I think you and I agree, but it's an interesting question.
Neglect laws in the US are incredibly vague.
Driving a vehicle for some unnecessary reason like to take a child to a water park for fun could be construed as abuse/neglect, as it unnecessarily exposes the child to danger.
Our neglect, and child reporting laws, badly need overhauled because common sense it totally removed. People have been arrested for as little as letting the kid walk or be at the park independently. Things need reworded to make it clear it isn't neglectful unless the child is facing certain and imminent serious injury or death, or something along those lines.
Interestingly, they drive vehicles with a massive amount of technology like crumple zones, and buckle them into specially designed seats so that if they get into an accident they have a good chance of surviving.
Bikes are extremely exposed in comparison. One small tap could be devastating.
They drive vehicles that cost $10,000USD per year to own. And maybe they need two, if they have 2 or more children(!).
Cars are a great technology, but a city cannot scale with everyone owning their own car, and families cannot build wealth paying $20,000+/year for their 2-car transit lifestyle.
I disagree with you, but I wouldn't downvote your thoughts for sure.
It really is a catch22. Biking is often not safe on existing roads. But what is the alternative? Not bike at all and wait until we have bikelane utopia? It's just not going to happen. What about people who don't have an option, aka no money? What about people who do not need a car because they live close enough to their destination? What about the cosmological stupidity of only having one viable option for personal mobility in face of climate change, rising fossil fuel prices, local and global pollution due to cars, ...?
Something needs to happen, shaming people for trying to get around on bike, such a small thing, yet, so odious to so many, it isn't helping.
The OP didn't shame anyone. Why are you making this wild accusation?
Read what was written. No shaming is there.
You seem to be reacting to something you ascribe to the OP, but there is simply no logical path from statements in the OP's post that leads one to assume anyone is being shamed or blamed.
Lived in Chicago before SF and there’s a night and day difference. Bike lanes are everywhere and protected by barricades and concrete barriers in Chicago. I had heard SF was a “biking” city, but it’s more that a bunch of people bike here, not that it’s fully bike accessible.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
San Francisco has a massive 464 miles of protected bike lanes, off street paths, and trails. We do a pretty good job of isolating modes of transportation with the exception of bikes occupying car spaces.
We don't allow cars on BART/Caltrain tracks for example because it is dangerous to drivers.
