The short answer is yes. The long answer is also yes.
/dev/urandom yields data which is indistinguishable from true randomness, given existing technology. Getting "better" randomness than what
/dev/urandom provides is meaningless, unless you are using one of the few "information theoretic" cryptographic algorithm, which is not your case (you would know it).
The man page for
urandom is somewhat misleading, arguably downright wrong, when it suggests that
/dev/urandom may "run out of entropy" and
/dev/random should be preferred; the only instant where
/dev/urandom might imply a security issue due to low entropy is during the first moments of a fresh, automated OS install; if the machine booted up to a point where it has begun having some network activity then it has gathered enough physical randomness to provide randomness of high enough quality for all practical usages (I am talking about Linux here; on FreeBSD, that momentary instant of slight weakness does not occur at all). On the other hand,
/dev/random has a tendency of blocking at inopportune times, leading to very real and irksome usability issues. Or, to say it in less words: use
/dev/urandom and be happy; use
/dev/random and be sorry.
(Edit: this Web page explains the differences between
/dev/urandom quite clearly.)
For the purpose of producing a "cookie": such a cookie should be such that no two users share the same cookie, and that it is computationally infeasible for anybody to "guess" the value of an existing cookie. A sequence of random bytes does that well, provided that it uses randomness of adequate quality (
/dev/urandom is fine) and that it is long enough. As a rule of thumb, if you have less than 2n users (n = 33 if the whole Earth population could use your system), then a sequence of n+128 bits is wide enough; you do not even have to check for a collision with existing values: you will not see it in your lifetime. 161 bits fits in 21 bytes.
There are some tricks which are doable if you want shorter cookies and still wish to avoid looking up for collisions in your database. But this should hardly be necessary for a cookie (I assume a Web-based context). Also, remember to keep your cookies confidential (i.e. use HTTPS, and set the cookie "secure" and "HttpOnly" flags).