>> in NYC, half of serious pedestrian injuries are caused by bikes, meaning a cyclist is about 200 times more likely to seriously injure a pedestrian than a driver.
This absolutely false, but nice try.
2017 city wide stats:
Bicycles: 315 accidents involving pedestrians with 1 fatality.
Motor Vehicles: 10,561 and 106 pedestrian fatalities. Not to mention 4,397 bicycle injuries and 24 fatalities.
Not OC, It would be great if you could normalize the data for number of cars/bikes and for Km/miles done (I do not see this data in your link). Because I am wondering if maybe there are fewer bikes then cars so the numbers comparison will be unfair.
I am not against bikes, cities need better infrastructures, I only needed to drive once on a busy city and I said that I never do it again.
On the other hand, car infrastructure tends to be better separated from people walking compared to bike infrastructure.
A longer distance car drive may happen on a highway fully separated from pedestrians, while cyclists are almost always on bike lanes right next to sidewalks or trails/paths basically shared with pedestrians.
Car infrastructure in most places probably has had 1000x as much money pumped into it as bike infrastructure. If bikes had even 10% of that, you could have luxury, hyper-safe bike paths anywhere and everywhere.
I know, if the numbers look bad for bikes in cities with bad infrastructures and better in cities with good infrastructures after normalization then you can show that investment prevents deaths. Sometimes pedestrians are at fault too so everyone would be safer if bikes can be separated from pedestrians and if data confirms this force a speed limit for bikes on certain sections.
This absolutely false, but nice try.
2017 city wide stats:
Bicycles: 315 accidents involving pedestrians with 1 fatality. Motor Vehicles: 10,561 and 106 pedestrian fatalities. Not to mention 4,397 bicycle injuries and 24 fatalities.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data...