according to the guardian, in the uk, it's extremely uncommon (but not unheard of), only 1% of ped deaths involved a bike [1]. Motor vehicles are WAY more dangerous, and it kind of seems bad faith to suggest anything otherwise - cars are multi-thousand-pound metal boxes that routinely travel at speeds unattainable by all but world-record holding cyclists. The difference in kinetic energy between a car and a bike is massive.
It seems pretty logical to assume to me that you'd almost always have fewer ped fatalities if more people were biking instead of driving.
Motor vehicles are WAY more dangerous, and it kind of seems bad faith to suggest anything otherwise
The original context was shared country trails; I guess your comment was due to a misreading rather than intentional goalpost-moving but the way those arguing for cyclists seem to leap immediately to deny all and any misdemeanours and bridle at any criticism doesn't help good faith discussions.
No, the root of this branch of the cyclist discussion is the country trail; which was highlighted to point out cyclists are just as bad as any other group in their behaviour at times.
Suggesting it was to justify aggression and violence towards anybody is bad faith at best, a lie at worst. Please don't use such tactics here, and certainly not with me.
