[bluefirebrand]

> Secondly, there is a massive latent demand for cycling infrastructure

A claim like that needs some evidence. I don't believe you at all that many people are eager to get rid of more convenient transportation (cars) for less convenient (bikes)

> The dangerous, unpleasant, and inconvenient scattered bike lanes that we have in most American cities are acceptable to < 1% of potential cyclists, which is why the bicycle mode share in most American cities is << 1%

These numbers suggest that if we had perfect cycling infrastructure that netted 100% of potential cyclists, we would still be seeing actual "bicycle mode share" usage of about 1-2% of commuters?

Seems like a poor use of infrastructure to me to cater to such a small demographic of cyclists.

[Firmwarrior]

I think the Mountain View - San Jose area is one of the bike-friendliest in the whole USA, and there's still no way I'm riding a bike around here (or letting my wife take our kid on one)

So long as morons are browsing Instagram on their 3 ton deathboxes while speeding around town, it's just too risky. My coworker got tapped by an SUV in a very low-speed fender bender. He was out of commission for months, all sorts of broken bones, it was brutal.

[bluefirebrand]

Would it be a case of improving infrastructure even further to convince you to cycle then? Or would it require more or less removing all cars from the roads?

[Firmwarrior]

I'd ride a bike on a completely separate path with no cars near it, or if they make an exercise suit that makes me impervious to car crashes, but otherwise I think I'm going to opt out