I'm glad that the city is taking this issue seriously. If injuries are because of road defects (either poor maintenance or poor design), the city should work hard to fix them.

i wonder what the rate for injuries are for all vehicular accidents. 1 out of 9 might seem high, but if there are 2-3 car accidents per day, i would think more money should also be put towards traffic safety in general.

Despite such questions, "even one injury is too many," Kasperzak said.

Really? Zero-defect mentalities cause more harm that good.

Some injuries are going to occur no matter how many new laws and bike paths you create.

The only way to garantee you don't get hurt riding a bike is not riding it. Even then the thing could fall over and hurt you. So don't buy one in the first place.

When there is a pattern of injuries or fatalities in the same location (like the series of pedestrians being killed on California Street), then the city has a responsibility to study the pattern. If well placed street changes can greatly reduce the number of fatalities and injuries, then the city should get them done.

Responces to injuries, in any field, whether by law enforcement or the population in general, tend to make society safer. A good example could be the rules and regulations forced upon the shipping industry after the Titanic sinking. All of the numerous laws subsequently enacted did indeed make ocean travel safer. Yes, the changes were expensive, and yes, tragic accidents still occured, but we cannot adapt any fatalistic views toward safety.
Safety belts, airbags, stronger vehicle structures, and road design all contribute to lower injuies and fatalities in the auto industry. Cycling advocates simply believe that attention to such details as road design and law enforcement can increase safety.