The crime rate in San Francisco is well higher than the national average [1]. If you value your life, you should not live in San Francisco. It's the only logical choice.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US [2], and is empirically linked with dietary and lifestyle choices. If you value your life, you should not live in the US.

The leading cause of HIV infection in the US (by a large margin) is male-to-male sexual contact [3]. If you are gay and value your life, you should remain celibate.

Logical programmers will avoid all of these things.

HN, take note.

[1] http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-San-Francisco-Californi...

[2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

[3] http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/

There's not much "logical" about your arguments. Maybe you meant "rational", but then you failed to do any actual risk analysis.

Yes, you are correct. Allow me to introduce you to the concept of satire.

There is one thing that anyone can do to help fix this situation.

Bicycle.

1, increased numbers of cyclists aid awareness among drivers and others. 2, increased demand helps justify building bike lanes, etc.

Yeah, it's a vicious/virtuous circle situation. It's tough until things improve.

But accusing those working on the cycling side of folly only makes it worse.

I see your point and it makes me think of the bumper stickers that say, "LOOK TWICE. MOTORCYCLES ARE EVERYWHERE." It would help if there were an organized effort to make people think about cyclists. I think it also warrants a PSA.

In the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, there is. There are a lot of Share the Road signs, window stickers, etc., as well as other things that are either intended to raise visibility or have the effect of doing so (e.g. the bright green NiceRide bicycles everywhere). The City of Minneapolis and the Met Council (metropolis-area inter-city council) are heavily invested in biking, and there are additional movements such as Bike Walk Twin Cities which engage in regular outreach, visibility, and education activities.

In general, the Twin Cities are doing an excellent job of addressing bikeability from many angles.

You don’t account for the physical and mental benefits the exercise gives you. Take look at [0] for example, which suggests that life expectancy is actually higher for cyclists.

0: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1185.html

Are you saying that riding a bike is not logical? Minneapolis is pretty bike-safe. Bike lanes, commuter trails. Bicyclists should have helmets, lights and ride carefully at night.

I'm not sure how good Durham is, but I don't think this is the time or place to say that its just more logical to pay to get around your city.

Also, if you wanted to be purely logical about it you would have to balance the health benefits of cycling regularly against the risk of accidents.

By this logic, I certainly shouldn't drive anywhere, instead I would commute by commercial aircraft or heavy rail locomotive.

Does being "logical" require that I never accept an elevated risk in order to do something I love?

Maybe his logic favored the fact that bicycles are the most efficient mode of transportation.