[khochesh_kushat]

But, until that happens, isn't it at least a bit odd for parents to put their children in such a dangerous situation? I live in the Netherlands and we have good, safe cycling infrastructure. I would never ride in the US given current infrastructure there (much less with my kids). Hopefully some day it is properly invested in.

[petsfed]

The problem here is that if people stop biking until it becomes safer, then city planners and elected officials will say "why do we need to spend millions to install biking infrastructure (and disrupt car infrastructure), nobody is out biking!"

Yes, its dangerous, because other people make it dangerous. The unfortunate reality of living in America is that a lot of people do a lot of things that are not terribly hazardous to themselves but are quite hazardous to other people. As a parent, I have chosen to do what I can to mitigate the risks as best as I can, short of just staying home, or driving everywhere.

Honestly, this bicyclist was killed at a location where I would feel comfortable riding with my kids. Its fairly low traffic, has decent bike lanes, and the speed limit is low. The simple fact of the matter is that unless you build serious infrastructure, no bike thoroughfare is safe from sufficiently motivated/reckless/drunk drivers. Based on the accident details (especially the driver having minor injuries), this sounds like somebody driving waaaay too fast for the road. All of this to say, this isn't an argument for stopping biking, or biking without kids, but it is an argument for more aggressively enforcing traffic laws on these roads that are tempting to joy riders, and improving biking infrastructure so its harder for these accidents to occur.

[mslate]

It's odd but entirely understandable--many parents and immigrants and non-ultra rich people cannot afford cars or parking in an ultra-high cost of living city like San Francisco.

It's condescending to assume they can.

[et-al]

And what? Perpetuate the arms race of larger and heavier cars?

[khochesh_kushat]

I'm not sure I'm following. Are you saying that in the US unless people put themselves in dangerous situations in the first place, nobody will ever vote to improve the safety of the infrastructure? If so, what is the connection? If not can you clarify what you mean?

Here in the Netherlands we didn't get to good bicycle infrastructure by trying to maximize the number of people in dangerous situations as a stepping stone, so maybe I'm missing something unique about the US.

Edit: asked an American friend and apparently in the US cyclists have to assert their presence since there aren't dedicated lanes, up to things like keeping a stick on your bike to hit cars that impinge on your rights. So that's certainly different. I still wouldn't put young children in that situation but it's certainly something quite different from here.

[et-al]

Sorry for the late reply. Yeah it's a chicken and egg problem here in the US.

If there aren't enough riders, then the planners won't have the data to support painting some bike lanes to attract more riders and get people out of cars.

And then the car people will complain that the bike lane is taking up "their" road and planners will be forced to remove the bike lane or let it rot.