I don’t see your point. I live in an apartment in a relatively urban area, and it is literally true that the bike infrastructure here is such that using a bike regularly puts you in much more danger than using a car. The city I live in isn’t going to build the infrastructure to ride a bike safely just because I stubbornly chose to ride a bike and put myself in danger. In the meantime, I’ll vote for candidates and ballot initiatives to support such infrastructure. But talking down to people who care about their personal safety is just going to alienate them.

> Or they'd love to live in a compact city

I for one wouldn't want to live in a city that's too compact (more than 4k people per square kilometre or about 10k per square mile) - chiefly because this means high prices per unit of housing area.

I don't care if I have a corner store and a bar within walking distance if all I can afford is 60m2 at maximum while still making at least twice as much as the average in the area.

(I'm just perusing the comments and throwing in my two cents)

I live in San Antonio, and I went on a bike ride last night. On large community rides you don't have to think as much individually about safety - you have other people calling things out and there is some safety in numbers.

But for most of my ride, until I got downtown, I felt a bit on edge in a way I wouldn't feel on the River walking. Why? Because you constantly have to think about cars not paying attention and hitting you, even when you're lit up and following the rules.

I don't fault the everyday person for being skeptical about riding bikes in the suburbs, where there are even more bends and curves, no bike lanes, and even more aggressive asshole drivers who think bicycling is for loudmouth liberals. I wish we lived in a different world (or the Netherlands), but alas.