This is the exact opposite of what the article is saying. When somebody is deciding whether to walk or drive to their destination, they don't pull up a scientific journal and consult the latest studies, they think about whether it feels safe and dignified. If you ignore the perceived threat of cyclists whizzing every which way while ignoring all traffic laws, you'll find fewer people choosing to walk and have no idea why.
That isn't why it's a bad idea at all; people don't walk and instead drive because walking "feels" unsafe. Legislate changes to make walking "feel" safer and people will walk instead of drive, and then will be safer because the changes will be things like separated walkways from cars, more guarded pedestrian crossings, road design which slows traffic, and more people walking will mean fewer cars on the road.
But bikers are not a large reason people aren't pedestrians.
I agree that a certain level of abstraction 'feel' is important, but we shouldn't legislate by 'feel' about how people 'feel' about bikes, that is one level of 'feel' too many.
> But bikers are not a large reason people aren't pedestrians.
They are a significant piece of the reason in NYC, although car-centric road design is a larger piece.
You and several other commenters continue to ignore people pointing out seriously problems that are localized in NYC by quoting stats that are for the entire country.
And that risk is mitigated by traffic rules, separation of pedestrian v. vehicular traffic, etc. That goes out the window when you have a category of vehicles that routinely ignores those mitigations.
I don’t see too many cars mounting sidewalks as I do bikes and scooters do (daily occurrence, not to mention 220+ pound guys who ride around on cheap underpowered scooters in the street), but yeah anecdotal data.
This is why legislating by "feelings" is a bad idea. Automobiles are a far larger and more lethal risk.