

All the ongoing design "improvements" do is make driving in the city a lot harder than it should be. 

Besides, most bike accidents are "solo" falls, which Bert Hill told us way back in 2005: https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Mission-Not-Impossible-Urban-cycling-is-2698415.php 

Riding a bike involves intrinsic dangers that City Hall can't realistically eliminate. If you insist on riding a bike, you should at least do it without illusions about safety.

Rob's comment:

Since my comment has no obscenity and no personal attacks, why would that public agency refuse to post it? Evidently the agency found the contents of the comment unacceptable.

Taking the topics in the comment in the order they were raised:

1. The comment I was responding to cited the so-called improvements the city made on Polk Street several years ago. I called the city's claim a lie that Polk Street was unsafe before the current "improvements," since the city had no evidence to support that claim. I also pointed out that the city routinely used the dubious safety claim to justify other city bike projects (see this, this, this and this).

2. The city's own numbers show a significant decline in cycling in the city.

3. Of course creating bike lanes on busy city streets requires taking away traffic lanes and/or street parking. The Masonic Avenue fiasco is the most prominent recent example.

4. "Solo falls" for cyclists: bike experts themselves tell us this is the most common type of cycling accident, not being hit by motor vehicles. I provided a link to the 2005 story featuring city bike safety expert Bert Hill and bike messenger/author Robert Hurst.

The city's media has exercised self-censorship about that UC study that found that riding a bike in the city is more dangerous than City Hall and the Bicycle Coalition have been telling us for the same reason: the information was unacceptable to everyone in the city's anti-car movement, which includes the local media. The study emphasized the serious nature of solo/"cyclist only" accidents.

Hill himself was hit by a car while riding his bike in 2014.